Cross-Town Rivalry
Creator: walkerboh01 || First Published: 06/25/2010 || Players: 2 || Size: 19x13
Categories: None
Rating: 4.09 in 46 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
walkerboh01 (06/30/2010 01:47am):
Alright you know the drill. Purple Lightning vs. Amber Blaze in a smaller battle this time. Plenty of cities, forests and
mountains connected by looping roads allow multiple avenues for attack, defense, and reinforcement, while the
airports allow you to give the terrain the finger and go wherever you want. So yeah, it got put into league maps
before it was even published, which leads me to think it's pretty okay as is, but if you see a problem or area for
improvement. please let me know. Thanks!
walkerboh01 (02/14/2011 02:38am | Edited: 06/11/2011 12:05pm):
Unpublished until FTA counter can be fixed.

Edit: Map has been republished with a new FTA counter.
Mori2 (05/01/2012 05:35pm):
This map looks great. This map also looks ideal for AHC testing.
walkerboh01 (09/21/2021 03:03am | Edited: 09/22/2021 04:46pm):
Map completely reworked with the intention of being used for live play fog matches.
huggindoggo (10/06/2021 01:16pm | Edited: 10/06/2021 01:19pm):
I don't like this map very much (FOG Global League Match) - It's 90% good, but I believe too small for its gimmick - P1 has too much of an advantage, primarily in placing an artillery to open his airport without resistance and impede second player from doing the same. The airport is 1/3rd of your total unit production since there are only 2 bases, so if a player manages to open his airport while leaving the opponent's closed, it's basically game over - flood Tanks to kill AA and you totally control the aerial game.
Granted, I've only played one match on it (as P2), but it seems to me like without some unforced errors by the first player I would have lost.

Marxthelast (10/08/2021 11:58am):
hugg is right.this map is unfair.
Meowlistic (10/10/2021 01:11am):
Ughhh..... Hated maps like these. Its either :-
a) hard to bring any unit to the front and took even longer to even deploy a counter for a response
b) good luck trying to capture cities and bases after the initial phase for the aforemention problem
above
c) you will be royally screwed if you can't break the recon earlier than your opponent as they will
build copters and destroy your line before you can mount and counters, due to the problem above.

There's just not enough bases to do anything at that point as either you are stuck building
infantries or stuck building counter units and getting one of the bases locked by tanks and artillery.

The concept of the map is good and refreshing, but the execution for this kind of play is bad, giving
there's too little space to work with as you already have to do captures, comm towers, and keep a
watch on both airports.


RiceMuncher (10/10/2021 03:02pm):
P2 can fast rush the airport on the bottom by destroying the recon. Leading to
instant game lose as you cannot recapture the bottom airport fast enougg
CommieSan (10/11/2021 01:14am):
Love to get a match only to see a consensus in the comments that the map is shit.
SonjaTheSuperior (10/12/2021 11:55am):
Pro tip: Most map complaints are low quality and do not provide much useful information. I
would ignore them.

If they did, you could probably tell from what they say and how they are articulated, who is
saying it, and responses from other strong players
SonjaTheSuperior (10/12/2021 11:56am):
Maps put in league are high quality
Tmi489 (10/12/2021 01:22pm):
Counterexample: The efficency of illese
Ilese (10/12/2021 02:00pm):
Map stay in league after two weeks are high quality
trix1117 (10/12/2021 04:49pm):
this map is good.
Tmi489 (10/12/2021 07:30pm):
Ilese (10/12/2021 01:00pm):
Map stay in league after two weeks are high quality

Could've waited one more day for this to be accurate
walkerboh01 (10/13/2021 12:24am):
RiceMuncher's game, in case anyone is wondering about the complaint about rushing the airport:
https://awbw.amarriner.com/2030.php?games_id=460371

