help i'm a rock v4
Creator: wilkyb3 || First Published: 08/05/2025 || Players: 2 || Size: 23x23
Categories: C-Rank, Fog of War, Gimmick
Rating: 1.00 in 2 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
wilkyb3 (08/06/2025 02:00pm | Edited: 08/13/2025 09:20pm):

Recommended settings:
https://awbw.amarriner.com/create.php?prefs_id=21445

Labs enable the production of recons.
Black bombs are banned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsEnCu4PEzo
Spritemare (09/19/2025 12:44pm):
Red needs the city to be preowned or blue just runs them over. P2's advantage is quite ridiculous here due to what appears to be an oversight regarding the preowned city not being preowned for red.
wilkyb3 (09/19/2025 06:33pm | Edited: 09/19/2025 06:36pm):

@Spritemare I think you can find the answer in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGgIGJS58RA
Relyks Gaming (09/21/2025 11:37pm):
I agree with Spritemare: I honestly didn't even know the city was pre-owned (that's on me yes...).
But the fact that it is 3 turns away from being captured, doesn't allow for P1 to play the way they want/need too. Even in your
video, that is VERY circumstantial that P1 can survive recon attacks early, especially since they'll be down in funds compared
to P2.
wilkyb3 (09/22/2025 04:09pm | Edited: 09/22/2025 07:58pm):

Some of the build orders on this map are very calculated. If you make mistakes before turn 5-6ish then you will
put yourself at a very big disadvantage. The funds advantage evens out, and the pre-owned city for P2 is necessary to enable
a number of their build orders.

In the replays you guys both played recently I think I see where the mistakes happen. If you guys would like then you can
message me and we can run it down.
wilkyb3 (10/06/2025 07:16pm | Edited: 10/07/2025 02:44pm):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi6-iA9VgoA
Spritemare (12/30/2025 02:30am | Edited: 12/30/2025 11:23am):
I'm returning to this after learning that apparently my previous comment caused a bit of a stir. In the spirit of fairness, I watched
both linked videos to get a fair sense of the map. In fact, I went beyond and watched all videos featuring this map on the
channel, and a few dozen test games, because I wanted to give a fair shake to the proposed replay standard of proof.

Unfortunately, this map still does not hold up. Even under Wilky's proposed line, Red gets their base denied while Blue does
not and has to deal with an additional property owned by Blue. This occurs to some extent in every single featured video
where P2 thought to open with a recon. Player 1 does not have any options to deal with this. The best they can hope for is
building recons with their depleted funds in a desperate attempt to crash recons into each other and get the base that P2 gets
for free.

I get the idea of placing additional emphasis on rushing units and quite enjoy when it is done well (see: Monty, Hear Me Out)
but this attempt falls short. There is legitimately no counter to constant recons coming in to hit a base of Blue's choice. Even if
Red were able to eventually wrestle the base cap somehow, that's however many turns of Blue happily gobbling every
property that derives from their unaccosted bases. P1 is forced to defend with less money and pray that they can only be 5-6
turns behind after losing the coin flip. Meanwhile, P2 has a choice to aggro or greed, but they functionally get to greed while
they aggro. P1 cannot aggro (neither the funds nor timing are present) and cannot greed, as they will be unable to capture
their base if P2 sees the proper line. However, P1 needs to spend the same money as an aggro attempt anyways in an
attempt to crash recons to get the base equivalent to the one P2 gets for free.

Regarding the replays, just because not every P2 player noticed the forced win line does not mean that this map is remotely
playable. In fact, even if P2 completely misses the line, they are gifted with a completely free extra city at the start to do with as
they please. Sasha is T1 because her day to day gives 10% extra funds. P2 gets 50% extra funds on top of whatever CO they
pick at the start, and capturing the preowned property is not a given when there are two (contested) bases to capture. FTA
counter cities are typically the first property captured for good reason: the earliest P1 could capture this contested city is day 5,
assuming that both initial infantry go towards the bases and no recon harassment from P2. This early income allows P2 to
make builds that P1 simply cannot, and can trap P1 in a death spiral of trying to deal with recons. Even if P1 flips the lab to
disable recons, it’s an early sacrifice that is easily undone by a mirror action by P2, and P1 will simply not have enough
infantry and vehicles simultaneously to have the ability to combat P2.

I cannot speak to Wilky's experience with the Map Committee or playerbase regarding any harassment. I sincerely hope that
Wilky is not subject to any harassment, and disavow anybody participating in such. However, saying that this map and others
designed with similar fundamental issues is harassment would be inaccurate.

