Island Invasion
Creator: ChurKirby || First Published: 03/14/2008 || Players: 2 || Size: 24x28
Categories: C-Rank, Heavy Naval, Standard
Rating: 9.25 in 4 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
funwes (03/14/2008 08:42pm):
Yeah, there's FTA for sure here. I'm not sure what a good counter would be though.
nerd-boy (03/15/2008 06:07pm):
I recommend toning down the starting properties by a lot.

It'll greatly reduce the FTA inherent in high starting funds maps, as well as allow you to
easily place an FTA counter.
ChurKirby (03/16/2008 08:03am | Edited: 03/16/2008 08:29am):
This any better? I've taken away a couple of the starting Islands properties, (including
the airports) reduced each armies starting properties by 4, reduced the amount of airports
on the starting islands by one, and moved the TG infantry so it can begin to capture the
island's airport on day 2.

funwes (03/25/2008 05:44pm):
Ignore that guy^
ChurKirby (04/04/2008 06:26am | Edited: 05/17/2008 06:54am):
After playtesting this map, I have discovered some issues: A rocket can be easily placed
to prevent a foot soldier capturing the airport islands. and a missile can prevent air
units from being deployed. Also, the ports aren't used at all. I'll fix those issues after
the playtest finishes.

Edit:
FIXED
IchigoKurosaki (04/20/2008 03:02pm):
sorry, there's just not enough going on in the corners, unused space I would rather have
airports on corner isands though
blozzee (12/22/2011 10:28am):
that natural base could be easily disrupted by racon. I would prefer adding seaport in
this map
ChurKirby (11/30/2012 01:27pm | Edited: 12/01/2012 09:46pm):
It seems pointless editing a map I made over 4 years ago now, but I've gone and done just that,
and added some ports where there were once cities. I have no idea if this will affect any games
(which may or may not be) played on this map.
Daehphone (12/08/2012 01:32pm):
Wow this looks pretty good, next time you edit a 4 year old try making a post in the forum so its
more noticeable.
Headphone (12/08/2012 01:34pm | Edited: 12/08/2012 01:59pm):
Had a nice chat about this map.
[09:40] Walker> gonna have some FTA issues withe bases is my prediction
[09:40] Walker> with the*
[09:40] Daehphone> and this map looks like games will be long and drawn out
[09:40] Walker> too many mountains, not enough support routes, HQ's in the bac
[09:40] Walker> back*
[09:41] Walker> looks pretty but needs to be opened up
[09:41] Daehphone> it has lander support routes
[09:41] Daehphone> thats what I want to test
[09:41] Walker> and how often are those actually used haha
[09:41] Walker> i'd still leave it in A-Rank personally
[09:41] Daehphone> to see if the 2 vehicle deficite is worth it
[09:41] Walker> it's not
[09:42] Walker> there's not enough funds
[09:42] Daehphone> I think removing the neutral base
[09:42] Daehphone> would greatly improve this map
[09:42] Walker> yes, i agree
[09:42] Daehphone> making it a com or even a city
[09:42] Walker> along with opening up the center and adding more shoal routes
[09:43] Daehphone> I think it would befine with out the shoal routes if there was a pre
deployed lander
[09:43] Walker> yes that would work too
[09:44] Walker> do a remake version
[09:44] Walker> the map has lots of potential
[09:44] Daehphone> Okay should I write up something or copy paste this chat in a comment
ChurKirby (12/10/2012 12:20pm | Edited: 12/10/2012 12:33pm):
Thanks for some fresh feedback; can't honestly say I expected any. I see that the map's also
been categorised as A-Rank now which is always good.

I'm actually play-testing the map currently since editing it, but I'll take on board some of those
comments and might make some more changes, pre-deployed landers is a great suggestion,
though shoal routes can't hurt too since that's pretty much the map-defining feature. From the
two games I've played, the match inevitably becomes a central wall of death until broken by
indirect fire or mass damage at this point, so expanding the outside routes might be an
improvement. All of that aside, are the natural bases a genuine issue? I imagine combat would
be stunted if they weren't there. It might discourage amassing units at the centre, not
necessarily a bad thing... might also speed up games, although this isn't intended to be a map for
quick games.
Headphone (12/10/2012 05:47pm):
Removing or moving back the neutral base helps stalemates because short supply lines is
one of the causes of stalemates.
Some other things to look for in general to prevent stalemates is few attack
routes/fronts, no real contested properties, and/or not enough space to allow directs to
break indirect lines.
ChurKirby (01/13/2013 01:27pm | Edited: 01/13/2013 01:39pm):
Finally decided to make some minor (or major...?) changes to the map. Changed the neutral
bases to cities as suggested, and moved the neutral ports to the small islands, which I also removed the shoals from. The
most important change though, is the inclusion of pre-deployed landers; the
biggest failing of this map which I've experienced is that the seaports simply don't get used, but
the addition of an extra city and less reliance of bases should hopefully encourage naval use. As
always, feedback or opinions would be appreciated.

I had a remake version of this map in the works, but haven't decided whether to publish it...



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