Replay is in #replay_library on the discord server, if you see this after more than a week. Long story short, rushing the airport
isn't an auto-win, but outplaying your opponent on the rest of the map sure is.
Creepy Crawly (10/13/2021 10:27pm):
Holy smokes Kindle is smashing this map's stats.
Creepy Crawly (10/14/2021 08:05am):
Had someone take both airports. I don't see it as too big an issue, you have 3 turns to get an anti-air in the area. In addition to
that, rushing the airport is forgoing the Comm, and if someone grabs the Comm before "cheesing" the airport then you have
even more time to discover the shenanigans.

https://awbw.amarriner.com/2030.php?games_id=465209
aLittleFishy (10/16/2021 01:42pm | Edited: 10/16/2021 01:43pm):
This map can be fun if you are winning, as after the initial capture phase fighting on this map is mostly about moving units
into and out of the three fronts the map has (lane switching isn't that common of a tactic even into the thousands in rating),
that being said, a few early losses can snowball into an unwinnable situation, as you need scouting to determine where your
opponent is moving units, without it you have basically already lost, as your opponent will continuously move their md tanks
and copters out of and back into combat on different fronts, and without blindly trying to counter you have to either rebuild
recons (largely useless in combat) or build anti-air in all 3 fronts to prevent copters from crippling your tanks. My guess as to
why the airports are being criticized is because of this. Personally, the map can be fun, but it also lacks any ability to recover
from any losses you take without sacrificing territory that will only make you lose faster. 5/10
Tmi489 (10/17/2021 12:39am):
What happens when you see this [comment] in 10 years, when the discord serve is shut down?
Lost and French (10/17/2021 05:21pm):
Maybe you should convert the replay file into binary text and put it here for everyone to
reconvert in the future?
KaiHF (10/18/2021 09:28pm):
Playing as Kindle on this map gives you such a massive advantage compared to other CO's in her tier its insane.
Sherrdreamz (10/22/2021 12:26pm):
This map is not particularly fair as Arty rush on Airport has no counterplay unless you forego a ton of economy just to stop it.
Either way P2 is at a severe disadvantage always...
Lost and Found (10/23/2021 06:03am | Edited: 10/23/2021 06:03am):
Short heads-up: The Map Committee decided to ban Kindle from t3 on this map due to
reasons that look fairly obvious in retrospect - contested cities being the only relevant
terrain makes Lash incapable of dealing with her, and the massive center pressure on
top of the small map size and low income make the SCOP focused COs incapable of
surviving long enough in most cases.

We have also looked at FTA concerns regarding airport rushes and saw no relevant
issues - any strategies available to one player should be equally available to the other
one on their respective side.
Quickslow87 (12/17/2021 01:38am | Edited: 12/17/2021 01:47am):
I agree that opening up the airport (3rd base) is very powerful. Honestly though, every player should research the map (plus
comments) and their opponent before the match begins. That's how I saw to the strategy to open up the airport; and did so
by turn 9 to deploy a B Copter (on turn 9).

As for an appropriate counter, why not deploy a missile? When my opponent saw the artillery move into range on turn 6,
they could have immediately responded. Two turns later when the recon is destroyed, the missile would have moved to the
shoals. With one more turn the enemy B Copter is loose and the missile is now in the forest. If the enemy air comes closer,
blast it. Otherwise, keep moving forward (2 turns) until you are on the forest that is close enough to lock down the airport
(within 5 spaces).
aLittleFishy (12/18/2021 11:34am):
@Quickslow87
Firstly, when most people say taking the airport is OP, they are referring to deleting your own recon and then having an
infantry cap your OPPONENT'S airport, not just taking your own by killing the opposing recon sitting on top of it.
The missile strategy is also not very good due to how expensive it is and how easy it is to kill it on this map. (essentially the
statement about the missile falls under the saying "easier said than done" for most matches)

The major take away for most players when it comes to map criticisms is that they don't find the map very fun to play on for
one reason or another. In practice, being good on a map and having fun on it are 2 different things; so stating that they need
to due research prior to playing the map (you do as well, judging from your comment though you may have been replying
specifically to Sherrdreamz ((though you didn't say as such) implies that IF they do know the strategy and counter play
options for any given map, then they will have fun on it, which is misguided to say the least. Many criticisms are just people
trying to explain why they don't like the map.
Tmi489 (12/23/2021 11:14am):
> implies that IF they do know the strategy and counter play options for any given map, then they will have fun on it, which is
misguided to say the least.

