Creator: ColdFocus2 || First Published: 06/03/2007 || Players: 14 || Size: 40x40
Create Game
View Games
Planner
Map Analysis
View
Export
View Favorites
| Categories: None | ||
|
| For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat! |
| Comments: |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 09:44am):
Here is how this works. People in the corner have the option to fight each other to death or try to nab one or two things at sea. Since players in the center have a disatvantage of being surrounded, they have the first moves. The map is designed to where the players in the corner/center are at each other's throats. Howwever, once a winner has come out of each corner/center, they will all have the same funds: 36 cities. Those are enough to conduct a massive sea battle. The players stuck in the corners are protected by a moat and given the turns after the center players to compensate for being surrounded as well. However, the deffensive situation could potentially choke them to death if not handled right. This map is designed to be nearly perfectly balanced, which is hard for 14P maps. The abundance of sea dampens the effects of FTA. Give me your thoughts and try it out. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 09:46am):
This can also be played as a five team map. The center team has only two and has FTA because of the same reasons as the free-for-all. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 03:01pm):
Does anyone think I need reefs and where? |
|
Falcapone (06/03/2007 03:22pm):
A couple dozen random reefs here and there... and try to change some of those ports and bases into cities.. honestly, that many ports and bases probably might not be used at all. And add some forest to each island :P (everyone loves forests xD) |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 03:42pm):
i planned on leaving that many ports for repairs and a way to hide a repairing sub from a nosy cruiser. It is good to be able to recycle your expensive sea units in such a big game. But I will add forests/reefs for FOW fun. Thanks. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 03:56pm):
it won't show the changes, but they are cool. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 03:59pm):
there they are! there are woods on the edges of the corner moats to hide inderect units for defense. Also, I added four wood islands that are within range of the airports. This will allow the hiding of Missiles safely to cover any new air units and will help make this a more sea centered game. I need comments. GIVE ME comments. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 03:59pm):
i also put a woods by every HQ except the center for crafty infantry moves. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 04:10pm):
the excess of ports also allows landings to be WAY easier. It will take five instead of one infantry to block an invasion. The factories give the option of flooding the nuetral ports with infantry. PLEASE ADD YOUR THOUGHTS AND DESIRED CHANGES. I REALLY LIKE THIS MAP AND I WANT IT TO BE BETTER. |
|
Falcapone (06/03/2007 04:18pm | Edited: 06/03/2007 04:22pm):
Put a few mountains around the edges of the HQ islands, that way, if you are playing FoW, you can put an infantry there and see if a battleship is bombarding ya :D and maybe a shoal infront of the OS and BM HQ, no where else i guess :P Edit2: lol what are the odds.. I join in as random and it gives me Sturm xD |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/03/2007 06:10pm):
i want to force people to use recons/subs to do that job. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/04/2007 02:21pm):
any more comments? i don't see anything wrong so you can start rating it now. Remember that FTA is counterable on a sea map very easily. Tell me what you think. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/04/2007 07:29pm):
remember that FTA lets the center and especially the corner players to grab the airports first without being bothered. This helps to compensate for their bad positions. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/05/2007 12:18am):
ARG! I found a disatvantage. Purple lightning is not within Black Boat landing range of the airport like the other nations on the edges of the corners. That will be fixed once all the games played on this map are finished. Well, i guess it is not so bad considering that FTA keeps it from claiming it from competitors anyway. However, there are many ways to do this map and will be a very exciting naval battle. Maybe the best one made without pre-deployed units. |
|
black-kaito (06/05/2007 08:14am):
Maybe 1500 per turn will make this map work better. I'll say about other things after some games if I found any problems. For first site, this map seems good. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/05/2007 08:28am):
sounds good. Especially for the corner players. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/05/2007 08:59am):
oops. that Orange Star port north of the HQ is supposed to be a factory. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/05/2007 09:00am):
and the factory to the right of the HQ is supposed to be a port. i guess i switched them by accident. |
|
The Dragonlord (06/06/2007 06:45am):
I like this map. its a good option for a team game. only all those ports aren't doing the map any good. its now not impotant to lose or capture 1 because you already have many of them. 8/10 |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/06/2007 09:16am):
