3 vs 1 (New)
Creator: Pika Rizard || First Published: 01/12/2015 || Players: 4 || Size: 40x25
Categories: None
Rating: 3.25 in 4 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
the-deadly-shadow (01/12/2015 01:18pm):
I think that the 3 players will have a superior final and starting income. I doubt wether OS gets even as much
income as the best player of the alliance.
Xmo6 (01/12/2015 02:01pm):
This will suffer from a lot of the same problems as the original, maybe even more so. OS
will probably capture all of about 3 cities of each opponent before they are swarmed with
recons and artillery (or, heck, neotanks and rockets with that much money). The 3 armies
will quickly overcome the small OS bases and already be well on their way to the OS HQ,
each with an larger army than OS could come up with for itself.

Typically when maps are designed as 3 v 1, the 1 player is much stronger and has more
production facilities, funds, etc available to them than any individual opponent. In fact,
if you added all 3 opponents' resources together, they should only slightly outnumber the
single enemy's. Instead, you have this backwards, providing each individual player with
almost double the max income as OS and each starts with over 5x OS's starting income. Now
multiply that by 3 and imagine how little of a chance OS has. Let's not forget that the
allies have a combined 12 ports to OS's 9, 12 airports to OS's 7, and 15 bases to OS's 6
(I don't count the mountain-locked bases for anyone, but if I did they would add to the
15, not the 6)

Now, apart from the balance issues, it doesn't make much sense to give anybody as many
ports/airports/bases as they have. With about 45k income, you can't expect anybody to
afford more than 2 air/naval units per turn unless they specifically save up for it.
Therefore, more than two ports isn't really meaningful for any of the allies. Same is true
for airports, but you certainly don't need 2 of each. Bases will have very little function
on this map- they only serve the a use in the capture phase because after that, land units
are limited to landing parties only. By the time anybody's landing on OS's territory, the
game will have long since passed beyond the point of no return for OS so 5 bases per
player is way more than needed. 2 each will more than suffice (and maybe 3-4 for OS to
speed up their capture phase). OS is even worse, boasting only 23k income split over 6
bases, 7 airports, and 9 ports. Even building the cheapest units, you couldn't fill more
than 2 ports and 6 bases or 3 airports and 6 bases. If you raise your standards to the
cheapest unit with an attack for each instead, it's 1 port and 5 bases or 2 airports and 5
bases.

I recommend:

1) Decrease starting funds to about 3k per player (maybe a little more if you have a good
reason)

2) Decrease the number of production facilities to match the income- make players choose
strategically about what they deploy, don't let them deploy as many as they want of
whatever they want whenever they want.

3) Make sure funding and production facilities are generally balanced such that the sum of
the 3 allied players is slightly higher than the individual player. Ideally, this should
be true at all points in the game so keep track of how long it takes to capture things etc.

4) Leave less dead, open water to cross. It makes the game feel like it takes forever,
makes your units run out of supply, and doesn't provide interesting fronts for naval
combat. You can do really cool things when you combine air/naval so take advantage of
that. Add more islands to encourage more advancement and more use of land units. Add
towers/funding to fight over etc.

Wow that turned into a monster of a comment. I hope it helps!
Pika Rizard (01/13/2015 08:22am):
First I make the battle condition: 500 gold per property.
Xmo5 (01/13/2015 08:33am):
I'm afraid that won't really help because the problem is still that the allied countries start with way
more income than they need and make way too much compared to OS. Changing the income
changes the game etc, but it doesn't make it any more fair for OS because their income will be
cut in half too.
Pika Rizard (01/18/2015 11:47pm):
I am testing the map & this is day 6: http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=220779
Pika Rizard (01/18/2015 11:49pm):
Now I think that OS has so many bases & infantries.
IPS (04/29/2015 03:53pm):
Try testing it with Sensei Ban, seriusly... balancing a map out of one of 5 brokens CO's is not a good idea at all.
Pika Rizard (05/02/2015 08:46pm):
In this map, maybe Kindle is broken
ChrisRedfield (12/01/2017 01:11pm | Edited: 12/05/2017 01:41am):
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ActivistVictor (12/05/2017 02:24am):
The single player is not in such a bad spot if they can get their infantry to the bridge before the team of three
captures a base, and once the get sufficient income you won’t be breaking that choke point easily
Capt.hawkeye (02/26/2018 01:10pm):
Kindle is broken on this map
ActivistVictor (02/28/2018 11:09pm | Edited: 02/28/2018 11:11pm):
As the person playing as kindle against capt hawkeye, I mostly agree, urban blight just crippled he enemy,
regardless of whether the allies or single player is the one using it. Also stealths and black bombs probably
should be banned since he allies could easily build a stealth to block the bridge and prevent cointerattacks
(since orange has no airports nearby) or a couple black bombs to reduce enemy units to 1 hp and destroy
them
GrumpyCat (06/27/2023 02:01am):
so unbalanced omg, every player on the 3 side can make megatanks when the 1 barley gets artillery



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