Keep it simple
Creator: jhuni || First Published: 03/19/2006 || Players: 2 || Size: 11x11
Categories: None
Rating: 5.21 in 52 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
jhuni (03/19/2006 03:06pm | Edited: 07/25/2012 10:28am):
This map was made 15 months before this post (early 2005 or so). As such, forgive me if it isn't that great.
The only update to this map is that I improved the FTA counter by replacing the HQs with labs, which wasn't
possible when this was made back in 2005.
golden_cow2 (03/19/2006 05:59pm):
Exchange that BM starting city with the southern neutral closest to OS so that OS can
capture it a bit earlier. Right now, BM gets too much power.
benbever (03/22/2006 08:20am):
It's a bit (too) small, but nice
Advisor Nick (04/13/2006 09:58pm):
I like it, its not THAT small and not THAT big XD, 8/10
jhuni (04/16/2006 05:08pm | Edited: 07/25/2012 10:29am):
Ok i am done play testing this map and i am confident it is balanced.

+Thank you Anyounmous rater (probaly flameberg) for giving my map a 1 with no valid
reason.

+This map is effectively balanced.
NiLonHair12345 (04/22/2006 03:47pm):
good map
:P
jhuni (05/12/2006 12:21am | Edited: 11/18/2006 01:10am):
It's sad how when I make a new map and in a short period of time a few raters people who
dislike me, and not my maps will rate me with a 1. (flamberg for beating him, xeliaong for
acknowledging the massive problems in his maps). It's become conspicuous that many
abhor me.

+ Nobody has even gave a valid problem with this map (to this day) and its rated 6. This
clearly demonstrates that you can't trust the ratings on your maps. Ratings are mostly
based off of the person who made the map, and not the map itself.
xeliaong (08/18/2006 01:40pm):
1/10. too mainstream, there are hundreds of maps like this.
jhuni (08/19/2006 06:24pm | Edited: 12/30/2006 12:26pm):
All of yolur maps clearly have massive issues, your a perfect example of why ratings are a
popularity contest. You are just lowering the rating on my map, because I aknowledged that
your not a good map maker.

It's fine I rate almost everyones maps but I only go to the extent of flaming if you flood
the waiting list with your poorly thought out maps.

+ http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=4658 Is this mainstreem?
That is the only map similar to this one, but that map has to many bases for the size which
greatly hurts the playability, so your basis for mainstreem is way off theres far from 100
maps similar to this one, and of the 1 or 2 that are they have a few essential differences.
xeliaong (08/29/2006 12:23am):
Look, asshole, you need to telll people how to improve thier maps.
moteytheking! (09/06/2006 09:45am):
good.

jhuni (10/11/2006 11:37pm | Edited: 07/19/2007 04:25pm):
I animadvert your idiocy.
oomouwmouw (10/12/2006 09:46pm | Edited: 10/17/2006 10:03pm):
criticism edited out due to futility.
jhuni (10/13/2006 01:03pm):
RE: I can't find anything good either (nothing wrong with it is good)

I can't find anything wrong with it = good, and 10 (near perfect).

bakabonest (10/15/2006 02:03pm):
Seems pretty good, I'd take out the mountain on (4,2) and (6,9) to open it up a bit, though.
Right now it's a 1-space chokepoint, meaning that it's blocked off easily, which will make the
center city the only thing the players will fight over for. In my opinion that's boring, I prefer
maps where you have several different fronts at once. Also the map's rather plain, you
should probably add a forest or a two in HQ areas.

8/10, this map could be better. I never give 10's unless it's really creative or if it's a really fair
non-symmetric map.
jhuni (10/16/2006 04:31pm):
RE: -- 8/10, this map could be better. I never give 10's unless it's really creative or if it's a
really fair non-symmetric map.

This map is really fair, and its non-symmetric yet you gave me a 8 when on ur own criteria
you should have gave me a 10 yet again you are contradicting yourself, oh and you might as
well take off the "non-symmetric" part because every map that is symmetric is not really fair.
So you could just say i only give 10's to really fair maps.

RE: -- Right now it's a 1-space chokepoint, meaning that it's blocked off easily, which will
make the center city the only thing the players will fight over for. In my opinion that's boring

The chokepoint is to close to the starting player to be cause for concern. The only person
whos going to be controling the chokepoint is the player relative to the chokepoint, and in
that case everything that needs to be captured is on the other side + there is mountains, so
both players are fighting on 3 fronts, so all the chokepoint does is make it so that the player
relative to the chokepoint unable to have his base invaded directly except from the center,
but the players are still fighting on all three fronts and trying to maintain a fundamental
advantage.

Also the map's rather plain, you should probably add a forest or a two in HQ areas

A few 2x2 clumps are always exceptable, and are no cause for concern.
jhuni (10/16/2006 04:32pm | Edited: 10/16/2006 04:34pm):
♪ Lets do the double post again again ♪
oomouwmouw (10/17/2006 10:04pm):
Giving criticism on this map is pointless-- map creator is a self-righteous prick who
won't listen to anything other then praise. Don't waste your time here.
Corkerp (10/28/2006 06:35am | Edited: 10/31/2006 07:51pm):
RE: -- 8/10, this map could be better. I never give 10's unless it's really creative or if it's a
really fair non-symmetric map.

RE: -- This map is really fair, and its non-symmetric yet you gave me a 8 when on ur own
criteria
you should have gave me a 10 yet again you are contradicting yourself, oh and you might as
well take off the "non-symmetric" part because every map that is symmetric is not really fair.
So you could just say i only give 10's to really fair maps.

Correction: The map does have rotational symmetry, does it not?

However, it is a nice, simple little map. 7/10

Reasons for 7/10- The roads in the center can't exist. I don't like maps like that. And the
corners with the HQs look too plain. Need some forests.

sirfuxalot (10/31/2006 09:17pm | Edited: 12/22/2006 05:17pm):
It's good, I just know you can do something a little more creative after all the maps
you've analyzed. There wasn't much thought put into this, since there's no creative
terrain and the HQs and bases are exactly in the corners. You should try to go outside the
box a little, that what makes me actually want to play maps. As it is, it's pretty bland,
especially the areas by the HQs. It's totally balanced and the base to property ratio is
perfect, but it's boring. It deserves an 8/10 right now.
felix45 (11/01/2006 06:12am):
too many bases for such a small map. it screams infantry spam for such low funds and so
many bases.
Archromancer (11/04/2006 11:17am):
8/10, I agree with sirfuxalot. And how can you say that this map is not symmetrical?
jhuni (11/04/2006 05:46pm | Edited: 11/05/2006 12:16pm):
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
RE: -- Reasons for 7/10- The roads in the center can't exist. I don't like maps like that. And
the corners with the HQs look too plain. Need some forests.
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

The roads in the center do exist, so obviously they can exist. And if you don't like maps with
centralized roads (which produce no known issues), your own personal bais isn't a valid
reason to down-vote my map. As for the "add woods part" I've herd several people say
that, but what you must relize is that there are cities in that general area, and there only
2x2 clumps, which are barely even a clump! Your reasoning is faulty, you don't have a
single valid reason why this map shouldn't be rated as a 10/10, or why it should be 7/10.


▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
RE: -- I just know you can do something a little more creative after all the maps
you've analyzed. As it is, it's pretty bland,
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

A breif historical background of this map is given.
This map was made when: there were no black squares, or labs, and there were only 8
players, no automatically launched missile silo tiles, or even comm towers!