My impression after playing this map, watching replays, theorycrafting this map, viewing most of Wilke's video catalog is not
that the Map Committee is attempting to silence him for having new ideas: rather, that the maps put forward, while bold and
the product of clear passion and an admirable amount of hard work, contain fundamental issues that make them unfit for
competitive play as they currently exist. Again, I want to stress: there is potential here. This map could be very fun and unique,
but feedback needs to be incorporated instead of ignored, and the FTA counter desperately needs to be fixed. I would love to
see an overhauled version of this map and what it could play like, but in this current iteration P2 is given a forcibly winning
position from the start, with the only question being whether or not they can see it.


wilkyb3 (12/30/2025 01:33pm):
harassment is a strong word, I've not been harassed by anybody

if you want to talk more about the map then you can join my discord:
https://discord.gg/8ARVAhhV
wilkyb3 (12/30/2025 04:57pm):
Also, if you are claiming that my map is unplayable then will you please produce a replay to demonstrate what you mean? The
discussion here has hardly begun if we're not even willing to trade replays to prove our point
Spritemare (12/30/2025 09:22pm | Edited: 12/30/2025 09:52pm):
https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573440

The only way to not get your base locked like this is to do a completely blind 50/50 for P1 to guess which base will be rushed. If you don't send your infantry to the correct base first, this happens. Furthermore, P1 needs to blind recon build immediately, or they will have the base killed without landing a shot on the aggressive recons. This build is with perfect P1 economy to try to keep up with the recon rush, and you're barely playing a game if you do succeed in your blind 50/50, as the FTA counter still heavily favors P2. In other words, P2 needs to win a coin toss and play optimally to be able to play the game, and even then is at a disadvantage.

This is a forced line, and the last 2 recons are actually unnecessary. P2 could build an infantry for economy and then immediately rush a tank towards the locked base, or do any number of options. P1 does not have options: their economy is worse and they are down a base off the start.

I will concede that the base does not technically get denied by a base firepower CO (though it will if the CO has any sort of firepower bonus). However, getting immediately baselocked because you blindly guessed wrong on pure chance with your first infantry is a fatal flaw for a map to have, and would need immediate correction.

Making maps this sharp with asymmetrical FTA counters incurs a significant amount of risk for the balancing, and the low income before fighting removes options from players. I believe the conventional wisdom of delaying fighting until both players have the chance to get a basic level of income (which in turn gives both players more options about how to fight each other instead of being forced to open very specific sequences) is popular for good reason.

To be quite frank, it has been a bit exhausting trying to run through these concepts ad nauseum, and I'd like this to stand as my last word on the matter. I know you have distaste for the popular maps on the site, but I think they have a lot of valuable information, experience, and ideas derived from the prolific work of a large number of mapmakers. Furthermore, I do not think that these qualities disappear because the Map Committee, comprised of unpaid volunteers out of a passion to make the game better, gave a map their endorsement. The "AWBW as traditional TBS" strategy has some merit, and I am improving my rating towards the map as such, but there is a lot of work to be done, and I think incorporating constructive feedback is crucial to doing so.

I wish you all the best, and hope you continue to find enjoyment through AWBW and mapmaking.
wilkyb3 (12/31/2025 01:53pm):
In this replay you've produced:
https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573440
-P1's first defensive recon lands on a plains instead of the city when first attacking the p2 rushing recon, meaning that the
follow-up p2 recon is dealing more damage to p1's initial defensive recon than it should
-If p1 doesn't land their recon on the city while attacking the initial p2 rushing recon then that means p2 will have another path
to attack your base capture with their follow-up recon upon the north
-P1 merges their infantry with their base capture, which isn't necessary if you defend the intial recon rush from the city
instead of the plains

Here's a replay to demonstrate a better outcome for P1, with Koal mirror:
https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573808&ndx=0

People in this community will say negative things about a map but then won't back up what they say with replays. And now
that you've finally produced a single replay to back up what you've said, then you tell me you're too exhausted to continue?
Are you joking me?

You say things like dice-roll situations, but I highly doubt you are even willing to back these claims with replays, let alone
actually putting in the work to produce them. Can you tell me what happens in the opposite situation of the replay you've
produced? What happens instead if p2 sends their rushing recon towards p1's strong-side capture, instead of weak-side?

You are lazy AND you're dragging my reputation through the mud, and then this replay you've produced for me to examine is
so dog-shit it makes me wonder what your 1500 rating even means to this website?
wilkyb3 (12/31/2025 05:00pm | Edited: 12/31/2025 06:09pm):
Here are even more replays to disprove your claim that this map is broken (in response to the replay you've provided):
https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573808&ndx=0
- this is the standard p1 defense vs p2 recon spam, with p1 having lucky rolls (originally linked in the comment above)

https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573953&ndx=0
- this is the same replay, with p1 having unlucky rolls

https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573951&ndx=0
- here is an alternate defense from p1, choking out p2's recon production by stealing their lab

https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573936&ndx=0
- here is another alternate defense, the lab steal happens a bit later

You made a claim that my map is broken, I asked you for a replay, you provided a replay, and now these replays I've produced
to counter your original claim will be ignored because that is standard protocol on this website, and with the map committee.
And then you'll tell me that you're "exhausted" after producing a single 7-day replay... You are exhausted because you can't
admit that you are wrong, and in the meantime you've made huge claims without backing them up! Stop doing that!

prove me wrong!!! PLEASE produce a replay that breaks my map, PLEASE!!

