|Xmo5 (01/25/2015 11:10am):|
**No longer relevant, per Everdan's comment below**
Last Edited on 07/28/2016 06:21pm
|walkerboh01 (01/26/2015 12:26am):|
The properties in the outer corners are a bit weird, too. Neither side can easily get to them
meaning that at least one will likely be contested, but it's so out of the way and narrow that
there's really no way to have a good fight either. Having 1 property in each corner is okay
probably, but I'd redistribute the other two throughout the map a bit better.
|Everdan (07/19/2016 03:52am):|
update: i accidentally saved a new map over this one, so the above comments no longer apply. (oops)
Last Edited on 07/19/2016 03:53am
|Everdan (07/28/2016 05:08am):|
still can't decide whether this is an S or not...
Last Edited on 07/29/2016 01:09pm
|Bamboozle (07/30/2016 01:04am):|
Looks very solid at a first glance. The fronts are really cool -- example on the
comtower front, terrain placement hits that golden spot where it's slightly
choky but there's plenty of strategic ways to get around it, ensuring that the
player needs to play well if they want to ensure their tower's safety against
the enemy 2base setup. Although there aren't many of them, the backwards
properties keep the player making choices and the contested cities are
especially nice for dynamic play. Airport has power given that front swapping
for AAs is a bit difficult but is offset by its distance to every front but the
nearest one, giving some more choices as to where to distribute air units.
Overall it's nothing particularly outside the box but follows conventions really
well. I'd say it merits the S from the first impression, if it plays the way it
looks then it definitely does.
|Everdan (07/30/2016 09:23am):|
Rebalanced city placement around the two fronts, made terrain around neutral base heavier, changed central city
setup to reduce FTA issues. Should play better now.
also, lol at the anonymous 5.
Last Edited on 07/30/2016 12:30pm