At the time of making this map I'd barely analyzed any maps, so with all of these reasons
it was nigh impossible to make a more creative map then this back then.

▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
too many bases for such a small map. it screams infantry spam for such low funds and so
many bases.
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

There are far from to many bases, that's the part about this map that makes it superior to
all other maps of it's type. Most maps have 4 neatrul bases such as here:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=4658
felix45 (11/05/2006 04:54pm):
Well then, in that case most maps that have 4 neutral bases on such a small map with low
funds also suck.

not sure of what you are getting at.
jhuni (11/05/2006 07:04pm | Edited: 11/05/2006 07:15pm):
most maps that have 4 neutral bases on such a small map with low funds also suck.

So go say that most of nahbien's fair map list suck!! I'm sure you'll get alot of respect.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=4658
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=8388
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=9294
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=10304
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=10750
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=3426
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=14082
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=11246
Need more??
Go tell this maps that they suck, and there all on the fair maps to play list. And your ratings
aren't of any validity after you rated several maps 1's when they don't deserve it, you just
hate maps that are advertised.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=17272 (significant land -- size)
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=2421 (prop. ratio = 1.75 V.S 1.83)
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=19096 (10 bases on your best map!!)

Your best maps suck to then right, because they all have horrible base-size ratios, some
even worse then mine! I guess your best maps suck then, thus all of your maps must suck,
and this is in your own personal bais not mine, so want to take it back yet?

I'm not saying your bais is valid in the first place it obviously isn't.
felix45 (11/10/2006 09:02am | Edited: 11/10/2006 09:12am):
I said small maps with low funds and 4 neutral bases dumbass.

Learn to read.


edit: so do you suppose infantry spamming will help a bunch on a map where the only way
infantry can move about to capture a majority of the cities is by landers/B Boats? I only
put 5 bases because of this, it hardly matters if you infantry spam.

I know the 2nd map you posted of mine sucks, you dont have to tell me that. I dont think
that every map I make is godly.

The first map is perfectly fine, 3 bases per side with high income wont encourage a
massive infantry spam like a map...well I'll just quote myself "I said small maps with low
funds and 4 neutral bases..."

Not all of those maps are fair either based on map analysis Jhuni. Check it out. I dont
play on some of those maps because of that.
jhuni (11/12/2006 11:02pm):
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
RE: -- "I said small maps with low funds and 4 neutral bases dumbass."
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

No you did not say that, not once before here did you say "dumbass," but I know you said
the rest of it, and I never said you didn't, so clearly your assertion "dumbass" is
unauthenticated, and thus it's immature.

Because I merely applie the concept of ratios felix45 believes that I don't know how to
read, but if theres 8 none centralized cities, to 3 bases that's 8:3, now if theres a map
with say 18:6 then you can applie the same idea to it, such is called a ratio. When you
say: "small maps," "low funds," and "4 neatrul bases" this can applie to several maps.
I don't restrict myself to maps with only 4 neatrul bases, the "neatrul" part can doesn't
make any difference toward infantry spaming, the bases could be yours already.

Though the statement "learn to read" is easily disproved, because I wouldn't be replying to
it if I couldn't read it in the first place, so essentailly such statement is silly.

What should be said is "learn to applie ratios," felix.

▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
RE: -- "you suppose infantry spamming will help a bunch on a map where"
▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

I was reffering to the general criteria that was given, not before did you mention anything
along the lines of the usage of the infantry, but your criteria was entirely based off of the
idea of infantry spaming in it's self. There are several maps that you said suck, when
infantry spaming isn't even useful on it.

Ok if you agree that your second map sucks, you don't even think it's good in that case it's
a waste of space just delete your map if you think it sucks, cause then it's hopeless.

RE: --small maps low funds and 4 neutral bases

Let me show you then why your map has infantry spam abuse just as bad as my map.
Significant land size: My maps size is 11x11, and yours is about 11x13, so the size works.
Funds: 19 properties on my map, and 24(6 behind each pipe)
Bases: 3 bases on my map in comparasion to your 3 bases.

If it's your personall prefference, put this map on 2,000 funds per turn it'll still work fine,
balanced, and all, but that's only your prefference, so essentailly your "funds" part has no
validity towards my map sucking, if you can just increase the funds per turn. Your maps
going to be infantry spamed just as much as mine, it's that simple everyone spams infantry
in AW, so your map essentailly "sucks" in your criteria.

Now lets see your map anylasis
Maps 1/3 OS wins 100%
Map 2 -- BM/YC 100%
Those maps have a way better map anyalasis then your maps anyways, and they most be
doing something way better then you, because they have several people playing on them.
The map anylasis doesn't prove that a maps imbalanced, you need to think for yourself.


Now atleast I got out of you the disproving of your own criteria, and admiting your map(S)
sucks. So essentailly now I'll show you simple proof on why your infantry spam thing is
totally wrong, but it's also immature, and I've proven you don't know much of anything about
maps in the first place, and you rate them off of your own immature bias. (advertisng)

It's a postulate that infantry are the most cost-effective units given in the game of advance
wars, they are sufficent meatsheilds, and are required for the capturing stage, just the
conceptual idea of the infantry unit encourages "infantry spaming" it's just a preset tactic in
AW, and it doesn't effect the quality of the map it's still fair, and playable, so it doesn't suck
by provoking people to play the general idea of AW on it.

Overall you can never say that infantry spaming is a basis for a map sucking, because you
can just increase the funds per turn, and it's just your own personal dislike; this map still has
the usage of: artillerys, tanks, mechs, and even recons.

Lord Hellion (11/14/2006 08:34am):
Too small no real challenge
jhuni (11/14/2006 09:24pm):
Lord Hellion (11/14/2006 07:34am):
Too small(;) no real challenge(.)

Yes it's small, but thats not a valid reason that this map isn't good, or that there isn't a real
challenge, so please authenticate your assertion.
Archsage-Athos (11/15/2006 06:35am):
How is this map astheticly pleasing?
jhuni (11/15/2006 07:15pm):
It's not bland, and has a high quality terrain variety, so essentailly it's justified to reffer to it
aesthetically pleasing, but such is only based off of your prefference, it sure qualifies as
aesthetically pleasing, but I'm not so sure about the term: "astheticly."
oomouwmouw (11/17/2006 11:25pm):
bump to bottom:
Giving criticism on this map is pointless-- map creator is a self-righteous prick who
won't listen to anything other then praise. Don't waste your time here.
jhuni (11/18/2006 01:05am | Edited: 11/18/2006 01:06am):
Doesn't need a bump, but if you want a response from me that's understandable.

I accept your "criticism," but that's just your opinion, and there's nothing much I can do
about it. I don't see how you could think your animadversions have ramifications that are
significantly similar to creating of austerity. In addition you posted this here a second time,
and you're telling others not to waste there time here? It clearly isn't pointless then is it?

oomouwmouw (11/25/2006 03:10am):
haha. Nice use of SAT vocab.
jhuni (11/25/2006 06:14pm):
My post has no correlation with -- scholastic aptitude tests.
I'd appreciate it if you made your post coherent.
smashkirby63 (11/26/2006 04:02pm):
jhuni (11/15/2006 12:24am):
Yes it's small, but thats not a valid reason that this map isn't good, or that there isn't a real
challenge, so please authenticate your assertion.


then why did you vote low on my zone 63?
jhuni (11/26/2006 04:18pm | Edited: 11/26/2006 04:20pm):
I explained it already -- First Turn Advantage.
Gunfighter (11/30/2006 09:47pm):
the roads near the city in the center, are mess up, if you didn't notice.
You should change that same city to an airport, to make it worth going after.
To counter FTA remove OS infantry, but change that one BM city to OS to make
it balance. Also move around some mountains and trees to different places.
It's to Bland as it is. 7/10
felix45 (12/03/2006 10:29pm | Edited: 12/03/2006 10:35pm):
"It's not bland, and has a high quality terrain variety, so essentailly it's justified to reffer to it
aesthetically pleasing, but such is only based off of your prefference, it sure qualifies as
aesthetically pleasing, but I'm not so sure about the term: "astheticly."

you are criticizing his grammar when you said this just up the page?

