Login | Register


Never Fight a Land War in Asia (Design Map by Jimmy(Payne))
Categories: Casual Play, Team Play
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: 0 in 0 ratings
Map Committee Rating: 0 in 0 ratings
Comments:
Xmo5 (03/07/2018 06:18pm):
Okay, finally getting around to leaving some feedback here. I like having team maps where
different players have different roles/strengths, but the hard part to balance is the
speed of two different battles. Right now, your naval players will progress pretty slowly
at first, whereas your land battles will start nearly immediately. I think you'd be better
off making this a high funds map and making a larger portion of the corners into a land
battle, drawing it out and delaying the capture phase with a high funds counter. The naval
players will have less to capture and slow them down before they can start building naval
units this way, and they'll potentially be effective in impacting the battle while it's
still active.

Along with this, and also to help combat FTA, is the fact that the naval players might be
better off starting with 2 transports. You can stagger the units as you've done now, but
in a way that one inf gets one transport and one gets the other, but the second transport
is only immediately available to one player, while the other has theirs delayed a turn
(perhaps one away from the shoal or port) If you give two equally important, destinations
(maybe one gets the forward port and the other gets the island neutral base), this will
help counter FTA more cleanly while also giving them a head start on transporting infantry
and other units around, even saving them money later when they'll definitely need more
transports anyway.

Lastly, I think it would be a good idea to put defensive units on the HQs. Capturing the
airport will happen a bit later in the game, but it could have a couple negative effects-
First, the player to capture an airport and attack the center first is at a great
advantage, which adds to FTA a bit, but more importantly, offers a very quick and
anticlimactic end to the battle. Second, rushing the airport could come at the expense of
good or enjoyable gameplay on both land and sea battles. By adding defensive units, the
navy probably needs to come into play first, making it more cooperative and fluid, whereas
the land battle doesn't get messed up because someone made an all out rush for the airport
to quick pop an infantry on the HQ.

Lastly, I think the center ports are a bit contested and should probably be moved back a
little bit, just to be safe.
Jackie Milton (03/08/2018 10:05am):
Yeah, I had considered timing to be the biggest issue. 2nd lander is good.

High funds is probably a good idea. But I also want to make sure not to overpower the land battles.
There might even be too much funding as it is. That being said, I can knock off a few properties here
and there. especially from the attacking sides, and then a few cities to knock off from the naval
expansion side. as it stands, 1.5k is 47.5k at max divided among 2 ports and 1 functional base. I think
2k to give 60k is reasonable, albeit on the high end. that's a guarantee of two naval units per turn,
healing, and high tech support to the land fronts.

This might be odd, but what if the one base fronts start preowned, and the two bases start with a high
funds counter (neutral half turn delay)? My logic being that the one base will be more quickly
overpowered, and a leg up against the opposition would delay the fighting enough for support.

Which center ports? Two are non-producing and two can't be captured.
Jimmy(Payne) (03/08/2018 10:24am):
Updated
Xmo5 (03/08/2018 11:32am):
My bad with the center ports- no issue there! I think 47.5k is sufficient, for sure, maybe
even a bit much. 2 naval units per turn would be a lot on a map this small, so even less
than that could work just fine. I still think you should expand the land battle to take up
more of the islands and reduce the number of naval-player cities on them. The more space
you can give the better.

I think the best move is to probably take out maybe 3-4 cities on each land mass and make
it 1.5k funding, and maybe 5 if you decide not to expand at all. For the naval players,
you can afford to probably remove all but 1-2 cities on each side of the main land areas
and give them mid 30s income with 1.5k funding. That's still a solid battleship each turn,
potentially 2 cruisers, or a sub and a transport, which should be plenty, I think. I
prefer the infantry that loads on the port to not have the option to load at the other
location, but I think that might be nitpicky. I'd also get rid of the recon and 3rd inf,
just to be safe.

I think the preowned lone bases are probably okay for your purposes. It shouldn't create
that big of a disparity in balance, I don't think, especially considering the two islands
don't directly interact (there's still the issue of income/capture rate, but I don't think
it will be all that problematic for you)
Jackie Milton (03/08/2018 12:54pm):
Sure. So in this last change, I took two cities from each land side (but I may take more, or replace with
labs) and I took 4 cities from each naval side. This would do 60k at 2k and 45k at 1.5, which I think is
reasonable. I can ghost the shore too.


[Refresh map]



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems
All images are copyright their respective owners
Created using pico
Launched on December 3, 2004
Page execution took 1 second