Quid Pro Quo
Creator: TurboZ || First Published: 11/10/2007 || Players: 4 || Size: 20x20
Categories: None
Rating: 8.20 in 5 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
TurboZ (11/10/2007 04:25pm):
*From the Maker*:
I wanted to make this map as political as possible, more about the outside the game play
dialog than the actual war campaign. And yeah, i know, APC overload. DONT RATE WITHOUT A
COMMENT!! if you don't like, be sure and mention why. There is no FTA here. the person
you're most likely to attack is across the board, and vice versa. i looking forward to
seeing how this plays out.
BadFurDay (11/10/2007 04:32pm):
What about the fact that there IS some FTA, since reaching the middle to destroy the APCs
and free your bases is a goal, and OS/BM will reach said bases first? ...
TurboZ (11/10/2007 04:38pm):
There will ALWAYS be someone doing SOMETHING first. Show me one map, one single map that
doesn't allow someone FTA, if it's not the first person then it will be the second person,
and how can it be FTA if OS and BM have it? and just getting BACK your bases, is just a
step in the right direction, you haven't really even started.
TurboZ (11/10/2007 04:40pm):
OH! F*ck me, blue moon's bases are not where they are suppose to be.. HQ's and Tanks of BM
and YC are mixed.
BadFurDay (11/10/2007 04:42pm | Edited: 11/10/2007 04:43pm):
One map that has no FTA? Just browse all of the S-Ranked and A-Ranked maps. All of the
maps on my profile have an FTA counter aswell.
FTA countering on predeployed maps is hard, but not impossible.

So it's "just a step". What about the fact that OS can have fun sending one M Tank north,
using its APCs as a meatshield to block the entrance of the pipes for the 2 turns it'll
take GE to destroy them as they power through the APCs on their bases and start producing.

Plus, why does BM have his bases on the opposite side of the map?
EDIT: Nevermind, saw your previous comment
TurboZ (11/10/2007 05:13pm | Edited: 11/10/2007 05:19pm):
UPDATE!!!
This is Completely redone...

I am excited about this. BFD, hit me back with some comments. OK, Likely FAQ answers start
now:

Q: "So and So can EASILY destroy So and So"

A: um, yeah. they can. that's not a mistake.

ok, i think most of you are intelligent enough to see what's going on here, this is not
about superior fighting stances.

BadFurDay (11/10/2007 05:33pm):
Well, that's way better already :)

So I guess this is all about politics, right? Whoever breaks a seam can either kill the
infantry or let it capture the opponent's HQ, I like that idea.
TurboZ (11/10/2007 05:36pm | Edited: 11/10/2007 06:09pm):
Thank you, thank you... BFD, why don't you join the game?
joeywashere (11/10/2007 11:07pm):
so its like makin unofficial teams with som1 that either has a tank in ur hq or a infantry near
ur med tank. i get it and dont really see anythin weird except for the fact that the blue moon
infantry can be demolished by a simple grit yc or ge. it will even out fta unless other teams
allow the apcs to move so the rocket is in full view of the infantry. hmm, it is pretty good
now that i think of it but i just saw red bein able to rocket the GE infantry. good god cuz ur
sayin its politics ur saying anything could happen and it will b ok, for example u can have a
million infantry vs one mech or sumthin and say its politics. i dont really agree because the
advantages go in circles, it depends on who u attack which is "politics" anything goes. and
leads to me sayin advance wars isnt able to handle political games in which each team lies
and backstabs the other. it will b safer never to attack but it will lead u to die when the
others have been conquered. its all a bunch of annoyance i dont think it is gonna b about
brute strength and strategy but the skill of betrayal. i dont wana rate yet cuz i may b thinking
too hard and went over the point of the game. in other words, its a bunch of microscopic
flaws leading to massacre. i declare this map "aids"
TurboZ (11/10/2007 11:24pm | Edited: 11/11/2007 05:04am):
lol. i wouldn't call them flaws though, they're designed that way on purpose!
TurboZ (11/12/2007 03:13pm):
Thank you who ever dropped the ten!
TurboZ (11/12/2007 03:14pm):
OO!!! X2, thank you both!
TurboZ (11/12/2007 03:58pm):
Thanks also to the 1, with no comment.
Nyvelion (08/13/2012 11:41am):
Aha! I will rate a 10!
Mostly to balance the people who do nothing on your maps but complain about FTA.
Salvaging Ancient Maps (02/23/2021 12:08pm):
Fantastic comments almost lost to the sands of time



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