"I animadvert ur assertions in the form of acknowledging your imaturity."

umm no jhuni, just no. get over yourself. you have no room to get off on how others may
mispell a word when you do the same exact thing a large amount of the time yourself.


Edit: "Now lets see your map anylasis
Maps 1/3 OS wins 100%
Map 2 -- BM/YC 100%
Those maps have a way better map anyalasis then your maps anyways, and they most be
doing something way better then you, because they have several people playing on them.
The map anylasis doesn't prove that a maps imbalanced, you need to think for yourself."

map analysis proves nothing with so few games on them so far idiot. you cant conduct a
ballot poll by just interviewing one person then decide the outcome of an election, because
that 1 person would be 100% of the vote predicting it would be a landslide victory. you
trying to show how my maps are bad with the map analysis showing so few matches have
been played on it proves how stupid you truly are. There has to be at least 50 matches on a
map before you can even begin to base the map analysis on whether the map is balanced or
not, and this can very easily be thrown off by lurking variables. So no, you can just shut it
now jhuni, you really have no idea what you are talking about. if anything proves it moreso it
is this.

napolean (12/04/2006 02:52pm | Edited: 12/04/2006 02:53pm):
It is a good map I would give it an 8/10, but I'll give it a 10/10 to balance out the unfair ones.
amthc356 (12/04/2006 05:29pm):
OS is being forced to go out and get BM's city, while BM's getting an extra base.
jhuni (12/05/2006 11:56pm | Edited: 12/06/2006 12:45am):
Information from several studies is presented, and conclusive evidence is given. Basically
speaking, underaged/immature people are abundant on the internet. Various approaches
on age filtering are widely discussed.

Felix 45, and people alike fervently believe they can publicly disprove postulates. In there
attempt one of the first acknowledgements they make is "my argument is beyond you."
Eventually these type of people resort to flaming, and labeling anyone who "thinks there
wrong" as "idiots," and I accept that as a consequence of what I'm about to say. Labeling
there opposition as "idiots" doesn't help at all. In a metaphorical sense felix never tires of
trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will
work some day. Reducing the amount of people like felix 45 is a lost cause, immaturity
cannot be cured by anyone other then ones self. Anyways lets get down to business!!

@Gunfighter: >-RE: -- "the roads near the city in the center, are mess up."

A fine point. It's true that they're oddly positioned. That's acceptable though because they
don't make anything blocky, so it's not a reason to lower my maps rating =/.

RE: -- "You should change that same city to an airport, to make it worth going after."

It would cause massive centralized airport issues, additionally it would augment FTA, and
create several new issues, either way there's nothing wrong with the city in the center.

Anyways you have no reason that this map is imbalanced, although you have a fairly
intersting idea on a other possible balanced variation, just has 1:base-1:infantry issues.

@napolean: >- RE: I'll give it a 10/10 to balance out the unfair ones

Thanks :)

@amthc356: >- RE: -- "OS is being forced to go out and get BM's city"

It's about time I gave a explanation on the balance. If OS get's the city first he has a minor
advantage in income, that is compensated by BM's extra infantry expansion. If OS decides
to get the base before capturing the city, it's the opposite in that, BM has a income
advantage, that is compensated by OS's additional infantry expansion.

I've playtested this map 5 times, and the concept works perfectly, and notice how nobody
who playtested this map said that it was imbalanced, so there validity is fairly reduced.

@felix45: -- RE: -- "you are criticizing his grammar"

No I wasn't. I was merely adding preciseness to the content of my comment. Learn precise
terminology. This demonstrates that your recent grammatical statements are invalidated.

RE: -- "trying to show how my maps are bad with the map analysis"

Wrong, I said "The map anylasis doesn't prove that a maps imbalanced!!" You even
mentioned it in your own quote, so essentially you don't know what I'm talking about.

RE: -- "map analysis proves nothing with so few games on them so far idiot..."
RE: -- "The map anylasis doesn't prove that..."

Your calling me an idiot for agreeing with you, and then writing a paragraph on why I'm
right!!! That makes you look like a huge idiot...

RE: -- " jhuni, you really have no idea what you are talking about."

You don't have any idea what I'm talking about! So there's no way you could possibly
know that I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't even know. Your entire recent
comment is conclusive evidence for this, such as the statements: "you are criticizing his
grammar," and "you trying to show how my maps are bad with the map analysis" these
both prove that you don't know what I'm talking about.

RE: -- "if anything proves it moreso it is this."

I'm glad to hear that there isn't anything proving that I don't know what I'm talking about "AT
ALL." Seeing as I've shown why you don't know what I'm talking about.

PyRo_VeX (12/07/2006 02:14pm):
You write a lot jhuni nice map 10/10 sorry that please make another map I want to see it.
jhuni (12/07/2006 10:00pm):
It will get 10 1's in a very short period of time, though. There's more then five people on this
site who want me banned. That's five 1/10's that are assured, oh well.
gamewizard (12/08/2006 07:34am | Edited: 12/08/2006 07:34am):
You should really publish more maps, since you can always find the flaw in everyone else's
map, i'm sure you could make the perfect one.

Oh yea, because this map isnt 5/10 material(which is what it is now) I'll give you a ten
jhuni (12/10/2006 02:12pm):
I published another map based off of request(s).
army_vet8857 (12/18/2006 05:06pm | Edited: 12/18/2006 05:07pm):
jhuni

I gave you a 1 becasue I see you really lay into other map maklers and when some cirtic
gives you legit stuff you feel the need to defend against their advice.....stop being so
defensive....
army_vet8857 (12/18/2006 05:11pm):
wow, it's worse than I thought... WTF dude? If your so cofident on your map making skills
you should not worry what us simple minded people think. Unreal your try and argue with
everyone who points out what they dont like on your map....gay real gay.
jhuni (12/19/2006 07:25pm | Edited: 12/19/2006 07:27pm):
WOW!!! I never thought there would be someone that beats felix45 at bad grammar.
Spelling: "becasue," "maklers," " cirtic," "cofident," "dont."

Ya that's worse then felix 45. Congrats!!

Also note that you double posted, and that you didn't use a single comma, semi colon, or
colon. And you end nearly ever sentence with three periods. Anyways I rarely point out
grammar errors, but this was just ••• hilarious!!!

"wow, it's worse than I thought."

I don't want to hear your personal dislike for the word "it's" and you don't have any reason
that my map is bad in the first place. Thanks for (NOT) giving your (poor) reasoning.

RE: "gives you legit stuff" - - - - - - Assume context of term "legit" = invalidated.
RE: "should not worry what us simple minded people think." I don't worry.
I don't know where you got that idea; I'm merely acknowledging there issues.

