There Might Be Blood
Creator: Kruegster || First Published: 01/30/2012 || Players: 2 || Size: 27x27
Categories: C-Rank, High Funds
Rating: 9.50 in 2 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Kruegster (01/30/2012 07:12pm):
This map is made for High Fund games. I recommend setting funds to either $1500 or $2000
per property.

It is tough to come up with a good FTA counter with 3 bases for High Funds; there possibly
is a small FTA or STA right now.

Comments are welcomed! =)

walkerboh01 (01/30/2012 10:08pm):
I think it'd be more balanced if one side gets 2 bases first and the other side gets one base
and one airport first. So basically, move the extra infantry to the front with the airport. That will
still not be perfect, but it will be better.

I also have to say I'm never a fan of contested central towers, especially not preowned ones.
It just seems way too easy for one player to grab both towers, and the threat of that
happening messes with games.

I like the long diagonal front though, and your terraining is quite nice.
Kruegster (01/30/2012 11:18pm):
I don't know if getting the airport first will make a difference as opposed to a city because a
player who captures first won't have enough money for a b-copter.

As I am thinking about the middle battlefield more I think it would be better to make those com
towers nuetral cites.
walkerboh01 (01/31/2012 02:57pm):
Well I think we can both agree that a city is of less value than an airport. Right now OS gets 2
bases and an airport first, while RF gets 1 base first and 1 city first. It's more balanced if you
make it so OS gets 2 bases first and RF gets 1 base and 1 airport first, although as I said, it
still won't be perfect since airports are not worth as much as bases.

Either way, your map is badly imbalanced as it is now.
Kruegster (02/01/2012 04:07pm):
I will fix the FTA problem when my match is finnished, and change the com towers to
nuetral cities.

"your map is badly imbalanced as it is now."
I think that is an overstatment considering that there is an even worse STA on your high
funds map Sevin Devils: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=56054 With
the inf where they are now for your map, the second player takes more bases first, gets
higher funds first, and has the advantage for getting to contestable cities first; all the first
player gets is a measly airport first. If my map is badly imbalanced, yours is monumentally
imbalanced ;)
Kruegster (02/01/2012 06:28pm):
UPDATE:
I changed the FTA counter into 5 inf each player. RF gets all 3 bases first and will be ahead
by an inf, so there is likely an STA. However, to weaken this STA, OS has the added 2 inf
that capture the airport and a city first, so OS should gain the advantage in funds. I think
there still may be a small STA, but after thinking about this for awhile, this is the best
counter I have come up with.

Trying to get a perfect FTA counter for a map like this one is like trying to divide 3 in half to
get an even number.
Walker Boh (02/01/2012 07:57pm):
I agree with you that Seven Devils is imbalanced, although you're wrong about the balance.
Player 1 gets a base + airport first and player 2 gets two bases first. The funding is a
problem, but I haven't been able to fix it because there are games on it. I would still
say it's less imbalanced than this map was. ;-)

As it is now, I think the odd number of infantry will cause problems. It's hard to tell
the balance exactly of course, but generally even numbers of starting infs will be better
for fund counts later. I would remove one of the central infs. You'd have to test, of
course, but something is telling me that 4 infs will be closer to perfect balance than 5.
Kruegster (02/01/2012 08:25pm):
I do not think I am wrong about Seven Devils. Player 2 gets two bases first; Player 2
gets ahead by a base, meaning that Player 2 gets ahead by an inf, and that extra inf gets
to capture a city before Player 1. Having that extra inf gives better opportunity to rush
cites and Player 2 gets a slight advantage in funds because of that first city that the
extra inf captures. BASE>AIRPORT. I stick by what I said: "all the first player gets is a
measly airport first."

As I have been trying to think of a good counter for my own map, I have been running
into the same problem: one player gets ahead by an infantry, and an extra infantry can
be quite important.

As my 5 inf counter is now, Player 2 is getting the extra base and thus the extra infantry,
but Player 1 will get a fund advantage from the 2 predeployed inf that don't capture bases.
Kruegster (02/04/2012 10:24am):
After doing some play tests, I haven’t noticed a big advantage for the first or second
player with the 5 predeployed infantry counter. Granted, there probably is a small FTA or
STA, but I can’t even tell which it is.
alamech (02/28/2012 07:54am):
my symmetry-sense is tingling: check the woods next to (12,16)/(14,10) and the launched
missile silos next to the labHQs.

apart from this, great map! I want more balanced high funds maps! 9/10
Kruegster (03/14/2012 11:44pm):
"my symmetry-sense is tingling: check the woods next to (12,16)/(14,10) and the launched
missile silos next to the labHQs."

Yes. I noticed this... I actually was just about to edit it now, but there is a match on it. I will fix
the two symetry issues as soon as possible.
Kruegster (04/06/2012 01:24am):
UPDATE: symetry problem fixed.
ichbinsehselber (10/31/2017 03:39am):
The map is good. But very brutal. Especially in high funds. The lab (with HQ function) is
on the weak side and if stealths are not banned it is practically impossible to hold it.
So it is a race who gets the other lab first.
Maybe it would be better to make the lab a bit less exposed. Or recommend a ban of
Stealths (which should alleviate the pressure at least partially)



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