Well if the reason they aren't having fun is because of a preventable issue, then telling them how to prevent it is a good start.
aLittleFishy (01/02/2022 12:09am):
@Tmi489

And my point remains, and then they will have fun on it? as if liking a map is dependent on your skill with a given map? a lot
of people on this site have had and lost hundreds of matches on GL maps and have a low rating because of it, so by your
logic they aren't having any fun across all their matches, versus my point that it comes down to personal taste and their
criticism is their attempt to explain why they dislike a particular map and therefore, attempting to prove them wrong can
easily be interpreted as you (you in the sense of the one attempting to prove them wrong, not you as an individual) telling
them to git gud rather than respecting that they do not like the map because reasons, just as you may like the map for the
same reason and are not wrong for feeling that way.


Tmi489 (01/02/2022 04:49pm | Edited: 01/03/2022 02:21pm):
> And my point remains, and then they will have fun on it?
Well, as I said, *it's a good start*. I can't determine what's fun for anyone and you know it.

> as if liking a map is dependent on your skill with a given map
"Preventable issue", meaning what they have directly mentioned (and the only thing that they've mentioned) in their comment.
In this case, airport cheesiness. It's less skill and more "solved capture phase that you have to know and/or interact correctly
with or you automatically lose the game". Theoretically all moves in aw can boil down to this, but the margin of error here is
so small, and the solution non-obvious from how any other map is played that it can't truly be called a skill based issue.

If a comment is "their attempt to explain why they dislike a particular map", and the comment is also about a single
preventable and easily fixed (read: not related to tactical gameplay / "skill") issue, then a solution may help them reconsider
their stance. There is no heavy handedness here. They can still not like the map, or they can like the map, but a more refined
critique would be needed in order to advance the discussion (and possibly make the map better).

> that it comes down to personal taste and their criticism is their attempt to explain why they dislike a particular map
Firstly, not all issues come down to personal taste (for example, trying to take the enemy tower in Caustic Finale w/o Javier in
play is a strategic issue that's doomed to fail, potentially and directly leading to slow and tedious gameplay. Suggesting
something different would be, a good start). Your comments might be personal taste, but that was not was being addressed.

A comment talking about a potential HQ rush is not up to personal taste. It may or may not be legitimate. For example, Mors
has a P2 HQ cheese if P1 does not build D3 recon on the right base. But making the same assertion on a map where an HQ
cap can not only be denied, but when it is natural and easy to deny it, would not be in any way be someone's taste. (And the
player losing to early HQ would either be justified or unjustified to be upset, respectively).

Finally, incorrect balance should be a deterrent to fun (as in: a player who thinks the map is balanced against them is less
likely to have fun). If the map is incorrectly claimed as imbalanced, then telling them about how it's balanced would and
should justifiably impact their evaluation / experience / fun with playing a map. They can (dis)like the map for different
reasons, but a hypothetical commenter's only vocal reason, balance, is not one of them.

Now, the commenter may mistake some map issue as a balance issue, but that does not mean they gain any protection from
refutation; a balance complaint is, inheriently, a call to action.

> rather than respecting that they do not like the map because reasons, just as you may like the map for the
same reason and are not wrong for feeling that way.
Well if opinions are of equal legitimacy (i.e., we're not wrong for feeling [any] way"), then there is little reason to do anything.
As you claim that personal tastes are deserving of respect, then the converse taste (that the map is fine as is) should be
equally valid. As the vast majority of league players aren't commenting or even rating, one person's taste shouldn't really
amount to much. But I repeat, they are still entitled to not like the map. In short, saying "this map is good" or "this map is bad"
is respected (in the end we can't make you change your opinion), but isn't particularly productive.