"Unreal your try and argue with everyone who points out what they dont like"

Error! Name unreal is undeclared, determine who it is that your talking to. FYI nothing on
this page is an argument. I acknowledge that there wrong, and then I move on to the next
person. Well maybe they don't come back because I'm right?? Think please?!?!
sirfuxalot (12/20/2006 11:37am | Edited: 12/31/2006 02:34am):
I looked over the comments and the mapmaker and people making comments are both not really
improving the map any. It gets an 8, I just think the map is kind of uninspired and the
terrain variety isn't that good. You could add a few trees in the HQ areas since there is
none right now.

The map is by no means incredible, and I just woudn't want to play on a map this small and
simple either.
benbever (12/29/2006 01:02pm):
no terrain variety and the roads don't connect 6/10
jhuni (12/29/2006 02:57pm):
RE: -- benbever: It's a bit (too) small, but nice
RE: -- benbever: no terrain variety and the roads don't connect 6/10

What did I change to make it a 6/10 - 'not nice'?? Nothing. It's the same as it was 8 months
ago. I've rated several hundred maps, and it's clear that terrain variety isn't 40% of each
given map. The roads not connecting is clearly not an issue.

There is terrain variety!!

Woods + mountains + roads + cities + plains is a variety of different terrain.
You have no valid reason to give me a 6/10. Period.

Sirfuxalot: -- " It gets an 8" from you... I certainly wouldn't rate it as a 8/10, and I've gone
over several times why the terrain variety isn't a problem, read my comments.

sirfuxalot (12/31/2006 02:25am):
In my opinion there's no "formula" or anything for terrain variety, and there's really big
areas that are just plains and cities--I know you'll be frusturated by that. It would
really help the map to add some woods there.

And of course you wouldn't rate it 8/10, it's your map.
son of ff (12/31/2006 02:37am):
10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd
15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10
jhun1 15 6r347 4nd r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15
f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd 15 n3v3r wr0n6
3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10/10 jhun1 15 6r347 4nd
r34||y 5m4r7 4nd 600d 47 57uff 4nd h45 74|k3d 70 61r|5 b3f0r3 4nd 15 f17 4nd mu5cu|4r 4nd
15 n3v3r wr0n6 3v33333333333333333r!!!!!!!!!!!1110n3!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jhuni (12/31/2006 04:03pm | Edited: 12/31/2006 06:34pm):
Hi son of ff, I'm going to spam all of your maps. I hope your happy with your decision.

"In my opinion there's no "formula" or anything for terrain variety"

Of course there's a formula for terrain variety!! Merely analyze the size to otherwise terrain
ratios.

sirfuxalot (12/31/2006 04:12pm):
It just doesn't work like that. You need to make it look good, not just follow some rule.
On all of my maps I just add terrain until it looks good and you need to understand that
it looks a little bare right now.
jhuni (12/31/2006 11:32pm):
My bot posted 30 '100% random' comments on 2 of FF's maps because of his spam.

Anyways... @sirfuxalot: - your mixing up terminology here, terrain variety has nothing to
do with how "how good a map looks." There is a rule for terrain variety, but of course
there's no rules for aesthetical pleasingness, it's opinion based, not factual.

So your basing your entire rating on your personal opinion? Well so far yes.
sirfuxalot (01/08/2007 10:57pm):
Oh. I guess I never really knew the rule of terrain variety, I just thought it meant the
map looked natural and the terrain was spread out. I guess I should give you a 10/10 since
ratings don't mean anything.
jhuni (01/09/2007 03:00pm | Edited: 01/14/2007 03:59am):
" I just thought it meant the map looked natural and the terrain was spread out"

Terrain not spread out = bland (or) clumpy.
Map not looking natural = blocky.
Map is nice to look at / map looks good = aesthetically pleasing.
Map uses alot of different terrain (reefs) = terrain variety.

Terrain variety has relevance in game, unlike what you described. Which is why I tend to
give -1 / -2 / or even -3 for a lack of terarin variety.

Here's a good example of these concepts:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=24062

sirfuxalot (01/09/2007 09:40pm):
You're just repeating how good the map is.
NiLonHair12345 (01/17/2007 10:20pm):
hmmm
why must everyone flame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jeeze
jhuni
i left this website for a few months because i had tests
i come back and there is tons of flaming
everyone should just make a truce
.............
jeeze
benbever (01/18/2007 07:16pm):
jhuni: "What did I change to make it a 6/10 - 'not nice'?? Nothing. It's the same as it
was 8 months ago. You have no valid reason to give me a 6/10. Period."

Heh I rated it twice, but I'm pretty sure I gave it a 6/10 the first time too. A 6/10 is
"nice" in my book. A 8/10 is good, a 7/10 very nice, a 6/10 nice, a 5/10 mediocre and a
4/10 is not nice.

Valid reasons for giving a 6/10?
hmmm start with 10 and deduct 1 point for every flaw.

-1 A bit boring and bland, unoriginal.
-1 Roads not connecting hurting my eyes, which is an issue for me.
-1 Straigth roads.
-1 33% are bases, base heavy leads to infantry/mech spam.
-1 Nothing in the center to figth over, except for one city.
-1 Too many plains, too little terrain variety.
-1 Chokepoints in the north and south.
-1 HQ's tucked away in the corners, no way to surround them.
-1 The map is a bit too small for the sort of map intended.
-1 FTA
-1 Not enough forests to play FOW

hmmm 10 minus 11 gives a minus 1. I'll give it the nearest possible rating then, a 1/10.
The map has no reefs too. It belongs with the absolute trash maps of awbw in the garbage bin.

Seriously, you rated a perfectly fine and balanced map made by me a 3/10, why should I
rate your maps fairly if you rate other people's maps with totally random low scores? I'll
leave the 6/10 for now but part of me feels this map really needs a 1/10 just because.

jhuni (01/19/2007 02:47am | Edited: 01/19/2007 03:00am):
Your map is a map that lacks terrain variety, has a massive symmetrical clump of units
that are extremely close together, and is a completely imbalanced do to FTA.

THATS NOT RANDOM, YOUR MAP IS AWFUL AND MINE ISN'T.
Now your just like everyone else, you rate my map 1/10 just because yours is awful.

RE: -- "perfectly fine and balanced map"

Oh noes look benbever denies the existence of FTA, I'm sorry does FTA not exist?
Seriously when did you start playing this game, yesterday?? Here should I give you some
tutorials?? So that you can learn something as basic as FTA that is accepted by all of
the actual experts of this site. FTA ≠ balance.

RE: -- Valid reasons for giving a 6/10? -- Please learn the word valid.
RE: -1 A bit boring and bland, unoriginal.

Means of your opinion. I'd think the garbage bin would be more then a little bit boring,
seriously the least you could do is not contradict like everything you say.

-1 Roads not connecting hurting my eyes, which is an issue for me.

You need to go to a eye doctor because a picture shouldn't hurt your eyes. The fact that
you have eye problems and that is a issue for you is not a valid reason to give my map -1.

-1 Straigth roads.

That is one of the dumbest ratings ever. Clearly none of your maps deserve a 10/10,
not even your world map deserves a 10/10 off of this. You don't even believe this BS.

-1 33% are bases, base heavy leads to infantry/mech spam.

This map has a Below average base count; a perfect city to base ratio.

-1 Nothing in the center to figth over, except for one city.

Nothing in the center means that there isn't any centralized base issues CO slates and
other things along those lines, it's effectively advantageous not to have such.

