Creator: MS1 || First Published: 01/14/2010 || Players: 2 || Size: 56x50
View Games
Planner
Map Analysis
View
Export
View Favorites
| Categories: None | ||
|
| For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat! |
| Comments: |
|
MS1 (01/14/2010 08:48am):
It's finally finished! A few months ago I wanted to make one big map for two players but I hadn't much time. Now it's done. I know playability is probably low but I don't care :P Write what ya think |
|
i am not airob (01/14/2010 02:17pm):
well the playability would be much more if each army could start with some 4 bases at least, and at different positions i.e: starting two bases from a corner another base form the center and other one at the horizontal opposite of yourstarting corner, something like that, would make the map take fight much more faster and much more entertaining. i really like itīs design, and would love to see thse 4 bases near the airports spread,also, more bidges needed :P |
|
Red11 (01/15/2010 01:39am):
Big maps need many starting bases all over the map, to draw players interest into the game, right away. Imo, you cant design a large map with the same starting principles as a small map, it just doesnt work. |
|
airob (01/15/2010 03:04am):
red explained better :P |
|
MS1 (01/15/2010 09:48am):
EDIT: I thought about it. I changed some neutral bases to OS bases and BM bases, deleted two bases from around this airport (as airob said) and I hope it's now more playable :) |
|
MS1 (01/15/2010 09:54am):
hmmm. But maybe someone will tell me, what about countering FTA? |
|
Red11 (01/15/2010 11:53am):
The map would be hugely improved, with the starting bases dispersed in quilted pattern, rather than as you have done. Large maps excel with multiple fronts, that is, in fact the point of the exercise. What is the point of all the rear echelon space and captures? The more space that is contested, the better. |
|
tst5382 (01/16/2010 08:40am):
It still takes years for the two army to touch each other. And there are many chokepoints that may easily lead to stalemate. |
|
MS1 (01/30/2010 10:48am):
EDIT: added even more bases and some kind of FTA counter |
|
airob (01/30/2010 06:56pm):
ok hereīs what tst and me have been saying all this time... you have separated the map in two pieces (east for BM and west for OS) what we intend to say is that you should put both bases from BM on OS terrotiry and vice-versa...making the map more versatile and have really interesting fronts...right now itīs just left vs right, which is kinda boring. |
|
MS1 (01/31/2010 08:36am):
next edit. Sorry for missunderstanding, I must work on my english (thanks airob). But the thing is that I didn't want to mix OS and BM bases up, only wanted to do two sides, OS and BM but now I don't know which is better. |
|
airob (02/13/2010 03:38am):
it still feels it might have more fronts,itīs way better right now though... just a point here: BMīs southeast and OSīs northwest bases might be swapped would be even better! like take for consideration my map here: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=48303 i tried to spread the fronst to each base area had at least two fronts to take care of, one in the front and on in the back..a big mapīs best quality itīs is capacity to add a lot of fronts, which this map CAN still have more. each countryīs clump of bases on the zones near the HQ might be: 1- remove some bases from the HQ zones 2- spread them more or 3- put an enemy bases closer to the HQ area the HQīs area still feels very secured, and with only one front(south and north respectively) while it might have atwofronts at the sides and two the north and south. just pplay a bit more with base position. also.whatīs your mother language? english isnīt mine either. |
|
dexiongmao (08/11/2021 02:42am):
Somehow this map is no longer playable Cannot even find it by search Sad...I really like this one |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.