In addition, many comments directly frame their complaints as constructive criticism; which has little protection, having every
right to be proven right or wrong. This may/not apply to you; but it has happened before (ex. First Step into Fog). Of course
people should still be expected to be civil, but I maintain that people aren't being particularly rowdy I.e., nobody is explicitly
telling you to "git gud", it's been mostly cordial, and that a poor interpretation is just that - a poor interpretation.

But even if a comment is all down to personal taste, it may not be deserving of absolute respect. If a complaint (or,
conversely, a praise) is based on incorrectly viewed/flawed/heavily biased evidence, then correcting the evidence can and
should reform their opinion, even if it is just them still disliking the map for different reasons. (How a person views an optimal
player's approaches to the airport(s) would be 'evidence' in creating an opinion).

In this case, an opinion based on (seemingly) unfounded evidence is not deserving of automatic respect. Again, this doesn't
mean they have to like the map, but they should take advice into account before stating their tastes again.
aLittleFishy (01/09/2022 12:10am):
@Tmi489
Firstly, for anyone reading this and the respective comment; this has very little to do with the map at this point and is more a
personal conversation between myself and Tmi489 that just so happens to be in the comment section of this map, feel free
to read but know it doesn't matter as far as the map itself is concerned.

Point 1:"And my point remains, and then they will have fun on it?
Well, as I said, *it's a good start*. I can't determine what's fun for anyone and you know it"
My point here is that it is misguided to ASSUME that telling them why their criticism is incorrect will change their opinion of
the map rather than the comment being a personal dislike and their attempt to explain why.

Point 2: Player skill is both a general term, and refers to their knowledge of the strategies that work on a given map, not just
the meta of GL fog as a whole, therefore, my point still stands that disliking the meta (the particular strategies of a given
map) is a valid opinion to voice.

Point 3&4: I agree that giving fixes to problems players have is good and can be helpful, however, asking every player to
take the often extreme amount of time to be as specific as possible with their comments, which has no guarantee of being
taken as any more valid than a shorter comment (i have personal experience with this) isn't any more constructive than
saying what you have a problem with on the given map. My point here was that all comments are at least partially personal
(what you like on the map may be annoying to someone else, i refer to this in my comment) so dissecting what they said
with the goal of proving them wrong is unlikely to make them like the map, but is very likely to encourage them to not
comment in the future in order to avoid criticism.

Point 5&6: Yes, you are correct, your example is accurate, except it fails to take into account the number of people willing
perform that strategy. On mors celeri, most players mech spammed; this was not a particularly good or effective strategy on
the map, just annoying. However, many players did so anyways, making matches on that map incredibly frustrating even if
you knew how to play against it. This is the problem with attempting to prove all criticism wrong; disliking mech spamming on
mors celeri is legitimized by the number of matches you are forced to suffer through the strategy. My point is that they should
be given the benefit of doubt in regards to the problem they have. Maybe the map is balanced, but THEY may not find it fun,
and they ARE forced (so long as the map stays in GL) to play on it, and as stated above, aggressively (you yourself said it
was "a call to action") trying to prove them wrong doesn't encourage conversation, only silence from the person who spoke
out, which is my point.