-1 Too many plains, too little terrain variety.

What the heck?? You give my other map - ratings for not having reefs, you clearly don't
believe in terrain variety. You give minus ratings for whatever random BS you can think of?

-1 Chokepoints in the north and south.

Explained several times why it isn't a issue.

-1 HQ's tucked away in the corners, no way to surround them.

That's a good thing... Thanks for giving a -1 for a good thing, no validity.

-1 The map is a bit too small for the sort of map intended.

You have no idea what sort of map I have intended, and that is obviously no reason to give
this map a -1, what just talk about random things and put a -1 in front of the sentence??

-1 FTA

Whats with the change of heart?? Because this map has FTA balance unlike your awful
map. Seriously now your contradicting yourself and making yourself look even worse.

-1 Not enough forests to play FOW

That is literally stupid. Forests make you not want to play FOW.

RE: -- It belongs with the absolute trash maps of awbw in the garbage bin.
RE: -- It's a bit (too) small, but nice
RE: -- no terrain variety and the roads don't connect 6/10

So a nice 6/10 maps deserve to be in the garbage bin?? And you don't have a valid reason
not to rate this a 10/10, after such that I've posted. Clearly this is just because
I rated your awful map truthfully because of FTA.

benbever (01/19/2007 04:45am):
No I just gave you 11 valid points why your map doesn't deserve a 10/10. Not everyone will
agree with every -1 I gave (you don't at least) but lots of people will. They are al valid
points making the map not perfect. I could justify giving this map a 1/10, but I know
there are far worse maps out there, so I gave it a 6/10.
You however totally misinterpreted one of my maps, giving random and false comments on it.
If my map has FTA then prove it in a game?

in reply:
The eyedoctor told me my eyes are fine and I should stop looking at your map.
Explain the 33% base-city ratio to someone getting infantryflooded by Sami or Sensei on
this map.
Nothing in the center is not advantageous, it makes for long(er) battles and more
standoffs/draws.
HQ's tucked in corner=bad. HQ'a are a part of awbw, don't corner them.
Your map has FTA, it's countered a bit, but not much.
and "Forests make you not want to play FOW" may make a nice quote of the day

The garbage bin was ment sarcasticly, but I rated your map much fairer than you rated mine.


jhuni (01/19/2007 02:25pm | Edited: 01/20/2007 02:24pm):
Whatever you believe your comments can accomplish is inconspicuous.

RE: -- The eyedoctor told me my eyes are fine and I should stop looking at your map.

*Ahem*, maybe you should listen to the eye doctors sound advice, stop looking at my map
before you make yourself look stupider then you already have.

RE: -- "Explain the 33% base-city ratio to someone getting infantryflooded"

I'm sure you already know infantry spaming happens in every map. The invalidity of such
terms has been demonstrated countless times in this maps discussions, please read.

RE: -- "Nothing in the center is not advantageous, it makes for long(er) battles and more
standoffs/draws." Listen to what your saying.
Longer battles and draws means the maps fair. Otherwise this implies that the
maps imbalanced. That makes my map better not worse, how can you say that's valid??

RE: -- "HQ's tucked in corner=bad. HQ'a are a part of awbw, don't corner them."

Ya you can call anything bad in a uncorroborated manner, the second sentence in the
above quote is complete nonsense. No reasoning that it's bad, no validity.

RE: -- "Your map has FTA, it's countered a bit, but not much."

No way... Your map has: NO FTA BALANCE AND YOU CONSIDER SUCH COMPLAINT
FALSE?? WHAT ARE YOU DENSE?? Several use this exact setup, and you haven't
supplied any reasoning that this map has FTA, notice the city difference.

RE: -- "Forests make you not want to play FOW" may make a nice quote of the day"

Several forests not only prevent easy conveyance but in FOW they provide a massive
hinderance for each units visiblity, ya it deserves quote of the day because it's true.

RE: -- "I rated your map much fairer than you rated mine."

I rated your map nicely and truthfully, so don't even complain your map is close to getting
a 1/10 because it is awful. Seriously benbever doesn't understand the basic conceptual
existence of FTA. Any symmetric map provides a clear fundemental advantage.

"If my map has FTA then prove it in a game? " Why would I prove something in game
when it's already been proven? Even you know FTA exists, so please."

"You however totally misinterpreted one of my maps, giving random and false comments
on it" There certainly not random, and FTA isn't false your map's awful and you haven't
described anything to indicate otherwise.

Quote: Jhuni: Your map is a map that lacks terrain variety, has a massive symmetrical
clump of units that are extremely close together, and is a completely imbalanced do to FTA.

RE: -- "They are al valid points making the map not perfect"

You didn't even support half of the 11, because even you know there wrong??
The other 11 didn't get any definitive support, all your saying is "this is that"
and not why such is such.

RE: -- "I could justify giving this map a 1/10"

Justifications require resonableness. You rarely ever have any, and thus you'd have
a hard time justifing anything, there's no way anyone could justify such; it's unreasonable.

RE: -- "Not everyone will agree with every -1 I gave"

Don't even start on the believableness of such. More then 10 times as many people
then there are that even play advance wars understand that contradictions aren't
true, and most people that do play AW agree with me. As shown:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7353

People that don't like me such as yourself are people that can't accept the harsh truth,
your map is awful because of FTA.

Make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs if you like, Benbever, because I
simply don't care. I feel this way because his method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to
know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Benbever-ism". It is a dictatorial and
avowedly wretched philosophy that aims to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other
rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of baleful nativism.
He asked me to demonstrate the essential existence of the proven FTA theorys in his map.
There's a clear association. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand.
Divided we fall. Benbever's inane prevarications will ruin us all.

benbever (01/20/2007 06:18pm | Edited: 01/21/2007 05:44am):
RE: - "I'm sure you already know infantry spaming happens in every map. The invalidity of such
terms has been demonstrated countless times in this maps discussions, please read. "

Infantry spam does not happen in maps with 20 cities for every factory, unless
Sensei/Hachi is in play. I know that as a fact, and also that your map begs for infantry
spam. Maybe you should read the fora more often.

HQ's being cornered is bad because you can't surround them or try to capture them. You
made an awbw map without (much or any) HQ capturing, which in my opinion deducts points.
The map is boring enough as it is.

RE: - "No way... Your map has: NO FTA BALANCE AND YOU CONSIDER SUCH COMPLAINT
FALSE?? WHAT ARE YOU DENSE?? Several use this exact setup, and you haven't
supplied any reasoning that this map has FTA, notice the city difference. "

Okay my map has no FTA that I know off, and I'll prove it to you in a game (please do join.)
Your map has massive FTA and I'll explain:
Day 1 OS moves north and builds inf.
Day 1 BM gets +1000 extra.
Day 2 OS starts capturing base and BM city.
Day 2 BM gets +1000 extra and starts capturing base and neutral city.
Day 3 OS completes capturing base and BM city.
See? OS has the first units built and moving, the first base, and is the first everywhere.
BM gets 2000 extra in the first two days. What can it do with that to counter FTA?? Very
little indeed.
Hereby proven the map had massive FTA and points deducted. If you want to test it set up a
game and I'll join.

RE: - "it deserves quote of the day because it's true."

correction: you think it's true but it's not. Almost anyone will agree this map has too
few woods. Only two active woods in the large center makes for uninteresting FOW play.

