Old Skool Shooter
Creator: Jackie Milton || First Published: 10/06/2015 || Players: 8 || Size: 17x17
Categories: Toy-Box
Rating: 7.80 in 5 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Jackie Milton (10/06/2015 08:10pm | Edited: 12/18/2015 05:56pm):
Only 90s kids will remember such titles as Quake and Doom...
For real though, check it.
Pretty straight forward. build some units, kill your enemies' units.
I'm not 100% on balance. For FFA, I think it's okay, though FTA might prove to less benign
than I thought. For Teams, I think the setup is good for 2v2v2v2 and 4v4 (ABCDDCBA and
ABBAABBA).

In essence, Comm Towers represent weapons/armor, Labs represent abilities or something of
the like, Cities represent health, and Missles represent special weapons.

Game Specs
Starting Funds: 9000
Funds per turn: 0
Weather: Clear or Random (maybe not such a good idea with 8 players)
Capture (For FFA ( or CTF)): 12 or 13 (I'm assuming Labs and Towers Count)
Days: Might be a good idea to set a time limit.

CO Bans: Everyone but Javier
Unit Bans: All except Infantry, Mechs, Recons, Artillery, and Tanks
Lab Units: Recons, Artillery, and Tanks

I understand eliminating all enemy infantry will not win the game (duh subs). Players can
either resign or the time or capture limit ends the game.

I think I'm doing justice to the FPS concept. Heck, even Spawn Killing and Camping is
exaggerated here. Unfortunately there is no 720 backflip quickscoping...

On teams, the far corners won't reach the front as hastily. I don't know if this will be
an issue or not, but I am acknowledging it.

Tell me your thoughts!

-J.N.M.
(The "N" stands for "my Nipples are like pencil erasers")
Xmo5 (10/07/2015 09:46am):
(All feedback is based off of my Quake experience. I never actually played Doom.)

Hmm... there's a lot to think about here. I'm not sure how well FPS will play out on AWBW,
but it could be fun exploring.

My personal feeling here is that there are too many labs- I'd reduce it to 2. It's rare
that quad damage or invisibility etc. show up more than one or two at a time, so here it
should be equally rare and heavily contested. Just like in the game, you have a lot of
people gang up on whoever wields that extra power. As a result, I would even make the lab
units recons instead and let both infantry and mechs be used normally. I'd also drop the
funds to 0.5k so limited recons can be built- they could get dangerous in large numbers,
but are otherwise counterable by cheaper mechs. Lowering the income also limits mechs too
since they wouldn't be lab units under that rule set.

I'd stick with clear weather because there really isn't much of an analog to cycles of
snow/rain etc. and it would just make things painful. I can see benefits to fog on and fog
off, but with recons that might make them OP. Oh, and using Javier might be more
representative of FPS in that it will take a bit of fighting back and forth (sometimes)
before someone dies, but if you manage to get 2 (or 3!) towers, fighting might get bogged
down and you'd probably be making infantry faster than they can be destroyed. Maybe Lash
would be good? Might help exaggerate the high/low ground, since towers will diminish that
effect. Her recons would be brutal on a COP, but I think the map is tight enough and there
would be so few recons that this probably wouldn't be an issue.

With respect to winning, I'm strongly in favor of both time and capture limits. There
really isn't a way to set a frag limit on AWBW, so the capture limit is as close as you
can get, I think. If you had only predeployed units that you could deliver such that you
had one on the map at a time (honor code would be important), it would work as a set
number of lives which isn't the same as a frag limit, but it's the closest thing I can
think of off the top of my head. Obviously that's not really applicable to this map, so I
think time/capture limits are definitely the way to go.

From an AWBW standpoint, I'd prefer FFA, but you'll have FTA issues to deal with. 2v2v2v2
would be my second choice. I think I would also add bridges to the center above/below/next
to the towers along the river. Granted, this will be primarily an infantry battle, but it
just feels so choked down at that single bridge. Maybe instead replace that single bridge
with 2 bridges, one on each adjacent river tile. I think I like that the best. I'm also
worried about this just becoming a massive infantry swarm, but I think you'd have a hard
time mitigating that, short of making everyone play as Grimm.
Jackie Milton (10/07/2015 01:23pm):
Reducing labs may create symmetry issues, but it's not outa the question. I don't know what you mean by
dropping funding to .5k, because it is already at 0. I like the idea of recons being the lab units. That way, pipe
seams will be destroyed in a timelier fashion.

I think the Tower advantages of Javier will be sufficient given that a person can only have a maximum of 6 units,
but probably less. Even though theoretically there can be 48 units in the field at any given time, they will die...
even if slowly. Having 6 towers quickens this.

COPs: Likely never reached, or even one star, for that matter. too low unit value. So I wouldn't worry about this.

I considered that "life" option actually, but I came to the same conclusion: Either honor or Mod. Too complicated,
with funding at 0, I think this works out.

