Grits fortress
Creator: the-deadly-shadow || First Published: 08/06/2013 || Players: 4 || Size: 30x30
Categories: None
Rating: 1.00 in 6 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
the-deadly-shadow (08/06/2013 08:21am | Edited: 08/11/2013 12:01pm):
I think this map is best played in fog of war and having a limited amount of days to beat your
oponent, so BM can also get something if they lost everything except the fortress
NeonTurtle (08/08/2013 12:19am):
BM is waaay too overpowered. Theres no way BM is going to lose everything anyways. Much less even get
close to losing their fortress. These kinds of maps just frustrate me... why?!?
Xmo5 (08/08/2013 11:25am):
Yeah, BM could probably win in 10 days or less with the biggest limitation being the
distance they have to travel. If you want it to be a battle, cut back *significantly* on
everyone's predeployed units, especially BM. Put in more neutral properties and force all
of the players to build up strategic forces based on what properties are given to them.
Total funds are a good thing to watch; in an "all vs 1" scenario, the player fighting
alone should have *less* funding than the sum of all of the players against him. i.e. if
you do 3 v 1 and you give each of the small armies 20k, the big army should make less than
60k (this is when all properties are captured) because the small armies have their funds
split whereas the large one doesn't and can divide funds across each front as the
circumstances demand.

Also whats the point of giving BM 6 ports if every one of them is ghosted and they have no
predeployed naval units? For that matter, why do you have a ghosted port on a river? The
only thing you could do from that position is build a stationary battleship/carrier but
its ghosted for all intents and purposes, its just a fancy anchor-shaped city.

Anyway, those are the changes I would suggest if you want this to be more of a fight and
less of a massacre. Happy mapping :)

the-deadly-shadow (08/11/2013 11:55am | Edited: 08/12/2013 07:35am):
the ports are not just decorative, the landers can refuel, load and drop on them. You are just
counting units
not realizing anything about tactics.
there are at least 2 silo launchers available, this would mean that BM could be weakened.
Before BM will reach the other players several turns will be token. If the allies play tactically
they won't lose anywhere and just destroy all units outside the fortress and after that sieging
the fortress. I agree on the fact that BM can split up their funds. but BM can't choose various
CO with various speciallities. I agree, this is no map for noobs. I also changed things a bit, to
make things more fair and because of the fact that pipes light up in fog of war.
Tyrantboy (08/12/2013 05:52am | Edited: 08/12/2013 06:10am):
1/10
Map severely unbalanced
either cut back on BM's pre-deployed units or give the other nations more deployed units
BM way too overpowered
If I could give a score lower than 1 I would give it
Xmo5 (08/12/2013 10:35am):
I understand tactics and I understand how ghost ports work. Initially they were all BM
ports for which case my point still stands- BM would have no use for them. I see you've
also changed some river tiles to sea tiles to make the one port less useless. Some other
changes have been made since I commented, giving BM significantly less funding to
start-which is good. I still think BM is overpowered due to all of the predeployed units
and lack of funding for the opposing team, but you have made improvements. Hopefully the
play test will give you a better idea of how the map will play out.
the-deadly-shadow (10/20/2013 01:02pm):
after having played, I have weakened BM, so it takes longer for BM to capture bases. furtermore
I don't think 3 stealths are fair, because then BM can easily destroy one oponent, so I replaced
them with ordinary air units.
Xmo5 (10/22/2013 12:52pm):
I agree with removing the stealth, they give a significant advantage early on. Its also
good that BM gets a later start than everyone else since the potential for building an
army much faster than the other opponents was a little unfair. I can't say whether or not
this will balance things out, but I'm curious to see how it goes. Is the goal for the
allies to win in 50 days or something?



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