I've asked you before to talk about this in my Discord, I wish you would respect that, because these discussions always end
up making me look bad to the public even though I'm the one providing a more thorough analysis. And that's because it's
much easier to point to the bible of map-making and changing nothing than going through this process like we're doing now!
The ball is in your court

https://discord.gg/8ARVAhhV
Spritemare (12/31/2025 06:03pm | Edited: 12/31/2025 06:12pm):
In your own initial Koal mirror replay, P2 is in a dead won position by turn 8, having doubled both P1's unit count and army value. Here's another replay, labbed for optimal P1 defense by a top fog player. https://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=1573568. Sure, base not denied. Game is clearly lost for P1 via optimal play, through no fault of P1. You are simply not knowledgeable enough to properly evaluate these positions.

I don't have much interest in producing 5,000+ replays to a complete army rout or HQ cap, particularly not when you have both the time and desire to produce endless replays of substandard hotseat play where blunders or blind luck let P1 live as "proof otherwise." I came, I backed up my claims with replays, and you can't handle your pride and joy maybe needing a tweak or two, so you perpetually demand even more replays and lash out with insults without seeing basic tactics. If I were to lab a forced HQ capture line, you'd ask for more replays to avoid facing the truth: despite the effort you've put into it, this map needs more work.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and read/view all your arguments for this map (including well over an hour of rambling YouTube videos), but that was clearly an error. This is likely to be the most effort another person ever puts into understanding your maps besides you. I'm not going to go write a doctoral dissertation on why this map is bad, I've wasted enough of my time out of a naive hope that there could be some unique and interesting mapmaking insights to be found. Go make another handful of videos about how Big Map Committee is silencing you for being a genius. You're using the abstract idea of a Map Committee vendetta to distract from the truth: people generally don't like playing on your maps.

I don't really care what happens on the dice roll going the other way. We'll assume it turns into a playable game. I'll even play along and assume it slightly favors P1. I fundamentally disagree with a map that's designed around a blind coin flip immediately deciding whether there is a game to play or not. If I wanted that, I'd play Rock/Paper/Scissors by Web.

Man, I tried to be nice, but you clearly only understand communication in terms of aggression and insults. If you want to be treated with respect, take some criticism without lashing out. You respond to any input beyond blind praise by slinging insults, so no wonder people dish it back. I'm against unnecessary harshness to others, but I also consider turnabout to be fair play. This outcome, right here, is the result of somebody knowing nothing of your reputation and trying to give an honest and respectful shake to your ideas. You dragged your own reputation through the mud. You can't burn every bridge you see and be upset when you have nowhere to go.

Let's talk standards of proof. I produced replays. I'm of the opinion that the best way to demonstrate knowledge of a gamemode would be through ELO. While imperfect, that number means a lot more than "trust me bro, here's a replay where I messed up that proves you wrong." You make a lot of really big claims about your knowledge of AWBW fog. If you can prove your knowledge has merit by climbing into the top 10 of Fog of War or achieve 1500 overall ELO, I will delete every comment I have made on this map and give it a 10/10. I know you don't want to play Map Committee maps, but I didn't want to watch your rambling on YouTube or repetitive hotseat replays and I pushed through out of a desire to give your ideas a fair shake. I'd consider it quite lazy if you couldn't be bothered to meet my (much more widely-accepted) standard of proof to show that you know fog at least close to as well as I or others you dismiss do.

This should be no challenge for the Fog genius you've billed yourself as both publicly and privately, and doubly so if 1500 is so meaningless. This may seem to be a high standard, but if you want constantly to make big claims and incessantly denigrate everybody else as having no idea what they're doing in both personal and public communications, I think it only fair that you be asked to back it up. I'm sure somebody who thinks that Fog of War contains no meaningful decision making tradeoffs between economy and aggression (unless made on their map of course, where a Day 2 recon can kill a base) can make it to that level easily. Until you can back up your talk and insults, I'm done talking to living proof of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

I am restoring my original rating on this map, and will not waste my time by discussing this further until you meet my standard of proof to consider your ideas meritful: 1500 overall ELO or top 10 in Fog. This is the standard to change my mind. Otherwise, prove it to other people. I gave it a fair shot, and I say I don't like it. What more can you ask for beyond a fair shot?

Have a Happy New Year. I'll be leaving you and your maps in 2025. I've got better things to do.
wilkyb3 (12/31/2025 06:53pm):
show me the money, produce the replay that you claim breaks my map
指挥官 (01/04/2026 04:20pm):
This map is really fun. Unlike traditional maps, it features an extremely fast pace with
tactical plays kicking off right from the first turn. Seizing the lab to restrict the enemy’s
recon units (RCs) is also a fun strategic option.

However, you need to play a fair number of matches to figure out how to act—whether to
counter the opponent or create advantages for yourself.

As a result, players who don’t understand the map well can get completely overwhelmed
and lose the ability to resist within just a few turns. That’s why it’s a fast-paced map.

But this is also its strength. After all, it never leads to the awkward stalemate where one
side is stuck on the defensive and the other can’t break through.



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