to capture an enemy one means you can repair and produce new units right in front of them. that can be a big advantage. same thing goes for losing them. here is a good example. if you had an income of 14000 for instance, (you can do this in the corner by attaining all 3 nuetral ports) a.) produce a lander and two infantry to make a landing in 3 days. b.) spend nothing the first day and then build a battleship right by their factories! It would repair a lot and have three stars of defense. It is not HOW many ports there are, but WHERE they are that counts. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/06/2007 09:56am):
if you rate me low please leave a message saying why. I dont see why i currently have a 4.67, this map is really cool. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/06/2007 02:49pm):
another reason there are so many ports is because it keeps someone from blocking you from new ships very easily. Also, it gives the player a port that is closer to some area than areas. Then why not have only ports on the edges? Some players might want to build a lander just barely within range of an island so he can adapt iff he decides to go somewhere else if he wants to. |
|
Rasczak (06/06/2007 06:01pm):
The middle part of the map is off center...other than that, I like it. Though Drake will have an overwhelming edge on other COs. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/06/2007 07:02pm):
Yeah. A couple of COs will propbably be drake. People will need to capture more ports, have black boat escorts, and use the reefs to their advantage in FOW (when drake uses his SCOP). Also, i can shift the middle island to the left one space to solve the balance issue. (after the games are finished) More comments? |
|
jhuni (06/07/2007 04:58pm):
It is unclear what teams are going to be used in this map. Is this map ment to be played in FFA? I cannot make a fair rating until I know what the teams are ment to be in this map. |
|
twinblade (06/07/2007 10:01pm):
If played FFA, or any type that has OS and BM fighting, OS has a pretty big FTA advantage. otherwise, looks ok. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/08/2007 11:33am):
Jhuni, rate it first and foremost a FFA map. (teams are each group of three nations in a corner and the two in the center together. (OS,BM) (GE,GS,PC) (YC,CI,BD) (BH,AB,TG) (RF,JS,PL)). I prefer the FFA also because the center has it bad in the 5P game. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/08/2007 11:45am):
Twinblade, it is FFA. The FTA is dampened by 1.) BM can build artillery or whatever is needed in defense very easily [example: OS builds sub, BM builds cruiser] 2.) An ocean seperates them 3.)FTA is mostly a problem when there are nuetral territories in dispute and should therefore have little effect on the game 4.) The game was designed so that OS and BM can choose to fight each other or to go and grab islands, they do not need to be in a death match and it might even be disatvantageous for them to do so. However, if you have suggestions to help a little with FTA, I am willing to listen. (Even though I don't believe it is a big problem, I took FTA into big consideration while designing and made the map have many options.) |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/08/2007 11:49am):
The map can be played with teams divided as the creator chooses. I am disliking the 5P idea for the center players at the moment, so I am looking for other good team ideas. However, focus on commenting on FFA. |
|
Kiseki (06/08/2007 03:20pm):
The forests need to spread to make more of a challenge. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/08/2007 09:38pm):
This is supposed to be more of a sea map than anything else. |
|
jhuni (06/08/2007 11:08pm):
|¯¯ ¯|¯ |¯¯| |__ | |__| | | | | Anyways thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't aware of your intentions. Are you aware of the concept of as asymmetrics, applied in advance wars maps. In most basic terms, the more asymmetricly designed a map is after a very minor point the greater its balance problems. In this map in the centralized players are in reality the only major territory to fight over, so all 4 teams will have a concentrated attack on the center because it is the main point and BM/OS are surrounded. For this reason quite simply, any form of teams in this map is going to result in major imbalances. Response: 1: BM can build artillery or whatever is needed in defense very easily. The argument of easier defensiveness is the most common one against FTA. To put it simply that argument is of no merit. Given that OS builds nothing OS will have a extra turn of funds and he will have whatever advantage that BM is considered to have. So OS thusly will have a major economic advantage no matter what the case is in terms of defensiveness. 2: An ocean seperates them That is actually a very small seperation, so I wouldn't refer to it as an ocean. 3: is mostly a problem when there are nuetral territories in dispute. Wrong. It is much more of a problem when 'nuetral territories' are in dispute; however, it is still a major problem in other cases like this map. Suggestions:? Remove OS & BM. Add more neatrul properties. Diversify the map, right now it is way too linear, each of those 5 bases are all stacked together. There is so many bland clumps spread around the map, at least add some pre-used-missile-silos. 6/10, sorry. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/09/2007 10:13am):