RE: - "I rated your map nicely and truthfully, so don't even complain your map is close to
getting
a 1/10 because it is awful. "

No you rated it falsely and also not nice. Your comments were the opposite of true. You
may think it's awful (without playing or even looking at it) but don't just post random
and false comments. If you dislike the map then by all means rate it a 1/10 but don't
pretend you did it with a reason and not just because.

Re: - "Why would I prove something in game when it's already been proven? Even you know
FTA exists, so please."

Yes FTA exists, for instance in your maps and some of mine, but in the map spoken of it
isn't obvious, so please prove it by joining my game. It is not proven just because you
say so.

RE: - "Justifications require resonableness. You rarely ever have any, and thus you'd have
a hard time justifing anything"

I gave reasons enough why this map is not perfect. I don't have to explain why I rate it
an exact number. If it's just bad enough to receive a 1 I can just give it, it's my rating.

Your topic only shows that people don't like your ratings, but it's no ground for banning.
I agree with that. You're a bad rater and should refrain from rating (or improve) but it's
no ground for banning.

RE: - "Your map is awful because of FTA. "

That's not harsh truth, it's just plain false.
* If it has FTA then show me in a game *
90% of people that played the map liked it, and those that didn't did not dislike it for
any FTA issues.
I don't think everyone is wrong and you are right.
If the map has bad terrain variety than do a suggestion to prove it, or your words are empty.

RE: "He asked me to demonstrate the essential existence of the proven FTA theorys in his map."

The existence of FTA on some maps is proven, but it's not proven on my map. You think it
has FTA I think not. Why not try and prove it? Scared your believes will prove wrong???
sirfuxalot (01/21/2007 12:56pm):
Do you think my maps are awful?
jhuni (01/21/2007 01:53pm | Edited: 01/21/2007 01:56pm):
Perhaps before going on, I should describe Benbever to you. Benbever is uppity,
directionless, and self-deceiving. Furthermore, he yearns to alter common beliefs and
customs in the service of regulating AW:BW relations.

I soundly believe Benbever is hypocritical, and not a idiot. I believe he doesn't think that
this map is awful, but he just want's to provide erroneous comments in an attempt
to make my map look awful, he fails at such an attempt because no ones going
to believe the preposterous content provided in his comments.

jhuni (01/21/2007 01:54pm | Edited: 01/21/2007 03:49pm):
Thanks for adopting the reply system I invented. It indicates that you believe I'm right
in at least one thing, because I was the one who started the RE: -- "" display in AW:BW.
And you never used it until you started this disscusion with me.

Now let's get down to business.
RE: -- "Maybe you should read the fora more often."

I'm afraid your comment is poorly though out benbever. There's no such thing as a fora.
In englaish? da mitologia clássica e considerando a criação do mundo até a chegada de
Pa’i Kuara ao céu, os Guarani possuem um número interminável de contos e mitos cujos
heróis são animais. WTF laungauge is that?? You want to speek in english now??

RE: -- " and also that your map begs for infantry spam "

Ok and your not proposing corroboration for the problematicalness of such a thing.
Infantry spaming happens in every map. It's a consider strategm untill otherwise
deducted as inferior, although it's not built in every map it happens in the form of a
effective strategic consideration; regardless, I praise your attempt to point out
problems in my text. The context of such terms was unspecified.

To put it into proper context: infantry spaming is a considered strategm in every map,
although it's effectiveness is rarely determined as inferior.

"You made an awbw map without (much or any) HQ capturing, which in my opinion deducts
points." - - - Invalid.

I hear what your asserting. Your rating is entirely based off of your opinion.
You can state that anythings worthless in your opinion, but nobody's going to agree with
you. Hundreds already follow similar map making postulates. This isn't valid, it's an
illogical opinion, without solid grounds or corroboration. Based 100% of opinion.
Provide anything in such other then that it's your opinion that it's bad then it'll be acceptable.

RE: -- "Okay my map has no FTA that I know off, and I'll prove it to you in a game"

I'm not going to waste time playing I game with you just because your to idiotic to
understand the concept of FTA, I don't even want to waste time commenting
but you continue to persist with the stupid comments. Your map has FTA and
you haven't argued otherwise, seriously. Nothing you can say will change your map.
You have to edit the map for it not to have FTA you can't just say otherwise.

"BM gets 2000 extra in the first two days. What can it do with that to counter FTA?? Very
little indeed."

Yes you relize that it gives him 2000 in the first two days in your build, but that's perfect
balance, OS starts with 2000 FTA income. BM gets his own 2000 income perfect balance.
You have to at least state something instead of averting something without reasoning.

"Hereby proven the map had massive FTA and points deducted."

Remember what I said about "proven"? You have no reasoning all your saying is that it
does little to counter it. That's all you say is that perfect income balance doesn't counter
FTA. You haven't proven anything, and you certainly can't prove that it had anything
because this map has everything it had ever. OS is no more advantaged then he
was when I first orginated this map. This setup is common, and well thought out.

And don't worry sirfuxalot he has nothing on the balance, your map's aren't awful.
He has no reaosn to say that my maps awful either. All benbever has is saying
that this is false, this is random, this is proven, when none of that has reasoning.

RE: -- "correction: you think it's true but it's not."

That's all you ever have, this is this and this is that, but you don't have why. It doesn't
hinder FOW at all. Read my previous reasoning and at least specify a argument to it.
Such has no validity until valid reasoning and a considerable argument is presented.

RE: -- "You may think it's awful (without playing or even looking at it) but don't just post
random and false comments."

Oh I get it, since you think that I made false and random comments on your map your
trying to replicate it to make me see what it's like??
Well I'm sorry, read my precise explanation I re-write it. And I obviously looked at the map
to determine it's symmetrical so it's not in anyway random. That's a idiotic comment.

"If you dislike the map then by all means rate it a 1/10 but don't
pretend you did it with a reason and not just because."

I did it with valid reasoning under which you haven't presented a single argument to.
Read my precise reasoning. FTA is in every symmetrical map. There's no argument to that.

Here let's provide some deductive un-arguable reasoning for your sake.
Given: each symmetrical map has FTA *the entire basis for the concept of FTA
Given: your map is symmetrical
Prove: your map has FTA
Given: each additional unit provides further augmentation for the imbalance of FTA.
Given: your map has 40 units on both sides on a small map.
Prove: your map's FTA is horrible, even worse then usual.

That's reasoning in the most precise, deductive manor possible, now it's obvious
I'm not pretending to have reasoning, it's presented right there.

"Yes FTA exists, for instance in your maps and some of mine, but in the map spoken of it
isn't obvious, so please prove it by joining my game. It is not proven just because you
say so."

No none of my maps have FTA and all of your ratings of my maps are stupid, and poorly
thought out. I never said it's proven because I say so, it's proven because of theorys
and setups. Just because I say 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't prove that it's true?? Sure, your
right, but the mathematical foundation that describes the functions do.So essentially
this methaporical presentation demonstrates the exact concept I'm describing.

"I gave reasons enough why this map is not perfect. I don't have to explain why I rate it
an exact number. If it's just bad enough to receive a 1 I can just give it, it's my rating"

No you didn't give valid reasons. Your not knowledgable of AW maps. It's your
rating but it's your horrible rating that almost nobody will ever agree with because it's
stupid, poorly thought out, with bad grammar, and several contradictions.

"Your topic only shows that people don't like your ratings, but it's no ground for banning."

