Login | Register


Fountain of Fury (Design Map by lavagainer)
Categories: A-Rank, Mixed Base
Weather: 
























[Games on this map]
[Play on this map]
[Map Analysis]
[Check Favorites]
[Export map as text]

Ratings go from 1 (awful) to 10 (near perfect).
Discuss this and other design maps and get tips and
suggestions from other users at the AWBW Design Maps Forum

Rating: 8.75 in 4 ratings
Map Committee Rating: 8.00 in 1 rating
Comments:
lavagainer (04/30/2016 01:02am):
Just wanted to make a map that was different from the usual "you get this half and i get
this half" kind of style. There are enemy forces on all sides, but the terrain heavily
influences the flow of the battle. 4 airports is probably too much, and I am not sure if both
teams should just start with their third bases already owned. I am sure there is a lot more I
could do to better balance this.

Let me know what you guys think.

This map was inspired by Walker Boh's map Brush With Death:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=56354
liandry (04/30/2016 04:43am):
Soooo, just like the map named Truth Is?
The east and west bases aren't going to last THAT long, so the idea's different, but not so much.
Still a good thing though.
About the airports, yeah there may be too many of them, I suggest removing the NW and SE ones due to air
units being OP on high terrain.
Also, Sami may be an issue because mechs, idk

EDIT: It's just way too easy to forget one of your bases exists. I keep (almost) forgetting to build on my east
base in our game, for example.
MOAR EDITS: wrong vulnerable bases; and hey, the HQs seem too easy to rush
Last Edited on 04/30/2016 05:08am
Xmo5 (04/30/2016 09:43am):
I agree with liandry in that it's the NW and SE airports that should be removed, however, the other two should be
relocated. They are highly contested (which is bad) and offer a significant advantage to whoever captures it,
increasing the impact of FTA. I recommend moving the airports closer to the lone base. For example, move the
NE airport down by 5 spaces so that the lone PL base has a better fighting chance. (Quick note on the NW/SE
airports- I think an important reason they should be removed is that they're able to attack the enemy base(s) so
directly)

Similar to the airports, the towers are too contested; they lay right on the center line of the battlefront. Ideally,
you want them to be somewhat contested, but not evenly contested... maybe 75% of the way to the front from
one side or the other. Moving the airport as I suggested will help, because it would put the NE tower more firmly
in PL territory, but it really isn't any closer to the base, meaning an infantry rush will end in a tie, broken by FTA
alone. I personally like the idea of swapping the tower with the city just on the other side of the river tile.

One last note- I would replace the APCs with bboats, but I suppose it doesn't matter that much, provided that
the players are smart enough not to move the APC while their HQ is in danger.

Otherwise, this is a pretty good map. A lot of potential I think.
lavagainer (04/30/2016 06:47pm):
Yo, thanks for all the healthful pointers guys. I knew the map was a bit off from the beginning and you
really helped me better understand the flow of it now..

I went ahead and moved the NE and SW airports like you had suggested, and i think it feels a lot
better there. I also moved the com-tower, but I put them further back toward the East & West bases.
This map gets its name from the com-tower fountains, so I had to keep it aesthetically respective to that.

I can see what you were saying about the com-tower not being on the center line of the front. The
square it is on now is a 3 turn cap from the side bases and a 4 turn cap from the bottom and top
bases. Still not sure if this is an optimal spot for it seeing how it is very easily covered by the airport
to the East & West now. I do prefer to give the main advantage to the East & West bases though.

I fixed up the NE & SW corners, made them more maneuverable, switched around a tree or two, and
I also added a mountain near both HQ's entrances to the center. There use to be a tree there, but I
would have to agree with liandry that the HQ was too easy to rush. Hopefully with that city in the choke
point between the two mountains, it will help both teams fortify their HQ much more efficiently.

I also moved each base one square. I wanted the two pipe bases to have exactly 12 squares in
between them and their own HQ. I felt like it was crucial that at least one base on the map was close
enough to respond to a threat on HQ within two turns. I understand the positioning and terrain
essentially leaves your HQ completely vulnerable, and I thought of adding a base next to each players
HQ to allow them to respond instantly, but I feel like that would destroy the fun of the battle. I like that
you have to be very protective of your home on this map.

The North & South bases got moved further in one square and are now 2 turns away from having an
attacking position on the tile that is just in front of their own HQ's "mountain gateway". Once again, just
allowing each player to cover their own HQ faster.

The bases in the East & West got moved up & down one tile and are now 3 squares away from the
neutral airport. The main reason I did this, however, was to slow the movement of Infantry trekking
over the river to sneak up on the enemy HQ. It use to take 4 turns for a normal infantry to reach enemy
HQ from the side base. Now it takes 5 in clear weather.

The property count went up a bit, but I really like the way they all look now. Not sure what a proper
amount of cities is for this map, but it feels as though each player could use some extra funds here.

