Swirly Soup
Creator: Ninja_Weasel || First Published: 01/06/2015 || Players: 2 || Size: 21x21
Categories: C-Rank, Standard
Rating: 0 in 0 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Ninja_Weasel (01/06/2015 04:36pm | Edited: 01/06/2015 04:38pm):
This should play like a mixed base map because of the way the fronts are set up, but I'm
not sure if the base swap will happen all too easily. Airports have the potential to be
locked which, despite being unlikely, would be devastating to the defender so I recommend
banning missiles. Funds are also at something like 28k which should be enough for some
heavier units to get play, especially for air units. I'm also hoping for an interesting
dynamic in the SE/NW corners where the bulk of the properties (including the tower) lie
closer to the neutral base because the attacking army will get a head start on moving in
there. Tower capture might be late because of this. The heavier terrain in the shorter
path is designed to discourage rushing the neutral base, particularly with recons.

Now, HQs are pretty contested, especially early on, but I think they should be safe enough
from rushing at the beginning. Not sure how legit this counter is, but my goal was reduce
rush potential (for both sides) and encourage neutral base capture instead while still
keeping FTA balanced effectively. Theoretically, the defender could even send their second
infantry (counting the pre-deployed infantry) to defend their HQ and succeed. This should
discourage rushing because the attacker delays their own neutral base capture and will
likely be unsuccessful in either capturing or delaying enemy neutral base capture. The
FTA counter does give BM the option to forgo neutral base counter and instead rush the
neutral city by OS's base, but personally I think that's a dumb move and I doubt it will
be popular in competitive play.

Let me know what you think! Feedback and constructive criticism are always welcome :)
walkerboh01 (01/07/2015 12:03am):
My gut tells me that the map could benefit from the routes near the center base being
constrained a bit more. Perhaps by removing the shoal 3W 2N of the BM HQ? Hard to say
without seeing any games on the map though.

I'm also slightly worried about STA on the map. The base that BM has the leading infantry on is
responsible for the neutral base, airport, tower, and majority of the properties. Seems that the
positioning advantage from that base is worth quite a bit more than the other. But there's no
simple way to fix it while keeping the concept of the map, that I can see anyways. Just
something to keep in mind I guess.
Xmo5 (01/07/2015 08:32am | Edited: 01/07/2015 11:25am):
I had the thought about the same shoal to be honest, but I was trying to keep that front a
bit more open. I also see what you're saying about the bases... I'll have to think about
it but I'm not sure what to do at this point.

EDIT: What do you think of the idea of making the third base pre-owned as well (and adding
an extra BM city near OS to counter FTA) and moving it slightly closer to the corner (say
2-3E and 2S for BM). I could add some mountains above it to keep airport access more
difficult. I would have to move the tower a bit too. The downsides would be that the
concept of delaying access to the tower area would be lost and expansion/airport access
would generally be much faster and, for lack of a better term, generic. The upsides would
be (hopefully) easier to balance FTA and, IMO, better use of both paths around the corner
mountain range.
walkerboh01 (01/07/2015 03:20pm):
Hm I don't think your proposed edits will have the right effect. I have an idea but it's too hard to explain
concisely. I'll make a sketch when I get home and show you.
MorganLeah2 (01/07/2015 04:02pm):
It had better be a literal drawn-on-paper sketch. Alternatively, a short comedic video.
Either one.
Ninja_Weasel (01/07/2015 04:58pm):
Whichever it is, just make sure it isn't too sketchy or you might not get much of an
audience... or at least not the kind of audience you want.
walkerboh01 (01/07/2015 10:57pm):
Okay it turned out my idea didn't work because it destroys the mixed base aspect of the map. I
didn't like what you were proposing though because I think it makes the map much smaller
functionally (shortens the distance between bases significantly), and sets up fighting in mainly
very chokey areas with little avenue for switching fronts or making interesting unit deployment
decisions.
Xmo5 (01/07/2015 11:55pm | Edited: 01/07/2015 11:57pm):
Yeah, I can't really find a way to keep all the aspects I like about it while still fixing all (any) of the potential problems it has.

I took some of my inspiration and made a second map (Mount Malevolence) that loosely relates to how I have the neutral
base setup here in that it has delayed access to an important and otherwise difficult to access front. The mixed base
aspect is dropped completely but the general inspiration was pretty much the same. I'm hoping that it has fewer balance
problems than this one but I'm afraid of some other shortcomings.



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