Contact
Creator: SmackCakes2 || First Published: 06/07/2008 || Players: 2 || Size: 20x20
Categories: B-Rank, Hall of Fame, Heavy Naval, Standard
Rating: 8.56 in 43 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
SmackCakes2 (06/07/2008 01:36am):
Similar to Whirly only with two fronts instead on one, to provide better balance (and none of
the FTA issues). Sea units can pass from the sides into the middle and back via the ports, in
order to support the land battle.

I have positioned the armies so that the fighting will commence in the open areas rather than
the chokes. I don't think chokes will be a problem since any army beaten back that far will
almost certainly be losing on their open side as well. It's also very easy to land units onto the
other side by sea, and even onto the HQ.

Suggested bans are... whomever you feel really. Sturm and his Recons should be okay
here, Kindle and Sasha will probably be quite powerful due to the high funding but shouldn't
cause any issues. Of course the broken 5 should always be banned unless you are playing
with broken COs.




rast2 (06/07/2008 11:46am):
Why does the tiny-2-city-island keep showing up on maps these days? At least give it more
beaches to make it easier to take.

Better yet, convert to a 1-city-island :P
Dragunov14 (06/07/2008 11:54am):
I don't like were those ports are...

but good map 8/10
nerd-boy (06/07/2008 03:01pm):
Well, I don't see both of those ports being used, but unfortunately, we don't have a
0-star terrain that all units (land and all sea, not just landers) can pass with 1 MOV. So
we're stuck w/ double ports.
Dragunov14 (06/07/2008 04:48pm):
Why didn't they make bridges like they are in DOR on AW1-3? >_>
Ducky (06/07/2008 07:27pm):
because bridges like that are dumber.
Tyrael (06/07/2008 08:21pm):
5.67 in 3 ratings? That's just wrong.
Kamuscha (06/08/2008 04:25am):
yeah, i'd give it a higher rating.

there should be some low cost terrain following the double ports so that tanks can simply go
straight down or up instead of going through the bridge for faster support. perhaps another
base on the sides may add another incentive.

SmackCakes2 (07/08/2008 12:47am):
I made some small changes after play testing... I added an extra city in the middle to
encourage fighting. I also moved the com towers into the middle to make them more
contested, and I added a couple more cities here and there so that funds are higher and
building sea units will be more comfortable.
DuelStriker (12/21/2008 01:49pm):
Excellent use of ports Smacky. 9.2/10 rounded to a 9.
Armageddon07 (06/15/2009 02:32pm):
Possibly ghost the ports that are connected to the bridges, this way a cruiser or
battleship does not block off the forces.
Epicurus (08/27/2009 12:07am):
Like this map. Have been enjoying it greatly.
Madd Maxx (08/07/2012 01:13pm):
It's a classic. 9/10 b/c not sure about FTA counter . Shouldnt blue start with a city near Pink's
infantry? I think so. If that's fixed 10/10. Nice!
Madd Maxx (08/09/2012 03:33pm):
Love the name of the map
walkerboh01 (09/13/2021 04:14pm):
This map is in the Hall of Fame as one of the most influential standard competitive maps of its era (approx. 2007 - 2010).
Relyks Gaming (03/14/2023 08:59pm):
7/10 Rating: I think the 2nd player has a slight advantage as far as capturing the base and deploying more infantry, but the
overall map looks great and plays decent. Another problem is that this isn't exactly casual player friendly - if one knows to
capture the side properties quickly, they can get an edge for a good number of turns before their opponent can set up counter
measures. But the ground game felt good enough and the usage of battle ships and subs plays a huge part. Even some black
boats make a difference in victory and loss.



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