Really anxious to get some games in on this.. I am creating some now :]
Last Edited on 04/30/2016 08:32pm
Xmo5 (04/30/2016 11:02pm):
Definitely up for a test game with you, but I'd suggest two things first:

1) Make the ports neutral to start- high starting funds (PL starts with 5k income) can wreak havoc on the capture
phase and it encourages recon rush. The lower you can go, the better. Also, the higher the funding, the less
relevant/balanced your FTA counter will be.

2) Maybe remove a bit of funding, if anything. I think removing 2 cities per side in the bottom right corner (and top left)
would be best. I'd take out one of the two closest to the mech (maybe replace them both with a single city directly north
of the AB mech). I'd also take out the one 4 north of AB's neutral base as well as the one NE of it, and replace them
both with a single city directly to the right of that mountain, sort of right in between where they were. That will leave it 6
spaces from the neutral base, which is a nice spot for defending tanks to be able to reach in one move. I'm also
tempted to relocate that city adjacent the HQ and move it two spaces over, next the the bend in the river

Anyway, I have a couple other thoughts about city placement too, but I think after the two main edits I suggested, we
should do a test game. It'll help give me a better idea on how to give feedback, and also a good way to show you why I
give any further feedback I give. If you're game, message me when you're ready and set up a private game (fog off,
ban the broken 5- the rest doesn't matter much).
lavagainer (05/01/2016 12:36am):
Excellent. I like where you are going with the NW and SE corners. It does feel a bit cluttered there.
The port also should be neutral. Ima make all those edits after I finish this initial test match.. I really
like the flow of it so far..
liandry (05/01/2016 05:50pm):
The fluids from the fountain of fury flow fluently through the ford.... ahem.
I've seen the initial test match, and yes, flow is good; rating 8.5 (rounded up) for beauty. heeheehee!
EDIT: Removed blank newline. Also, if I counted right, there are 60 income generating properties on the map,
meaning 30k funds/day/player assuming equally skilled play. Remove a lot more cities, I guess?
MOAR EDITS: 56/28k, actually, respectively. Still a lot, maybe. (Most maps I've played in have like 18-24k funds
with 3 bases and 1 airport to spend them on.)
Last Edited on 05/01/2016 06:00pm
lavagainer (05/03/2016 04:21am):
Hey thanks liandry! I just finished a whole new batch of edits to the map. I got rid of a few properties in the NW & SE
corners as you guys had suggested and swapped around a couple of trees there as well.

I noticed a problem with the entrances to the HQs. I had added the extra mountain to create a choke point with the
city in between the mountains there. However, this wasn't enough to slow down a potential rush on HQ from the North
or South enemy bases. The extra square of land combined with the shoal directly in front of the city provided a really
quick land path from the nearest enemy base. In fact, it was one square closer than the nearest ally base to its own
HQ and allowed for an enemy infantry to walk onto HQ within 4 turns.

I removed the shoal that was there and put a bridge tile in front of the city instead. The pipe bases are now one
square closer to their respective HQ than the top or bottom enemy base would be. It now takes 5 turns for an enemy
infantry to walk onto HQ from those bases. This also makes it so that there are now two, single-squared land bridges
in the center of the map, which is not originally how I intended it to be. I think this change, however, is a much needed
one as it prevents the HQ rush, and makes the movement in the center of the map much more controllable by the
players.

I also switched which bases were left neutral at turn one. I felt like it was important that the base closest to your own
HQ was one of the bases you owned at the start. Naturally, I changed the North and South bases to being the
uncapped ones since they are the closest enemy base to HQ. I still don't even know if providing mechs and forcing
the player to cap their third base on turn one is proper, but I understand that lower funds from the beginning is better.
I made the ports neutral and got rid of both the landers and APCs as well. I kinda feel as though they are
unnecessary and that they can actually give you a quicker route to enemy HQ in early game than you should have.

Oh, and I also moved the mountains above and below the West and East bases up and down one square. Just
wanted to add some more breathing room in between those mountains and the pipe bases.
Last Edited on 05/03/2016 04:57am
liandry (05/03/2016 05:03am):
I keep seeing black tiles when I made 2 games on this map. You put them there?
Xmo5 (05/03/2016 06:04am):
Sometimes they'll show up when edits are made to a map, since you have an older image in
your browser's cache. It'll work itself out. Either way, not a problem with the map.
Mori2 (05/03/2016 06:53pm):
Bookmarked this for later, this definitely has potential.
lavagainer (05/24/2016 04:32pm):
Yo thanks Mori! I actually just made a few more edits to it.

After a couple test games, I came to the conclusion that the infantry rush on HQ was really rather extreme
here. You could basically end up with an infantry on your opponents HQ quicker than he could even react
to it if he had not caught on to your movements from the previous turns.

I want both players to be fighting around their HQ's without having to worry about pure infantry rush over
the entire thing. TBH, I was really reluctant to put a BBoat over the HQ's, but it will act like an early alarm
system and give just enough time for the player to build and counter. It is not really my style, but this map
sort of needs it considering the positioning of all the bases.

