Deux Caverns
Creator: Melt || First Published: 04/22/2015 || 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:
Melt (04/22/2015 01:50am):
It's been a while since I've created a map, considering I disappeared from awbw for about 2 years.
(Even though nobody hardly knows me cause I wasn't around very long) but I love making maps
and I wanted to see what you all thought about this one.

The original design was based off of Xel'naga Caverns from Starcraft 2, but I just had fun with it and
this was the outcome.

Also I welcome criticism! Help me out if you could, I would like to know what makes a map good or
bad, and is my FTA counter okay? Are there too many bases for the size of my map? I'm still a
newbie! Thanks in advance.
walkerboh01 (04/22/2015 01:57am):
Oh man, Xmo5 is going to love you. I don't want to steal too much of his thunder, so I'll just
mention that you will probably want to put a black boat on each player's HQ. They are fairly
exposed in their current position, which is okay, but adding the black boats will help prevent
early HQ rush strategies.

And typically the FTA counter is placed on the base responsible for capturing the neutral base
(on maps with two preowned and one neutral base). This is more of a convention than a hard-
and-fast rule, but it's a good one to follow nonetheless.
Melt (04/22/2015 01:58am):
Yeah I was just looking at the HQ positions, will definitely put the black boats on top!
Xmo5 (04/22/2015 12:56pm):
Hey, considering the fact that you're "still a newbie", this is a great map! It's always a
good sign when you get put into a category right off the bat. Seriously, though, you're
making my job easy! :)

Good advice from Walker on covering the HQ due to their positioning and also on the FTA
counter base. As a result I would simply place the infantry on BM's other base. As he
mentioned, it's not a rule, but the convention has always been to do it this way and it
works well. Ideally, both starting bases are equally important so that no matter which
base you put the infantry on, it works out that both players are equivalently ahead/behind
each other at the end of each turn. That usually means making the "secondary" starting
base responsible for other important things, such as the airport and additional (or easier
to capture) funding. Towers and labs can also fall into this category. I think it's
handled well here, so this is mostly for your edification. (Don't say I never bored you to
death with the details!)

A couple of things I would recommend for improving gameplay:

First, be mindful of your chokepoints; notice that between most of your mountain pairs,
you have forests and cities. This makes it easier for players to form a strong defensive
line and is more likely to lead to stalemates. You can absolutely do this, but it's good
to keep some areas open so that an alternative route is always available when chokepoints
get blocked up. In this case, it's not a bad idea to place defensible chokepoints like
that within defender territory by the HQ to give a bit of an edge, but also leave open
areas closer to the middle to force combat towards the inside of the map a bit more if
things get stale. This helps spread the front out and make the battle more interesting.
Another consideration here is how air units (note airport location) are good at breaking
up chokepoints like that because mountains don't hinder them; placing the chokepoints
strategically to draw air units to a location can work well.

Secondly, you don't have to add a tower, but if you don't want to use the above fix to
also direct units towards the center more (or you want to supplement that), you could add
one (somewhat contested) near the inside area of the map, probably within defender
territory on the HQ front. The area by the mountain diagonal from the center shoal isn't
bad, so long as the tower is a viable option to attack. If it's too safe, nothing new will
happen by placing one there except everyone gets +10% attack (helpful in breaking though
chokepoints, by the way). Ideally, this will be closer to the base and farther from the
airport, giving the front a slightly different dynamic than what you see close to the HQ.
You can always tweak base/airport positions to capitalize on this if you want. Also,
consider the way terrain impacts how different areas will be reinforced most easily.
Players will typically follow the path of least resistance whenever possible; nobody will
get a copter if a tank will be there faster and do the job about as well.

That enough thunder for you, Walker? =P
Melt (04/22/2015 01:27pm):
Wow that was a good bit of information to take in! Thanks to both of you for the replies, so I took
what you both said into account.

1. Added Black Boats on HQs
2. Moved FTA infantry to the other base
3. Readjusted the terrain to make it feel less chokey
4. Moved Airports forward so copters and the like can make it to the right/left side or middle in 2
turns.

I still feel like there's not enough reason to push for the middle of the map though, and I'm unsure,
but is a single com-tower in the middle balanced? Or would that cause an imbalance and whoever
gets it just kinda wins? I'm not sure how to place 2 com-towers in the center of the map at the
moment, maybe I'll move some more terrain and see what can be done. Cause I do like the idea of
having a com-tower or two, but just unsure of how to place it.
Xmo5 (04/22/2015 03:33pm | Edited: 04/22/2015 03:33pm):
Sorry, I'll clarify that a bit. I meant 1 com tower per side placed symmetrically closer
to the pond in the middle (along the "inside edge" of the fronts). That way, both the
right and left hand sides of the map will have a wider battlefront with multiple targets
instead of just the HQ. Again, not mandatory or anything, but it could help if placed well.
Melt (04/22/2015 11:21pm):
Added the com-towers to promote less campy play and a reason to go through the middle. Is there
anything else this map could use, or does it still seem too chokey in any way? Maybe I'd feel more
confident about the center if I playtested it. Gonna look into that.
Xmo5 (04/23/2015 10:29am):
Yeah playtesting can help a lot if you get to a point where you aren't sure what would be
best. In my experience, you'll notice a lot more things to fix/change than you'd like.
It's also helps you understand what will cause a problem and why a lot better than me
running my mouth, plus it's probably a lot more fun too. =P
Xmo5 (05/05/2016 10:15am):
Okay, I've looked at some test games on this map. It's not bad, but maybe a little bland.
The fronts came out surprisingly linear, despite the forward neutral base location. I
think the biggest reason for that is the fact that the center actually became too
important compared to other areas. I'd recommend adding a city or two in the area between
the neutral base and the HQ and maybe using terrain to encourage the neutral base
reinforcements to head that way (but leave them the option to get to the center too, just
maybe a little more inconveniently).

I'm putting this in casual play for now, but if you make edits, we can re-evaluate. Just
send me a message if you want me to take another look.



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