Creator: Krellin || First Published: 10/04/2014 || Players: 5 || Size: 40x40






































































































































Categories: None | ||
|
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat! |
Comments: |
Krellin (10/04/2014 04:02pm | Edited: 10/04/2014 04:30pm):
When I found out the map maker didnt have that nasty saving bug i wanted to make a big map. But i didnt want to make a symmetrical map as we have plenty of those. So i thought to make an advance wars map of Magvel that is in Fire Emblem the Sacred Stones and behold here it is. Here is my commentary of the six nations on the continent of Magvel in turn order. Carcino(OrangeStar) Carcino if you know the lore is the emerging republic that is more democratic than the monarchies or theocracies nearby and wasnt founded by one of the five heroes and so doesnt have a sacred stone which sealed the Demon King away. And to represent this they do not have a comtower but no HQ. They stay in the game by holding labs and this is to show they are not as centralized as others. But because they are new their military hasnt been tested and refined. I added to them an island and made them the first to move and that should put them on an even footing so they dont become a pushover without a comtower. Renais(BlueMoon) is the nation were our two lords in the game come from. Now in the prologue Renais is invaded by Grado with whom they were a longtime ally with. Because they were allies with Grado both didnt worry about defending from each other and so some of their cities are close by. Also as you have notice they have no ports as they are a landlocked nation. I could give my take on Renais Strategy but i leave that for you guys to find out. Grado(RedFire) oh boy i know what you are thinking, isnt Grado overpowered with 15 money making properties and is going third with the most bases. Well to be fair Grado is the largest nation but also has the most fronts other than maybe Carcino but no one is going to invade their islands any time soon. Grado is likely to fight more than one nation when expanding so they need a little extra money to fight an alliance. In the game Grado started the war and conquered Renais. So our heroes fled to Frelia. Jehanna(Brown Desert) Jehanna is a desert kingdom in the east and is well known for its mercenaries to represent this they have three factories. Jehanna might be worse off than Resais because Rausten would come from the north without an enemy to threaten their properties. So Jehanna really needs peace with at least two nations to live. Just be glad they have three factories, better turn order than Rausten and a river as a barrier to Grado and Renais. Frelia(Teal Galaxy) is also an ally of Renais and they were the first country to declare war on Grado for their treachery. Frelia is famous for their pegasi so they have two airports. Because they are in a corner they are near last in turn order. They were a HQ for our heroes in the game and was the main country fighting Grado. Rausten(PurpleLightning) is a theocracy located near Darkling Woods which houses the Demon King's body and the dark energies justify the missile near Rausten. Rausten is in an even better corner then Frelia so they have one less property and is last in turn order. Thank you for reading this wall of text. Comments and criticism is welcome I would like to know what you think. |
the-deadly-shadow (10/05/2014 02:54pm | Edited: 10/05/2014 02:55pm):
I see you are testing this map. However I think this can be very nasty to OS, if PL decides not to focus on BD, but prefers putting arty in the forest and sending mech and copters over the mountains. I think it will be even nastier if PL focusses on arty and mech and saves for one or two bombers to destroy OS anti-airs. black bombs would be nasty too. |
TacticsCommand (10/05/2014 05:08pm):
Interesting map- I loved that game haha; I'll reserve my opinions till after the initial game test |
Krellin (10/05/2014 06:20pm | Edited: 10/05/2014 06:51pm):
Well I think PL will have a harder time with OS if lab units are in the game plus OS with FTA can waste the missile PL has i may have to edit that spot so OS or PL doesnt have too big of an advantage in darkling woods. Even if OS loses Carcino he is still in the game and in the hands of a good player can make a come back. We will see how these three game tests go and fix any balance issues. |
Xmo5 (10/05/2014 09:46pm):
Yeah but look at it this way- PL has 12k funds to start and 1 front with as many as 2 enemies, plus a tower. The vast majority of the battles will require land units with some air units. OS has 13 k funds and FTA, but has 4 land fronts in the north, supported by only 2 bases, plus 2 naval/air fronts in the south. OS also has no towers. Basically, OS fights more enemies and has to spend more on air/naval units. Also, their island area might be easy pickings for RF with 15k funds and 1 tower. Never underestimate how big of an impact it is to have fewer opponents and safer borders. |
the-deadly-shadow (10/06/2014 02:30am):
OS can not wast PL missile if PL builds an air (an tank or anti-air or APC will work also) unit in the first turn and uses it to block the silo. This won't work if cheap air units are lab units. However if OS sends meches (and copters are lab units) it can be an interesting battle |
Krellin (10/06/2014 08:20pm | Edited: 10/06/2014 08:34pm):
If OS has a bad time trying to survive then i might have to make those neutrals his to keep the game even and nerf PL to keep them from being broken. I know i have to edit this map after the test run because hardly anyone can get it balanced on the first try. Do you think i should add OS a second Airport with his bases in the north or would it be interesting to give them something else to balance it out |
