Stratego Game
Creator: benbever || First Published: 10/18/2005 || Players: 2 || Size: 10x10
Categories: None
Rating: 4.36 in 22 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Dullahan (10/18/2005 06:08pm):
Heh Stratego... fun game...
Somehow, I've always liked Risk better though...

Seriously though, Grt's really going to dominate here followed by Kanbei. Still, nice idea.
benbever (10/18/2005 06:32pm | Edited: 01/21/2007 09:57pm):
Don't forget to set FOW on when starting a game.
(it will not be very stratego-ish or fun otherwise.)

Play as Sensei both, or Kanbei both.. ban Grit ;)
Works best with the same CO's I think. Andy is great here.

I don't like throwing dice in Risk, I like chess better, and Advance Wars ^_^
armorforSLEEP (11/07/2005 07:47pm):
u dont like throwing dice?....risk is the best board game ever..atleast in my opinoin
benbever (11/09/2005 04:34pm):
I don't like the dice throwing system for fighting in Risk. But Risk is a nice game. Although I
like other boardgames better. (Colonist of Catan for instance, and I can name a lot more, all
latest generation board games.)
AzureDrag0n1 (11/19/2005 07:56pm):
This is actually pretty good if you play with FOW.

Dr. Disco (08/21/2006 05:11pm):
It's nice how in Advance wars the random attack power element is kept very low(except
with some co's). But Risk isn't bad, but I prefer this game much more.
Shadow Star (11/29/2006 09:52pm):
i loved that game.
lloks like actually an andy game, the more you lose your odds go down, but you can
rejuvinate what you have.
i think the important part is that both people play as the same CO.
jhuni (12/29/2006 03:14pm | Edited: 01/20/2007 03:47pm):
Ok it is now clear that you need a more detailed explanation on this map. You could've just
asked that first... And seriously your comments concerning randomness are idiotic.

Wood heavyness: the several woods in the map distort FOW playability. And they
greatly reduce all forms of conveyance. (minor issue)

Centralized chokepoints along with a lack of wide openness. It's going to be even harder
to move the center with those chokepoints.

Unit count in conjunct with the map's size: first of all it's going to be really boring for
someone to move so many units on such a small map. The whole map is nearly always
going to be covered with units clumping up everything with units, who wants to
play a map that is not only imbalanced but requires you to move 40 units per turn?

Terrain variety: the map uses a very limited amount of terrain.
The only terrain used in the map are: sea, shoals, woods, plains, and 2 HQ's.
The entire map is split into practicly 2 different forms of terrain: woods, and plains.
You should add reefs and even cities to add more strategy and increase the terrain variety.

FTA: The maps extremely imbalanced regardless of the given settings.
You've said it yourself: "AW:BW isn't chess," any symmetrical map is imbalanced.
FTA exists in every symmetrical map, and there are several topic's and links explaining
the conceptual existence of FTA. The theorys and postulates state that in none-pre-deploy
maps you get a massive fundemental advantage, and in pre-deployed maps you get
a turn ahead to get the first strike, and formate your units advantagously.

Ya the maps awful pretty much entirely because of FTA but I thought I'd mention the
other things, there very minor. Stop spaming my map with your idiotic, uncorrobborated
comments now please?? I know nobody's going to believe them anyways though.

3/10, mostly because of FTA.
benbever (01/21/2007 09:54pm):
The woods are there to give it a Stratego 'hiding' feel. Maybe I should not have added the
non-grid woods, but I made it look like a real Stratego board.

The Central chokepoints are an issue, but minor, since they are pretty wide. Again the
Stratego board has these 2x2 lakes so it can't be fixed :)

Moving 40 units on day 1 can be tedious. It takes some effort but there's imediate
strategy involved, loading infantry into APC's creating space etc. Oh the map isn't
inbalanced, what gave you that idea?

I tried to add as many terrain variety as possible. Reefs can't be added, they would
border landtiles making them ugly 'impossible reefs.' Cities of course can't be added,
it's a game of moving units. The only non-moving unit is the HQ or flag. You can't
position/hide it from the beginning, that's a big difference with Stratego, but it's
placed safely in the back.

The map isn't imbalanced, nor is FTA an issue. I've set up a game you can join to convince
yourself :)

hmm you rated a 3/10 solely for the map having not enough terrain variety, or to much
woods, even though you claim that's minor? Seems pretty harsh.
adder 85 (08/30/2007 01:27pm | Edited: 08/30/2007 01:28pm):
The B copter is the flag? Where are the (black) bombs?..still...10/10, because stratego is a
great
game.
rast2 (11/29/2007 01:30pm | Edited: 11/29/2007 01:31pm):
If you want it to have a stratego "feel", it should be more open (make the lakes into rivers so
they can be crossed, or something). If you want it to LOOK like a stratego board, get rid of
most of the forests. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Stratego_Board.jpg

I played it and found the woods to be kinda non fun.
6/10 because the original is a classic.
benbever (12/25/2007 02:13am):
The HQ is the flag. Yeah it doesn't make much sense, but it's the only thing you can't move.

The lakes are a no-go area, just like in stratego (except for the bcopters.)
Most stratego boards have forests printed on them, even the picture you posted :)
The woods are needed, otherwise the map would be unplayable, OS would destroy BM before it
could move. I found them to be fun, and provide for a non-conventional sort of advance wars.

BearTrap (10/02/2008 07:34am):
Look at the stats. This map is almost STA imbalanced. Sweet concept though.
cole35 (01/31/2009 08:37am):
benbever insult



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