Bridge stuff changed. Let the infantry swarm happen...

-J.S.S.M.
(The "SS" stands for "Serious Sam is where it's at")
Xmo5 (10/07/2015 08:17pm):
Ah okay, somehow I misread that. 6k total funding makes more sense, but recons would never
get used that way. I'd up it to 8 or something. Also, for the labs, I would basically put the 2 labs
where you currently have a mountain diagonally between the existing labs. You can pick
whichever 2 corners you like because this won't make much of a difference in 2v2v2v2, though
I'd make sure to account for the 4v4 orientation. FFA obviously would be less fair, but I think
that's just how things are going to be on this map no matter what you do.
Jackie Milton (12/18/2015 05:31pm):
An Interchange between me (JS) and another. Putting here for reference. Feel free to add
extra thoughts.

I think the labs and towers act a incentive for offense, but I'm going
to mess around to see what I can do with that. Tell me what you think.
Make new player PL mod. starts with all four labs. In the missle
sections there are PL subs. Once all four labs are captured, the mod
drops and the missles open up.

That's one option. The other (and one doesn't exclude the other) is to
institute more lab units (Tank+Art+Recon) and maybe putting the
funding to 9k. Lots of combinations easily countered by others: 9infs
is weak, but canserve a defensive purpose, or 3 infs + Art may go a
long way. With artillery and tanks, the pipeseam issue (primarily for
the missles) is also solved. Thoughts?

Like you mentioned, 99 turns to break the seam!? haha. I have a fix
for that. I will change the seams to rivers. The end. I've considered
putting APC's there (either on the river or behind it) but I don't
know yet.
Subject: No Subject (11/22/2015 04:08am)
From:
Yellow Comet


Some suggestion of mine are turn the squares surrounding the central
mountain that are currently plains - (7,8),(8,7),(8,9) and (9,8) to
mountains and turn the central mountain into another comm tower or
missile. This would give something else to rush towards as well as
giving terrain cover so those central mountains (except the ones near
forests) aren't unassailable.

Right now the labs arent much incentive as recons units are all you
get (and recons get rekt by mechs which are also cheaper and hard to
kill on those mountains). Perhaps have anti-airs, tanks, artillery as
lab units (mechs and recons being lab units are optional, since in
many ways the mech will beat recon but they could both be lab units or
the recon could be a lab unit while the mech is allowed - dont have
mech lab units but allow recons early game).

The PL mod idea is ok (i assume you meant that PL subs on a PL port
would replace the pipe seams that block off the missiles, cause i see
absolutely no point in replacing the missiles themselves with PL
subs), but the flaw i see in it is that you could just sit back and
let other guys capture them and reap benefits of missiles opening up
without fighting. The labs would serve a better purpose of being
incentive for stronger units (which would also allow you to break
through pipes, but i guess the labs could serve a dual purpose.

Also im not sure if you know it, but units dont necessarily have to
start on the right terrain, they just cant MOVE across wrong terrain.
By this i mean you could make a map with a cruiser on a mountain
surrounded by sea and when the game starts the cruiser will be fine
and can move off the mountain onto the sea, but wont be able to move
back onto the mountain. This kind of design is used sometimes, the
craziest ive seen is this (and obviously you dont have to go so over
the top lol) http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=4682

The point im getting at is the sub doesnt have to start on a friendly
port, it could start on a plain or shoal (i prefer shoal cause less
defense stars). This way friendly land units could still travel over
it but the sub would still continue its purpose of stopping people
from taking your base (or HQ if you choose to have subs blocking off
HQ instead of pipe seams, but this would require one person on the
team to build artillery). This will also stop the current stalemate we
are at (assuming artillery are a lab unit) where you cant kill all my
units cause the sub is untouchable and it will take ages to break
through pipe to HQ. If you leave your sub out, the artillery will kill
it in 2 turns, but if you dive it it will sink in 12 turns (cause no
friendly port to refuel it).
The main point im making from that is change the friendly ports to
shoals or plains. This would also mean that the guys who are rushed
first and fall back in the face of heavy fire can just sit and wait
for friendly reinforcements while diving their sub temporarily so
their base isnt taken then rejoin the fighting later. Having the sub
sit on a friendly port refuelling every turn while dived seems
pointless to me.

Changing the pipe seams blocking the HQs to lakes isnt necessary if
artillery or tanks are a lab unit (but could be an interesting game
mechanic) but if you dont want to have any stronger vehicles in the
game definitely change the seams to lakes. Also perhaps 10k funding
for more combinations (plus if you want a tank that means you can
build only 2 starting infantry, and it would be hard to capture a lab
with only 2. You could still make the funding a bit higher than 10k
but dont make it too high cause that defeats the purpose of this map)
Subject: No Subject (11/22/2015 10:35am)
From:
Jade Sun


Thanks for the input.