Xmo5 (10/07/2014 09:10am):
I think the fastest, easiest, and most effective way to balance it is to drop everyone down to 3-4k starting funds. Making everything neutral does 2 things: 1) It makes it 10x easier to balance because there are fewer outcomes to predict. All you have to do is decide who can access what properties (make that fair) and make sure the funds/bases each army can access matches up with the number of opponents/fronts they will be exposed to. For accuracy you can leave a few things like OS's north port, SE island base, and SW island city, but limit it when possible. OS has labs instead of HQs so they have more leeway in that regard. The bottom line is that adding more funds and production facility types adds variability and potential for ingenuity that can't always be countered by trying to balance the map- someone will find a loophole or workaround to achieve the imbalance in their favor that you tried to prevent. 2) It gives the armies something to fight over. Right now, no-man's-land consists almost entirely of pre-owned properties. If they were neutral, opponents want to be the first out there to capture them and gain a funds advantage early. If they already have the funds, its too convenient to turtle up and deploy indirects to protect their pre-owned cities without ever going out to their borders and engaging in direct conflict. Forcing them to capture the properties encourages conflict, strategy, and decision-making/risk assessment. This is much more rewarding gameplay |
Krellin (10/08/2014 08:35pm):
That will be a headache to do because i will need to move all those neutral cities around to keep it balanced. To make most of the preowned cities neutrals may sound easy but i will have to place all of them again making sure each side can reach them at the same time, it will completely change the map. I do agree on youre second point do you think less preowned cities and one or two neutrals for each one where they can reach but cant setup a turtle on them without being rushed. Would i be able to keep it even by giving everyone something to fight for like some cities that will bring them close for fighting. Hopefully i will get information from the test needed to make changes for the better. Right now i want to make this map as something players will find new and unique and i want them to feel like they are leaders of a country thats been around for hundreds of years. Wont it be a challenge to keep the sides even with 10k+ funds. I want this to have a risky type diplomacy kind of feel when you grab a fund advantage as i am thinking of adding to each side two silos to represent the sacred weapons except OS who will have one. So turtling wont work with properties in no mans land and the missiles will really make people worry on who they will get used on as they will help break through sale mates. |
Xmo5 (10/09/2014 02:12pm):
You hit the nail on the head- it's *very* difficult to balance maps like this, especially for a lot of players. When I say "maps like this" I specifically mean asymmetrical maps. I'll be the first person to support asymmetry and creative ways of balancing maps etc because I think they have a lot of potential in terms of aesthetics and gameplay. The fundamental problem, however, is that for matches between two similarly skilled human opponents (compared to AI) even minor imbalances can make a big difference, especially if the player(s) notice what's causing it and can take advantage of it. Here's an example of a map where I tried to make a large, asymmetrical map perfectly balanced between 2 players: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=60696 I put in a lot of effort towards calculating distances to key properties, number of cities to capture, the impact of weather, how quickly different unit types could get to different places based on terrain, what chokepoints and defensive value different areas offered etc. It was painstaking and time consuming to say the least. Turns out I needed to make sure each player could also capture the right number of cities equally fast and put infantry capturing them in equally advantageous positions. BM, for example, has too many cities behind them and too few in front. Now its been a while and I need to go back and bust out my calculator again, but that's the general idea. |
Krellin (10/10/2014 03:20am):
With Maps that are FFA sometimes its not what you do but what others do. It would be near impossible to balance all alliances but the unpredictable moves will keep it fresh for players. I will focus on the fronts and contested cities sites as that is where that action will be. The missile idea i have, is so a player cant just build up until he can just steamroll everybody. Its hard to be patience when i can see two or three things i can edit. |
Xmo5 (10/10/2014 11:35am):
Okay, just keep in mind- the unpredictability of alliances etc. is not an excuse for leaving imbalances. The best you can do is make everyone even from the start and let the cards fall where they may. Chance suggests that each player position will have equal odds of forming an alliance, so they should also have equal strength; leaving things unfair will still mean they're unfair with alliances. If there's a weak player, for games when he's in an alliance he will still be weaker, much more dependent on his allies, and an easy weak link to pick off when the time is right. If he isn't in an alliance he will almost certainly lose. A strong player has the ability to stand alone or be the dominant partner in an alliance ultimately resulting in more victories for that country. |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.