Creator: Ninja_Weasel || First Published: 11/04/2013 || Players: 2 || Size: 20x20
Create Game
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: |
|
Ninja_Weasel (11/01/2013 11:19am | Edited: 09/02/2014 09:31am):
This is the seventh in a series of maps for an illustrative guide to FTA for new Players. Explanation of FTA Part 7: So as you can see this is designed to have 2 identical fronts that are completely isolated. On one side, Blue clearly has the advantage, and on the other, Orange clearly has the advantage. FTA works out so that Blue gets an appropriate counter- 2 infantry/4 bases. Now Orange has FTA on the right and Blue has STA on the left, the fronts are identically reversed and they are completely isolated so its okay to have FTA and STA like this, right? Wrong! FTA is *not* okay here! In fact I can't think of a situation where it is okay unless you intentionally design a map to have FTA for some reason or its an obscure map where FTA isn't an issue (i.e. not a map meant for normal gameplay). "Why is FTA an issue here, Professor Weasel?" You might ask. "A splendid question!" I reply "You see, everything is the same on each side, correct? So assuming each player makes identical moves, Orange will win on the right in the same number of moves as Blue will win on the left. Does that make sense?" "Of course, Professor!" "Good! That is exactly why there is a problem." "Huh?" "Ah, let me explain. Each player will reach and capture the enemy HQ at the same time, right? That means that *somebody* has to capture first. In this case Blue would win if both players played the same game because they start a turn ahead on the front they will win. This is different compared to a normal map where the match does not play out like two separate battles. Often there are multiple fronts that connect, offering more strategy options. Those types of maps have fronts are more likely to be win-able for either team. Here, since one side is almost certainly going to win, it becomes a race, not a fight, and races cannot be fair in a game that is turn based." "I see, that makes more sense.. I think." See Also: Smacky's Guide- http://amarriner.com/awbw_forum/viewtopic.php?t=8518 Secondary Location: http://isndev.omgforum.net/t680-fta-extended-by-smackcakes Wiki Page Links- http://awbw.wikia.com/wiki/Design_Maps |
|
walkerboh01 (01/22/2015 02:49am):
Actually the reasoning above isn't true. Mirroring is unrealistic on this map because the two fronts are connected - perhaps not physically, but they share funding, which is important. The real reason this map is imbalanced is because the two fronts are not even in importance. BM has the advantage on the stronger front (due to the neutral base), meaning it will be able to push the advantage over OS faster than OS can on the other side. If there were no neutral base and the funding spread were a bit more evenly dispersed, I would indeed say this map is balanced properly. |
|
Xmo5 (01/26/2015 01:47pm):
Agreed with you 100%. I was never very confident in this one and my recent review of these maps left me less than satisfied. I realize now that at the time I was probably trying to combine the balanced/equivalent fronts idea with the race idea. Both are valid points, but combining them made me all wrong. I think once I finish the new guides I'll unpublish these maps and keep them for posterity. Maybe someday I'll go back and edit my comments, but a lot of them could use work IMO. |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.