Creator: BladeCruiser || First Published: 06/06/2006 || Players: 3 || Size: 28x28
Create Game
View Games
Planner
Map Analysis
View
Export
View Favorites
| Categories: C-Rank, FFA Multiplay, Standard | ||
|
| For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat! |
| Comments: |
|
LuminescentSword (06/06/2006 12:49pm):
Not a bad map at all. However, two things I'd suggest: 1. Get rid of some of the shoals, as since there is no naval warfare, shoals on every possible tile are not necessary. 2. Perhaps more than one production base at the beginning? Since capturable properties are far away from the starting base, two bases may be a good idea. Otherwise, you've got a good map. |
|
BladeCruiser (06/07/2006 05:04am):
Made a few changes to it. Did as suggested with a second base at the starting areas, and I think it will make games get started a little faster. I also removed some of the shoals, but I did keep some to keep the original plan that I wanted them for. It adds a bit of a dynamic to any fighting that might take place over the properties near the water ways. |
|
GaoGaoStegosaurus (08/08/2006 04:45pm):
I don't understand why OS is the closest to the neutral bases while GE is the farthest even though OS goes first and GE goes last. =_= |
|
jhuni (08/19/2006 05:30pm):
is this based of a SC map? |
|
BladeCruiser (08/22/2006 01:50pm):
Yea, it's based on a StarCraft map of the same name. Lots of the map designs in SC are very good, and carry over fairly well into other strategy games, even turn based ones. As far as base distance from starting point, I never paid much attention to specifics, instead just tried to get it so it was fairly even. |
|
DuelStriker (11/04/2007 07:33am):
This map looks very fun, very enjoyable. It's perfectly balanced, which is rare for 3P FFA maps. 10/10 + Favorited |
|
DuelStriker (11/04/2007 07:38am | Edited: 11/04/2007 08:44am):
Oops, double posted by mistake. |
|
sulla (07/21/2008 02:02am):
This is a great map. |
|
kookysooky (12/08/2008 12:42pm):
bases are too close to OS. |
|
DJ-Moogle (05/17/2009 06:00pm):
GE still gets screwed, and OS wins |
|
ArchaicRene (05/25/2009 04:05pm | Edited: 05/25/2009 04:07pm):
I'm very new to the game. My friend shown me the game last week and I fell in love with it, I appreciate the help. How do I change this map up? I'm new to the site too. :-P |
|
Falconewing (05/25/2009 04:14pm):
OS gets to the bases very easily. |
|
phantomlordozai (05/25/2009 06:39pm):
anyone here |
|
Falconewing (06/18/2009 08:08pm):
FTA REPEADDDDDDD |
|
JoystickHero (01/18/2010 02:29am | Edited: 01/18/2010 02:31am):
Put the top-left base a couple tiles farther south, the FTA is ridiculous right now. Otherwise, I quite like it. Every base being directly attached to the road gives Koal a rather strong advantage, so I'd suggest banning him on this map, but otherwise... |
|
Kruegster (01/25/2011 04:01pm):
BM has 9 spaces between it's base and a nuetral base, and the nuetral base by BM is the furthest away from the other two nuetral bases. As of right now, BM has the advantage. OS and GE are closer together, so if nobody tries to make a treaty, OS and GE will have the most combat. However, as with all 3 player FFA maps that give all 3 players about the same amount of urban structures, the key to winning is to be able to team up with 1 player to take out the other enemies and once one player is defeated be able to beat your former ally. |
|
Dasherman (12/06/2011 01:11am):
There is so much mind-f!@#ing on this map if the scenario Kruegster is put to use. Possibilities: -2 players team up on the other player. Other Player is defeated, and a battle between the 2 who teamed up ensues. -No teaming. All out brawl. -2 players team up on the other player. Other Player was prepared, and holds off the 2 ass-bastard players who are teaming up. Probable stalemate. -2 players team up on the other player, BUT one of the 2 players will BACKSTAB one another..."Rocks fall, EVERYBODY DIES" (Note:I'm speaking from experience on this map. Watch out for backstabbers...) |
|
Nyvelion (09/25/2012 06:00am):
Thank you captain obvious. |
|
Madd Maxx (02/16/2015 07:14pm):
8/10. good job. add airports and i give it 9/10 add sea on the border with ports or maybe make center sea bigger with ports and i give it 10/10 |
|
davincent456 (06/28/2021 04:38pm):
A thoroughly miserable experience if you play as GE. OS and BM have quicker travel times to capture the neutral bases. Can't even contest the southern neutral with a recon because BM can just walk there in three turns. No FTA counter which is lovely. Only gets worse with vehicles. 1 day travel time for vehicles to well defensible chokes as OS and BM. 2 day travel time for GE tanks and arty. 3/10 |
|
Jo_Slamma_Jamma (10/22/2021 09:30am):
Ridiculously stupid map, simply because neutral base for BM is far closer than OS and GE. BM can literally take the neutral base by day 5 with just an infantry walking to it, day 4 if BM is willing to commit an APC to get it really early, whereas both OS and Ge will capture theirs by day 5 ONLY if they commit an APC at the very start. If BM goes the no-APC-start route, they'll have saved enough funds to immediately start sending tanks into GE to deny city captures to their south and to generally harass, until BM can simply overrun GE while easily holding off OS with a few infantry and 1 or 2 artillery, then BM just snowballs from there and wins. If BM goes the early-APC-start route, after sending the infantry to cap the neutral base, they can immediately transport more infantry to grab the cities south of GE. Even if GE responds with an early recon or a tank, it's not a problem for BM, getting the base a turn early means he can immediately reinforce with a guaranteed tank of his own. BM then eventually gains a significant eco advantage by taking properties near GE away from him, and eventually overruns GE again all the while holding off OS with just a few infantry, an artillery or 2, and maybe a single tank, just like with a no-APC-start route. And what makes it worse is that players playing OS tend to gang up on GE when it becomes painfully apparent that GE will be the first to lose, in an attempt to grab as many properties for himself (OS) as possible before GE falls, which exactly plays into BM's favor, as GE will fall faster. Even if GE and OS team up, it is difficult as BM WILL ALWAYS get a significant eco advantage while GE plays with a weak eco. Only time BM loses to a GE/OS alliance is if at least 1 or both are skilled or if the player playing as BM is dumb and does not know how to capitalize his advantage. 2/10, only because it could actually be fun for BM if both OS and GE put up a good fight, otherwise it's a 1/10 as this would be just a boring slow-ass victory for BM. |
|
NobuMaDa (01/23/2023 04:58pm):
10/10 just because is a Starcraft based map. But now serously, its a good map, but has a few flaws, especially that BM has the most starting advantage bc is a day near to its base, while GE is the furthest to its neutrals. Also, a well placed airport or lab would have been a nice touch |
|
kinubo (12/06/2023 12:35pm | Edited: 12/06/2023 01:59pm):
10/10 |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.