I also swapped around a few things near the side bases. I added another city just above and below the
mountains, removed one of the mountains and moved a tree. I really want the player to be able to defend
the side base at least well enough to exhaust all his opponents resources fighting him over it and the Com-
Tower and then possibly make a counter move on his HQ from the opposite side of the map. Essentially,
using the Com-Tower as a diversion or bait to lure enemy units away from their HQ.

We will see how this works out. I kinda like the way it looks now though :]

Edit: Forgot to mention.. I also converted the PL city in the SE corner that I was using as a FTA counter
back into a neutral property. I think the extra infantry for PL at the East base is enough. Idk, I am really
unsure how to balance FTA on this map..

Last Edited on 05/24/2016 04:44pm
liandry (05/27/2016 01:28pm):
I did some more test games, and what I got was,
1. BAN SASHA.
... 2 tanks on day 5 isn't fun, it just isn't.
2. I noticed that AB gets to move first on 2/3 of their bases, while PL moves first on just 1/3. idk if this is a serious issue,
but if it is, you'll prolly have to add a fourth one for PL to move first on, (but you know, the map is cramped as it is, if you
do, do it with caution?) or do some magic that will deny AB any advantage from capturing the north base before PL
captures the south one.
lavagainer (06/30/2016 06:12am):
Okay guys, I think I made what I believe is going to be my last edits to this map. If there are any
others, they will be very minor tweaks at this point..

Anyway, I moved the North & South bases back one square toward the edge of the map..

Previously if you were to buy a 6MP tread vehicle at one of the North / South bases and then send
that vehicle on a direct path toward the enemy HQ, that 6MP vehicle would end up on top of their
opponent's city in between the mountain choke point after the second turn of movement.

Now with the bases moved one square back, that 6MP vehicle will end up on top of the bridge tile in
front of that mountain choke point near their enemy's HQ. This just makes way more sense to me, as
the whole point of that bridge tile being there is to put the enemy in a very vulnerable spot if they do
decided to step up and attack that mountain corridor.

The other edit I made was just to the FTA counter and initial base setup in general. After having
looked at a few high ranked "3 base start" maps. I saw that this was how every one of them setup
their FTA counter (1 Infantry & 1 Property as a gift for player 2).

In all honesty, this is my favorite map that I have made so far. I just love the way the aesthetic design
turned out on this one..
lavagainer (07/06/2016 06:39pm):
Okay, I lied.. I actually made a few more edits to this thing..

After a game against liandry where she crushed me by artillery locking my pipe base. I
realized that artillery locking was a huge problem there as well as the mountain side
bases..

I fixed up those areas a bit. I gave the side bases an extra city and moved their
mountains up / down one square.

I rearranged the pipe and mountain setup in the corners. I removed a pipe seam from
each side and decided to leave a city 3 squares away from the pipe base as the only
spot that would put that base in range of an artillery. I added a city on the other side of
the pipe within 3 range as well. Hopefully, this will help the pipe base not feel so
defenseless against ranged fire as it was previously..

Last Edited on 07/08/2016 03:44pm
liandry (07/08/2016 01:10pm):
*she
But anyway, it feels perfect now. Gave it a higher (than 9) rating.
lavagainer (07/08/2016 04:01pm):
omg.. I'm so sorry liandry. I didn't even realize >.< Edited < 3
Last Edited on 07/08/2016 04:03pm
lavagainer (10/17/2016 11:37pm):
I changed up the area just outside of the East & West bases a little bit. There was just too much
clumping of the same tile there.
walkerboh01 (06/24/2017 04:19pm):
Just move the pipe base over one more space so it's out of range an artillery on the city, that's the best option.

The structure of this map is really cool, but you still have some work to do when it comes to fine tuning the funding
curve. Each city should have a purpose, and ideally force active risk/reward gameplay decisions on the part of the
player. I get the sense right now that the cities were scattered around most of the map without a lot of thought.
This isn't a /bad/ thing but it does limit the ceiling of the gameplay possible.

That said, this map has a really solid layout, and is only a few tweaks away from being League level. If you ever
want a game, let me know. I moved it into Under Review and gave it an 8/10 for now.
Last Edited on 06/24/2017 04:20pm
lavagainer (08/13/2017 03:54pm):
Hey walkerboh! Thank you for all the compliments and helpful critiques and everything. It has been a long
while since I revisited this map. It could definitely use some final adjustments to get it to a more healthy state.

It seems to be that property distribution is a huge struggle of mine. I often place properties purely out of
aesthetic reasons, but I would really like to refine my design style to better accommodate optimal gameplay
health. I think I just have a hard time understanding exactly what kind of distancing or density I need between
my properties to achieve that proper balance of risk / reward like you were mentioning.

I did make a few edits around the pipe bases and HQs that might help a bit, but I feel as though there is still
some work to be done. I would love to get a game in with you and discuss some other concerns I have for
this map in more detail.

Thanks again!
Last Edited on 08/13/2017 04:12pm


[Refresh map]



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.