No it shows that the most respectable map maker and AW:BW competive gamer
nahbien usaully agrees with most of my comments. Sirfuxalot and several others
say that I give good advice and more, stop trying not to point this out. It also shows:
people such as yourself that make awful maps really dislike me.

RE: -- " I don't think everyone is wrong and you are right."

Thanks for the useful information!! I don't think so either.

RE: -- " That's not harsh truth, it's just plain false. "

Just because you say the people that played on it liked it?? Well lets see anyone who
says that, I don't see anybody who says that. OH I forgot it's a awful map your 90 if
not 100% of the people who played on it right?? Ya show me someone who
actually likes that map please. I have: advisor nick, bakabonest, cokerp,
Archromancer, Gunfighter, napolean PyRo_VeX, sirfuxalot, and more rating this
as about a 8/10, which is very nice, and you have nobody supporting your claims.

RE: -- "The existence of FTA on some maps is proven, but it's not proven on my map"

The existence of FTA is proven on every symmetrical map.

Let me wrap this up:
Benbever's cohorts perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not
capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and
your feverish and overworked imaginations.

Edit: nobody agrees with you on your stating this maps awful, and 16 or more people
agree with me that your map is because look at it's rating. It was bad before me.
So don't even say that everyone that played on it liked it, if they did it's rating
wouldn't suck like the map itself does. And nobody believes your idiotic map rating.

'
'Here: http://awbw.amarriner.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=140771

benbever (01/21/2007 06:44pm):
Yes your "RE" system is clear and easy readable, thus I adopted it. It's not copyrighted.

Fora is the plural form of Forum. I don't care if it's English by the books, American or
Latin "laungauge."

RE: - "Infantry spaming happens in every map."

No it's not the best tactic in every map and thus does not happen in every map.

RE: - "Hundreds already follow similar map making postulates. "
Most maps don't have HQ's in the extreme corners. Few very good maps have.

RE: - "Your map has FTA and
you haven't argued otherwise, seriously. Nothing you can say will change your map.
You have to edit the map for it not to have FTA you can't just say otherwise."

No it does not. Explain why it has FTA if you can. If you can't then it might not have FTA
and you were in error.
The game I have set up is named 'Stratego - FTA' and the password is your username. If you
can not even show me the FTA in a game, then that very much proves you were wrong. You
have time for typing, so you have time for playing too. What reason do you have for not
joining??

RE: - "OS starts with 2000 FTA income."
First turn. Second turn it has FTA income again. And all turns after that. Plus it has the
first move of all units. The FTA almost not countered at all. Point deduction is very valid.

RE: - "You have no reasoning all your saying is that it does little to counter it."

I can't think of anything to do with 2000 funds to counter the FTA. That's not
mathematical prove but prove nonetheless. Even you don't know anything to do with 2000
funds to counter the FTA I showed in my 3-day game. If your map has no FTA then play a
game on it. But you won't that's the point.

RE: - "All benbever has is saying
that this is false, this is random, this is proven, when none of that has reasoning."

Your comments are sometimes random and false, yes, since they have no reasoning. The
reasoning for my 'proven' claims can be read above.

RE: - "It doesn't hinder FOW at all."

That's all you ever have, this is this and this is that, but you don't have why.

RE: - "Oh I get it, since you think that I made false and random comments on your map your
trying to replicate it to make me see what it's like??"

Yes, sort of. But I'm being much fairer, provide minor but true points of criticism, and
not clearly untrue claims.

RE: "FTA is in every symmetrical map. There's no argument to that."

It's in chess too, but it's too difficult to take advantage of it. In my stratego map
units have to be repositioned in FOW so the random and risk factor are greater than the
FTA factor making it not an issue at all.

RE: - "Here let's provide some deductive un-arguable reasoning for your sake."

un-arguable reasoning? What kind of claim is that? Why are you arguing with me then when
you have unarguable reasonings in your tower of unarguableness?

RE: - "Given: each symmetrical map has FTA *the entire basis for the concept of FTA
Given: your map is symmetrical
Prove: your map has FTA"

That's not a given. FTA is much more than that. In non FOW it's pretty much a given, but
in FOW it isn't so much. Of course you like to simplify things until it's far from the truth.
The second given is true as can be seen.
The prove is false, since given 1 is not valid.
Given 1 being not valid can be proven in a game which you refuse.

RE: "Given: each additional unit provides further augmentation for the imbalance of FTA.
Given: your map has 40 units on both sides on a small map.
Prove: your map's FTA is horrible, even worse then usual."

Given 1 is untrue, given 2 is true, prove is false. You're bad at this.

RE: - "No none of my maps have FTA and all of your ratings of my maps are stupid, and poorly
thought out"

Your maps have massive FTA under your own reasoning. My ratings may be stupid in your
opinion, but not in mine and other people's.

RE: - "No you didn't give valid reasons. Your not knowledgable of AW maps. It's your
rating but it's your horrible rating that almost nobody will ever agree with because it's
stupid, poorly thought out, with bad grammar, and several contradictions."

I gave you about 10 valid reasons. How do you support your claim where I'm not
knowledgeable of AW maps? How are you knowledgeable then? I gave your map a 6/10 and it
averages a 5.28/10. It seems people do agree with my rating since it's very little off. My
comments may have bad grammar and maybe even contradictions, but not nearly as much as
yours, it has certainly less spelling errors.

RE: - "No it shows that the most respectable map maker and AW:BW competive gamer
nahbien usaully agrees with most of my comments. Sirfuxalot and several others
say that I give good advice and more, stop trying not to point this out. It also shows:
people such as yourself that make awful maps really dislike me."

I usually agree with most of your comments too. But when you're 100% off I don't ignore
that. You have given good advice on my maps in the past, why not now? Why claim I make
awful maps when you liked them before? Why claim I make awful maps when they get positive
comments from people? Also don't flatter yourself, I don't dislike you, (I'd have to know
you for that.) I just dislike a few of your comments that happen to be inacurate.

RE: - "Just because you say the people that played on it liked it?? Well lets see anyone who
says that, I don't see anybody who says that. OH I forgot it's a awful map your 90 if
not 100% of the people who played on it right?? "

No I'm about 40% of the people who play on it. Positive comments can be seen under the
map, and I got some positive in game messages. That said not everyone likes the map,
you'll probably hate it. Just post you hate it then, don't make up FTA.

RE: - "The existence of FTA is proven on every symmetrical map."

You're repeating yourself countless times. It's not proven, it's even liable to be untrue
because of you unwilling to play on the map in question.

RE: - "Edit: nobody agrees with you on your stating this maps awful, and 16 or more people
agree with me that your map is because look at it's rating. It was bad before me. "

Of course people do, it's got a 5.28/10. It deserves higher, but so does my map. My map
does not have a lot of ratings, most are hate-1's. I said most people that played on it
liked it, I did. Most people that rate maps don't play on them, like yourself.

To wrap things up, play on my map to show me horribleness and FTA or take it back.


benbever (01/21/2007 06:52pm):
That topic you provided even has the word 'exceptions' built into the sentence.
"FTA is in almost every playable, symmetrical map? (With a few exceptions such as
stalemates)."

Thanks for explaining my character so ellaborately albeit a bit negative. Now please also
do yourself, let's start with 'hypocritical.'

RE Sirfuxalot: - "Do you think my maps are awful? "
Asked at me or jhuni? Your maps look good, I take a look at them (27!) later but they look
original which is good.
jhuni (01/29/2007 07:27pm):
I'm over this benbever, your wasting my time, you can have your own opinion, but good
luck getting people to agree with you. Your not even disscusing the issues in this
map anymore and you've gone way off topic.

