Urban Warfare 3
Creator: Joly || First Published: 10/17/2007 || Players: 5 || Size: 29x29
Categories: None
Rating: 7.60 in 5 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Joly (10/17/2007 05:01pm):
Just to make it perfectly clear before I go on, teams are supposed to be: JS, BD and AB vs
CI and BM.

As in my other two 'Urban Warfare' maps, it is the two central countries playing against
the three surrounding countries.

Compared to my other two UWs, this one has a few more pipes and forests but still keeps
the ridiculous amount of urban structures. =)
DuelStriker (10/17/2007 05:15pm):
Urban Warfare maps are always awesome. 10/10
Shadow Star (10/17/2007 05:34pm):
now, everyone yell out the five, Kindle, javier, and sasha.

Anyways.
I'm not a fan of those airportswith pipes and mountains around them.
some of those chokepoints look pretty tough.
I do feel as though instead of those piped city clumps in the top corners (and to a slightly
lesser extent the areas where there are more then two property in a row) could be spread
out just a little bit.
I'm not a huge fan of all the straight roads, and the roads in the middle look a little funny.

not bad though, the 3 on 2 still works.
9
DuelStriker (12/13/2007 11:26am):
I think the allied 3 have a bit too many bases, it's very hard to play as BM/CI...
omnomnom (10/06/2011 11:45am):
Why did you take away 2 of Jade's cities?Later in the game they have less funds
than anyone and no airport.
Joly (10/06/2011 02:36pm):
I felt that Jade having two cities and a comm tower sealed off in each corner was too much
so I neutralised the comm towers and gave one of the cities to the other allies.
I've given them two more cities back in the middle to help them with funds and given them
an airport too. Thanks for pointing that out.
I've also made the gaps in the pipes on the left and right less choked.
omnomnom (10/06/2011 05:30pm):
No problem, it def. looks more fair now. I know before when I played as jade it was so
easy to quickly make rockets and screw the two opposing teams. This makes it a
challenge.
Joly (10/18/2011 02:10pm):
Hmm. At the moment it still seems that AB and BD still have access to far more properties
and therefore have superior funds to the two in the middle which makes it unfair I think.
When the current game finishes I'll make the 3 cities in the top left and top right CI and
BM respectively just to give the central team a funds boost for the first ten days or so.
Joly (01/17/2012 07:14pm):
All done now. WIll play a couple more tests to see how it goes.
Azzaphox (02/27/2012 08:54pm | Edited: 02/28/2012 10:39am):
I think that the centre powers have a tough time.
Even if balanced in terms of potential income, you still have more fronts to defend on.
maybe need to prune the number of cities the perimeter powers have.
Or perhaps make the protected preowned cities in the corner larger to give the centre
powers more boost at the start and incentivise the sides to attack them?

Maybe drop player 5 and have a 'centre against sides' conflict.. that might help?
Surto (05/16/2020 02:09pm):
I woud like to note that in any map where there are multiple teams of uneven player amounts, the team with more players
will also have an advantage due to having more COs. This means more CO Powers, and also more chances that a bad
matchup will be made. With mixed bases it would be even more effective, as it would emphasize that team's D2D abilities.
Eg one player makes indirects (Grimm) and another spams tanks or copters (Max), and if they are on the same front the
combined arms shines. No matter if they fight on same front or not, the CO Powers are a major factor to consider.

TL;DR: If there is one team with 3 players and one team with 2 players and they both have same amounts of funds, the
team with 3 players has the advantage thanks to having more CO Powers and a generally more diverse abilities and D2Ds.



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