Thanks, i will try to put some unused silos in. here are my thoughts about the comments. 1.)Cheaper units can be made to combat more expensive units (thus making the ecconomic advantage weaker) 2.) When I say that "an ocean seperates them", I mean that OS will have to spend funds on a lander in order to get anything across, which will weaken the types of units OS can land on BM in the first turn (which will then bring #1 into effect like a mech v. tank on mech's turf) 3.) FTA is reduced by #1 and #2 but is also dampened by the other properties (which i think i will increase) Conclusion: I want to find a way to keep OS and BM because it makes the game more complex then racing to beat the enemy to properties (whcih increases FTA). I think if I add two nuetral ports and some silos around the edges of the field (or maybe give OS and BM defensive features) (or seperate BM and OS with a pipe or something), it will make OS and BM more usable) Please respond. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/09/2007 10:21am):
When I say FTA is reduced by properties, I mean that OS and BM can win if they are smart enough not to fight each other and maybe even team up (via brodcast). They can go different routes in order to get what they want. After either BM and OS get what they want and start fighting each other, the FTA will be not as important because they will have bult up armies. The center can be a potentially powerful position in the right hands. Because of the attention I am trying to place on the edges, I would like comments there also. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/09/2007 10:22am):
Think of it more of in terms of how the center can fight the corners. (I am aware of Assymetrics, just to clear that up. However, I want to tempt OS and BM away from each other while the corners fight amongst themselves.) |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/09/2007 10:30am):
I picture a sea full of cruisers and subs as well as a few battleships. There are not enough sea maps where people use sea units head to head. People like to use landers and black boats to do all the dirty work. Therefore, I need comments on how to help that element of the map progress. I don't want this to be a lander-a-thon. |
|
jhuni (06/10/2007 05:23am):
ColdFocus2 (06/09/2007 06:13am): 1): I don't see how this comment is of any value =/ the econmic advantage in itself is basically forcing your opponent to fight expensive units with cheap. (it is a major advantage and their is little you can do in terms of counters). 2): I know what you ment. OS still has an advantage to the same extent because it effects both players so the oceans nonconsequential. The severity of his play may be reduced however. 3): Read my responses... RE: conclusion You need to apply some sort of symmetry, and if your going to have a complex asymmetric map you will need to calculate distances to balance the asymmetricness. And in reality their is only a very minor extent that this can work effectively. If you need for OS and BM to stay in such a way in the center FFA is absolutely out of the question and it is just a question of balancing teams. [OS + North Force] VS [BM + South Force]. In that case balance the battle between OS and BM and seperate them because FTA makes the balance in that case much worse. Other then that you can balance OS+BM vs everyone; however, it is impratical for you to try and effectively balance FFA in a 14 player map like this one. And if you really care about FFA you can at least put a little bit of FTA balance. This map has absolutely no FTA balance at all. Just to make that clear. |
|
jhuni (06/10/2007 05:33am):
Suggestions:??(2) 1): Put two more sea tiles in between OS and BM and spread 4 or so reefs around them. 2): Less ports and a lot more cities. Replace three OS & BM ports with cities. 3): BM's starting funds per turn is 18,000 so make OS's three ports neutral. 4): Take off a few ports for players other then BM and OS and replace them with cities. Add a few more cities. 5): Follow my previous suggestions for the terrain variety. There, OS & BM play will be balanced... As of now: not enough cities, not good balance or terrain variety in land areas. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/10/2007 08:01am):
Thank you, that was what I was looking for. |
|
ColdFocus2 (06/10/2007 08:03am):
I will have to wait for all the games to finish before it is editable. |
|
DuelStriker (08/03/2007 08:10pm):
O__________________O Um, that's alot of ports!!!! |
|
FunkyChunk (08/04/2007 01:44am):
Koal's D2D power would be like, soooo cheap on this map. |
|
disaresta8 (08/04/2007 02:34am):
Airports > Corner Players |
|
ColdFocus2 (08/05/2007 01:47pm):
Funcky chunk, do you mean kindle? |
|
SunsetGunman (09/10/2007 12:21am):
I think it's good you put in the effort to make this map 10/10 make more! |
|
DuelStriker (03/12/2008 11:22am):
I agree with FunkyChunk, Koal = way overpowered on this map. But it's expected, since he's broken. |
|
lewea (04/06/2008 08:22pm | Edited: 04/09/2008 10:48pm):
Their is somthing I just dont like about this map. Its just a felling |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.