Point 7:The point of voicing why you dislike a map is exactly because most people are silent. If one dislikes a popular map,
and chooses not to speak up in the comments, then other people who also dislike the map can end up feeling like they are
simply wrong for having their tastes in maps.(it's a representation thing, or at least that's how i feel)

Point 8: One could easily argue that it is your "poor interpretation" that causes you to view complaints literally instead of
considering why the comment is left. Yes, comments can and should be called out if misinformation is being spread
however, most people are not trying to spread misinformation, they are trying to explain why they don't like a map and
dissecting their comment can easily be viewed as an attack. You can call it a "poor interpretation" but that doesn't change
that they shouldn't have to begin every comment with "this is just my personal opinion, please do not respond" in order to
avoid this exact situation, which to some will be funny, to others annoying, and to some, the reason they do not leave
comments, which is the situation i am trying to avoid, hence why i called out @Quickslow87 in the first place. (Also you
reference First Step into Fog as an example of me correcting someone, and to be fair yes i am attempting to prove them
wrong, however i worded it differently than Quickslow87 did, as i did NOT suggest that they need to do their research prior to
playing the map/criticizing it; i criticized Quickslow87 both for an inaccurate correction and for implying the criticism wasn't
valid, if that wasn't your take-away from their comment, then that's fine, but it doesn't make the way i read it any less
accurate.

aLittleFishy (01/09/2022 12:48am):
>Ran out of space or whatever on the previous comment so i am continuing it here

Point 9&10: My problem here isn't that you shouldn't correct someone if they are wrong, it is that overwhelmingly people are
attacked for criticizing a map while those who are silent or praise the map (it is funny that you imply someone will be
criticized for liking/praising a map for the wrong reasons), which only encourages the would-be critic to be quiet or praise
maps in order to avoid the drama of situations like these (i already said this above).

In this situation, Quickslow87 was unclear who they were talking to and the strategies they proposed weren't very
good/relevant (depending on who they were responding to) and therefore the 2nd paragraph of my response was meant as
a general criticism of HOW they tried to correct whomever, as i interpreted their comment as mildly condescending.

Finally, and i apologize if this was unclear (though you didn't make an effort to ask) that when i say be respectful of others
opinions in regards to their criticisms; i am saying that you should take effort to consider WHY they left the comment as well
as what the comment itself says. There is a person on the other side of that screen, who is feeling frustrated with a particular
map, and has decided to risk putting themselves out there in order to state their opinion on it. Most people aren't looking to
start an argument or to belittle the people who do like it, they are just wanting their frustration to be heard, and it isn't very
respectful/nice/encouraging to have their gripes with a map, non-specific as they may be, attacked for being incorrect.

I really can't emphasize this enough, and maybe you just don't understand for some reason (and that is fine), that they just
want their frustration to be heard. When i am having an abysmal time with a map, it feels good to see a negative comment
on the map, regardless of the contents of the gripe itself, because it makes me feel like "hey, maybe i'm not just garbage at
the game because this other person doesn't like it either". Maybe they didn't do their research (i do but i can't really know for
sure if they do), maybe parts of the comment are flat-out wrong, but the feeling behind it, the person behind, is another
player, like me or you, who isn't having fun and is brave enough to say as such, and that Tmi489 is what i try to, and you
should endeavor to try harder to respect.
Tmi489 (01/09/2022 04:57pm | Edited: 01/15/2022 10:57pm):
Response:
https://pastebin.com/kzpZEyyN

tl;dr
- Personal attacks don't happen. Responses are not attacks. I reassert that commenters are generally civil.
- A response *may* help players reform and refine their opinion. They won't always, but if a response doesn't help, it doesn't
and shouldn't hurt, either.
- Not everybody is pointing out their personal gripes - some comments are clearly about objective map features. To say
otherwise is a stretch. Many comments are framed objectively and ask for objective requests, which anyone has a right to
refute or add on to.
- You have a right to be frustrated about a map. You don't have a right for your requests to be "respected" (but still have an
expectation of respectful and civil dialog)
SonjaTheSuperior (01/12/2022 12:59pm):
There were no personal attacks.

Note that high level games have shown that rushing airport is not only suboptimal, it loses (if you just play normally, nothing
special to counter airport rush). This was discussed on discord months ago when original concerns were brought up. From a
map design point of the view this map is fine as well.
walkerboh01 (07/21/2022 05:01am):
Removed from S-Rank.



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