An Interesting Diversion
Creator: Dreadnought || First Published: 01/25/2015 || Players: 2 || Size: 20x20
Categories: C-Rank, Base Light, Standard
Rating: 0 in 0 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Dreadnought (01/25/2015 09:39pm):
Seeing as I've had an account for a while now, I decided to try my hand at making a two player competitive map.
Anyway, I tried to follow standard conventions but any tips on how to make it better would be appreciated.
Xmo5 (01/25/2015 11:02pm):
Not too bad overall, but I have 2 main suggestions for improvements:

1st, I'd suggest moving the bases further away from the fronts. For OS's south base I'd move it
NW, maybe near those cities behind the lab, and for the north base I'd move it S, W, or SW. The
idea is that you keep the enemies' bases far enough apart that a larger fraction of the map can
become the battlefront. Right now units can attack almost right away which makes too easy to
quickly counter enemy plans. With longer supply lines you have to strategize and plan ahead
more.

2nd I would make the fronts a little less heavy and reterrain a bit in general. I'm assuming that it's
partially so heavy to compensate for the close proximity (I could be wrong of course) but it will
probably negatively impact the gameplay. Now, if you move the bases back, you'll have to take
into consideration where you want the battles to form so you'll probably have to reterrain a bit
anyway. It's good to split the fronts (as you've done a bit with your mountains adjacent to the
shoals) but from farther away it will be more difficult. The shortest path is generally favored so
it's probably good to make sure that the bases have a hard time taking the direct route (mountains
close to the base forcing deployment towards the north/south a bit can do this) and also have
incentive to take the "long way" (your tower does this nicely). Keep in mind that forests are great
at directing units too, but you don't need a lot of them if they're well placed. Just imagine you built
a unit off of that base- where would you send it? What would make you change your mind?

Anyway, it's a decent map and I'm going to put it in "New" because it has good potential with
some of those edits. Also, feel free to drop by the new forums and make a post about any new
maps you make:

http://isndev.omgforum.net/f29-advance-wars-fire-emblem

We Map Committee members can get fairly busy, but seeing people posting maps and asking for
feedback in the forum is generally a good indicator that this person is worth spending the time on
because they are legitimately interested in improving their map(s). Not that we don't make an
effort otherwise, but it's nice to see map designers making an effort too :). It's also a great way
to announce that you've made changes and want the map reevaluated. Anyway, hope this helps
and hope to see you there!

walkerboh01 (01/26/2015 02:00am):
Xmo5's comments are spot on. I would add that if you adjust the base position, just keep in
mind to also move the tower accordingly.
Dreadnought (01/26/2015 02:31am | Edited: 01/26/2015 05:28am):
Thanks for the advice, I moved the bases back and tried to make the terrain a bit less heavy. In addition I tried to
make the the split fronts a bit more defined, though it did make it have a bit tighter choke-point. The general idea is
that the base with the BM soldier on it and corresponding OS base will use the longer front for the offensive
because the other team can defend the short front more readily. If there is anything else I should add or subtract
just let me know.
Everdan (05/04/2015 05:45am):
I get the reasoning behind why you set up the fronts this way, but I'm not too sure that it works. The mountain-
ed off areas are likely to choke because there's no attacking room, which encourages more static, defensive
play, and that's something you don't usually want on a map. Furthermore, all the fronts are quite cut-off from
each other, which limits any chance to switch fronts strategically, and that's not very good on a competitive map
- you want to give players more movement options, because it rewards the players who can effectively utilise
these options.

There is some FTA because the BM counter base is responsible for getting much fewer properties than the
non-counter base, so effectively OS is getting 1/2 turn ahead on the more property-heavy side. But more
troubling is that there are very few contestable cities - maybe 2 on the whole map - and so the game's likely to
stalemate anyway.

Sami may be top tier here (or even broken!) because mechs are so powerful - they can cross the rivers and
mountains unimpeded, and the HQs are quite exposed to rushes. (note that once she builds her SCOP, there's
very little you can do to stop her parking a footsoldier in range of your HQ and swooping in for the win.)

I would really suggest removing some of the rivers in the centre to create a small path between the two fronts to
allow for decent front-switching. Removing a couple mountains from the top and bottom might not be a bad idea
either. I would also widen the chokepoint near BM's counter base to 2 spaces wide. Redistribution of properties
is a must to fix FTA issues and create more contested cities. As it is, I don't think a 3rd base is a good idea
because it will only exacerbate the brokenness of footsoldiers. Once you fix some of the other stuff it might be
worth a shot here.


Dreadnought (11/06/2015 01:02pm):
Alright, finally got around to fixing this. Didn't change it too much but I changed the
middle to oceans and opened up the fronts a bit so hopefully it will stalemate less now.
Dreadnought (11/06/2015 01:05pm | Edited: 11/06/2015 01:05pm):
I also added a couple cities so the side BM's starting inf has an extra property to capture.



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