I sense at time soon that your going to be repeating the same bull over and over again.

A point has been reached in this disscusion where all of your replying comments don't
invalidate anything. So here I'm going to make this conclusion and this will be over:


These aren't arguments, so essentially this wraps up none-arguments that are provided.

RE: -- "I say it is false because I have played on the map and there was no natable FTA."

That had nothing to do with the given, as I said beyond your comprehension.

RE: -- "Which only shows you have not the slightest idea what is and what is not a 'fact.' "

This is nonsenical. period.

RE: -- "I could not, and still can't, find it."

Several forests not only prevent easy conveyance but in FOW they provide a massive
hinderance for each units visiblity, ya it deserves quote of the day because it's true.
If only you read that the first time, oh well that arguments over.

RE: -- "Read my post again, I had minor criticism on your map, nothing false."

Ya right, a rating immediately invalidated beacuase the impossiblity of a -11. A 1/10, and
saying that this map deserves to be in the garbage bin is false and more then minor criticism.

RE: - "Why not? 1 is the lowest one can give, but the map can have almost infinite minus
points." -- Figure it out yourself, if you can't figure that out then your an idiot. (Hint hint:
each 1 is 10% of 10 so each -1 should be 10% of a map, but your ratings are invalid
so that doesn't applie to either of them, and they aren't being argued otherwise)

RE: - "If there was no FOW OS would have FTA and the playability would be horrible."

That's not a if, the playability is horrible. period. I made perfect sense I spoke in clear
english seriously. Your not arguing about it so I don't consider it conclusive.

This wraps up everything your arguing.
1. Experts far better then you, use cornered HQ's in there map's all the time. Period.
2. All you have arguing that your map's not awful is your games that nobody's
provided observations to. That and you need to play a game.
3. As for my map, you skiped the entire explanation for why turn by turn devolopment
isn't a required regard, and you only quoted the other part, you basically didn't
do anything but waste time, you could've copy & pasted your old argument.
4. There's no FTA in chess; there's no proven stastics over large game databases
of such determenation. Fritz provides such corroboration. There's no FTA.
There's no slate, just something in your imagination.
5. The topic does provide 2 peoples proven deduction of the existence of FTA.

All of these can be adduced if you read over my other comments.
Lastly, lets get one thing clear, I really don't want to play on your map for the reasons
stated, and I'm not going to do it just to make you feel better or something like that.
I don't want to play on your map, and it wouldn't even prove anything either way.

You've abandoned support to your 1/10 rating of this map and now
claim a 6/10 instead, and your rating system has been proven to be invalid.

That's it it's all concluded, I'm not playing you, THE END.


When I tryed to post this AW:BW stopped.
benbever (01/29/2007 09:27pm):
RE: - "These aren't arguments, so essentially this wraps up none-arguments that are
provided. "

That makes no sense, but you're right in that most of what you write is pure nonsense.

RE: - "That had nothing to do with the given, as I said beyond your comprehension. "

What given? There was no given, only your assumption that there was FTA, which was proven
wrong. (apparently on a plane above your comprehension.)

RE: - "This is nonsenical. period."

Which illustrates again how you don't distinguish fact from fiction, or fantasy. Repeat it
in your head enough and it becomes true, deny it and it becomes false? How simple a world
you live in.

RE: - "Several forests not only prevent easy conveyance but in FOW they provide a massive
hinderance for each units visiblity, ya it deserves quote of the day because it's true.
If only you read that the first time, oh well that arguments over. "

It deserves quote of the day because the quote was untrue yet funny. FOW is made to limit
visibility and forests are a part of that.

RE: - "Ya right, a rating immediately invalidated beacuase the impossiblity of a -11. A
1/10, and
saying that this map deserves to be in the garbage bin is false and more then minor
criticism."

You did not read very well. I gave a 6/10, and provided 11 minor negative points to
improve upon. That's more constructive criticism than you ever gave someone, and a much
fairer rating than you gave any of my maps, so why complain?

RE: - "each 1 is 10% of 10 so each -1 should be 10% of a map"

Yes, and ratings can go below 0% and into negatives or even above 100%. Only in the end a
number from 1 to 10 is needed. You're stuck in medieval math?

RE: - "but your ratings are invalid so that doesn't applie to either of them"

Invalid because you say so? You're the only one who can rate your own map?? self-rater

RE: - "That's not a if, the playability is horrible. period. I made perfect sense I spoke
in clear
english seriously. Your not arguing about it so I don't consider it conclusive."

No it is not. I played a lot on it and it was not horrible. If you had the slightest idea
on how to play and enjoy awbw you might agree. Buy you seem blinded with.. blindless.

RE: - "1. Experts far better then you, use cornered HQ's in there map's all the time. Period."

Look up some good maps. Proven false.

RE: - "All you have arguing that your map's not awful is your games that nobody's
provided observations to. That and you need to play a game."

Yes that's my word, and check the positive comments on my map. I can show you in a game
too. Have you joined yet?

RE: - "As for my map, you skiped the entire explanation for why turn by turn devolopment
isn't a required regard, and you only quoted the other part, you basically didn't
do anything but waste time, you could've copy & pasted your old argument. "

That last part is a good idea, since you didn't read it the first time. However I'll leave
it up to you to read it yourself, think about it, and make better maps.

RE: - "There's no FTA in chess; there's no proven stastics over large game databases
of such determenation. Fritz provides such corroboration. There's no FTA.
There's no slate, just something in your imagination."

Then why do they let people play both black and white in tournaments? Then why do most
people (60%-70%) rather play with white? You don't know anythng about chess, you've
probably only played fritz ;)

RE: - "The topic does provide 2 peoples proven deduction of the existence of FTA."

Yes, and relevant to your game, but not to mine. Read my comment in that topic.

RE: - "I don't want to play on your map, and it wouldn't even prove anything either way. "

You don't want to play because you know I'm right and it would break your bubble. It would
prove there is no FTA to speak of. You'll probably still hate the map though.

RE: - "You've abandoned support to your 1/10 rating of this map and now
claim a 6/10 instead, and your rating system has been proven to be invalid. "

No you misread again. I gave it a 6/10 as it is months ago and stand by it. I could
support giving it a 1/10 though. A rating system cannot be invalid, it can only be
unfair. Mine's pretty fair, yours is absurd.

RE: - "That's it it's all concluded, I'm not playing you, THE END. "

The conclusion lies in the "I'm not playing you" part, which proves most of all said above.
jhuni (05/25/2009 06:51am | Edited: 07/25/2012 10:25am):
I haven't logged on in two years, so all of my enemies and trolls are gone so I just re-released this map.
Ian301095 (07/04/2009 06:44am):
u need to improve your own maps before u critisize others
jhuni (02/23/2011 05:27pm):
Now in AWBW you can use a lab in place of your HQ, and the lab doesn't bring in any funds
for either player. This makes the infantry counter much more effective, such that there is
really no reason to use the city counter anymore.

I got rid of the city counter from my maps and replaced them with the infantry counter,
with labs on the smaller maps such as this one and an HQ on the larger maps.
blozzee (12/17/2011 03:21am):
Wow this like reading youtube comments!
jhuni (07/25/2012 10:22am):
Don't bother reading YouTube comments.
Jackie Milton (01/24/2018 02:19pm):
Yikes



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