The biggest issue I have with something in the middle is FTA, either a
base or especially a missle. FTA is already an issue on this map, and
I don't really want to accentuate it further, but a contested tower in
the middle might not be so bad. Obviously, OS will most likely get
there first, so I will have to do some trial runs.

In regards to the mod labs, I believe missle camping would be a
strategy while lab capture for better units would be incentive for
that, but I'm leaning away from this option. I think the seams will
stay seams.

Yes, I am aware of unit placement. If I were to put a sub where the
missle seams are now, they would be placed on broken pipeseam (plain).
Also, that's why I was debating about the possible APC to start on the
HQ river or behind it. I hadn't considered what you said about sub
fuel and how that could be a feature; I put the current subs on ports
so they wouldn't run out of fuel, but removing the ports might give
the game a better dynamic.

For a moment about funding, then I'll get back. At 9k, 2 infs and a
tank. yes, it is a risky move, but tanks win out against every other
unit (given that they attack first, of course). I say a matchup
between 3inf+art vs. 2inf+tank would be balanced, as either could
outwit the other (with one favoring the defense and the other
offense), then comes the aspect of vision (in fog only, of course)
tanks act similarly to recons. I would say 10k would favor the tank
group, and 8k would favor the artillery group.

Now back to the corners. I still think subs should be on ports at the
bases. (Potentially preventing someone from attacking last-minute
units) but subs on the rivers (replacing HQ seams) would be a good
idea. This will prevent cheap HQ capture, and there won't be any dumb
pipe stuff.

Cool. thanks for the discussion. I will make a couple more trials with
the new changes.
Subject: No Subject (11/25/2015 04:28am)
From:
Yellow Comet


Firstly, in terms of funding tanks do not beat every other unit. 2
mechs will beat a tank regardless of which goes first (if mechs go
first its a whitewash). The disadvantage of mechs are that they are
slow to get to the fight and tanks can outmanoeuvre, but thats isnt a
huge advantage on this smallish map which also isnt very open. Mechs
are well suited to this map, especially with the terrain, and while a
tank may have 1 more vision over the mech, 2 mechs can have more sight
especially if they are on a mountain. I reckon 8k is a bit low, 9k or
10k would be better.

Central missile is probably a bad idea (cause FTA) so it should be a
base or comm tower. FTA isnt a huge issue for this (especially FOW
FFA) cause it will take 2 turns minimum to capture and guys going
later would attack the capturing infantry.

Ultimately its up to you whether the sub protecting base should be on
a port or not. It shouldnt make a huge difference cause unless someone
has artillery the sub cant be damaged anyway (whether they are dived
or not) and if they do have artillery they can attack the un-submerged
sub (or wait for it to sink since it shouldnt be on a port) guarding
HQ or destroy the pipe if you stick with having a seam protecting HQ.
I prefer not having ports since it throws another factor into the mix
(dive and risk running out of fuel or wait and hope 2 artillery dont
attack at once) but thats just my personal feelings and you are the
map maker.
Subject: No Subject (11/27/2015 12:10pm)
From:
Jade Sun


Yes correct. I was referring to individual match ups though, but that
is still a good point. The primary job of the tank would be a sort of
anti-lab unit. Plus it can threaten infantry fairly well. I think 9k
is enough for good compromises.

I think these changes will be good, and I will implement them after my
current trials.
Jackie Milton (12/18/2015 05:51pm):
Made some of the changes noted ^^
Rivers
Center Terrain
The rest is Technical - Changed up top.
a9977321 (12/20/2015 11:24am):
The hq is not so easy to protect..
Jackie Milton (12/21/2015 01:52pm):
Here, this should be better. Having pipe seams there would be no good, but I think APCs
will do fine.
a9977321 (12/22/2015 04:14am):
I like it this time.
a9977321 (12/22/2015 04:19am):
A guy can get an artillery in his base and use it to protect the hq. Yet in this case you just need to set a watchpost and deal with others since you have capture & day limit.
a9977321 (12/22/2015 04:24am):
With the APC, participants should be warn that some guys are eager to damage your APC to get you repair costs, so be careful.
ichbinsehselber (12/15/2016 04:52pm | Edited: 07/21/2017 08:04am):
I like the map. If the map is used for FFA the FTA can clearly be felt and is problematic
in my eyes.
8/10 from me. Would be higher if the FTA could be solved.
Better as a team map with the team to counter the FTA.
Jackie Milton (06/25/2017 11:48am):
So I thought of a small FTA countermeasure. Don't really know how well it will work though. It mostly gives
opponents the option of gaining attack power, or cutting funds and potentially solves a rush issue. It's catered for
FFA and 2v's. for 4v, It still works, but it also gives a corner teammate a leg up, which I think is reasonable, but we'll
see...
Meta Rexy (10/11/2019 08:46am):
Teams messed up. Switch black and jade



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