Mountainous Island
Creator: a9977321 || First Published: 10/27/2015 || Players: 2 || Size: 30x20
Categories: C-Rank, Standard
Rating: 8.00 in 2 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Shadow Star (10/27/2015 10:47am):
At the moment, the only thing to mention right now is that with such high starting funds, the fact that OS goes first is
going to be much more apparent. and with the four central bases, it's pretty much guaranteed that OS will get to two
of them, and then disrupt BM's capture of their two. the middle production facilities will then play a role in OS taking
over the entire island. this is a map, whereOS will winjust due to going first.
a9977321 (10/27/2015 11:18am):
So Bm should be given some advantages? How about pre-deployed infantriies? Or BM can be given 2 island cities or airports at the beginning, so that BM can have an advantages in income?
Shadow Star (10/27/2015 11:39am):
The most common way to deal with this would be to remove the preowned cities and give BM 1 infantry on one
of their two bases.

This wouldn't change the fact that OS would still get to the central bases first, and then disrupt BM from their
central bases. My suggestion for the bases would be to spread them out further. A general rule of thumb is to
not have production facilities right in the middle because then it's a race to see who gets their first, is going to
win.
I suggest swapping the bases in the middle for cities, then move two bases to the outer lanes (one in a lane
closer to BM and one in the opposite lane closer to OS) and move the other base closer to thestarting position. I
think that with two airports, and two ports (though on this map mostly one wouldbe enough, the second would
act more as a repair and funds property) three bases per side should be enough. with 30 property per side, it's
not overly necessary to have 4 bases when there are two airports.

Lastly, except forthe 6 cities outon islands, there's not a lot of use for the ocean at the moment. and the
cheapest way to get those is with T-copters, later on assaulting with landers is a viable option, but, early on
there's not a lot of purpose for the sea.
a9977321 (10/28/2015 08:49am):
Thanks a lot. I am wondering whether battleships can be used in this map. Originally having so many cities in this map aims to give players an income enough for bomber&battleships......
Shadow Star (10/28/2015 01:36pm):
Maybe, but if people have access to 4 bases, most people will (given 28K income (the amount for a battleship)
build an AA, a Tank, an Artillary, and either save the rest, or build something with their remaining 7K funds for
the turn) a Battleship and a Bomber are nice. but there really needs to be an incentive. the mountains promote
Battlecopter units, but not so much bombers.
Battleships are also most commonly used on maps that don't have air units. Just due to the cost difference
between air and sea units. Also on this map sea units have the disadvantage of not having a lot of space to
move around in.
a9977321 (10/29/2015 04:57am):
Thanks a lot. I will change the position of the factories first, and think about some ways to promote sea units......
a9977321 (10/29/2015 05:13am):
The changes are done. When I put these airports on these islands, navy forces becomes much more important......But there seems to be something wrong with the infantry. It does not belong to the right country...
Shadow Star (10/29/2015 07:29am):
Movethe airports 1 island further away from each other (into the corners)
the, 8 cities in the middle of the map are going to be OS's. putting BM at a -8 average income. When you grab
an infantry, click the infantry, then click the "change country"button. you want to putthe infantry on the starting
base closest to the neutral base.

Right now, sea is still "black boat, load infantry, capture airport, capture islands." Sea still doesn't havea strong
presence here beyond capturing the airports. it's much more cost effective to build air units than sea units as
the focus of this map is, on the land's main central lane of combat, where all four of each countries possible
bases are.
Xmo5 (10/29/2015 08:20am):
A lot of great feedback from Shadow Star here so I'll mostly just add that I agree. Oh,
and why in the name of amarriner do you have an OS infantry starting on the BM HQ? I mean,
I'm all for mixing things up, but I'm not sure anyone but amigo would want to play on a
map where OS has an in-counterable Day 2 victory.
a9977321 (10/29/2015 08:46am):
The middle of the map is supposed to be a region of conflict, right? How could OS easily capture all these cities easily?
I put the airports in the middle because it will be easily controled by crusiers & missiles. I don't know whether it will work.....
And I try the change country button, and it failed for unknown reason.
Xmo5 (10/29/2015 10:43am | Edited: 10/29/2015 11:18am):
The main problem with putting the airports where they are is that there's a lot of direct
tension between them. Air units have limited paths to the middle without tripping over
each other, so they will probably rarely be intermixed with the main combat. Basically,
players will spam copters and the airports will fight each other mostly independently from
the main battle. I highly, highly doubt that anyone who sinks money on a cruiser or
missiles to control this will come out victorious because they will more than likely lose
the more important land front. By separating the airports further, there's much less
direct tension between the airports and air units will likely focus more on supporting the
land front, forcing the enemy to decide whether or not to build AA and/or how many and
when. This will actually make missiles more viable because they would serve a legitimate
purpose of defending land units on the important front.

One other thing to be careful of is the large mass of heavy terrain in the middle. Right
now, anyone who can plant their front line of units on that row of cities (assuming they
own them) will be very hard to overcome, and the same is true for the forests- this will
make for slow going and stalemates. (Shadow Star's concern is probably that, due to FTA,
OS will get there first and have an edge at stopping BM from ever getting established in
the center) The main difficulty I think is due to the map dimensions (the map height is an
even number) and the type of symmetry selected which limits your design options by forcing
you to make the two tiles in between the roads identical. If you allow for rotational
symmetry, you have a lot more leeway and I think the battle will be more interesting.

With a few tweaks to aesthetics and rearranging some mountains, here's an example of what
I mean with the above suggestion:

http://s11.postimg.org/skld0ksir/Mountainous_Island_Example_Edit.png

This sample edit keeps the middle viable (people will want those cities), but opens up the
sides a bit to allow for multiple attack routes through the middle and even makes the port
area an interesting conflict opportunity. Before it was sort of sealed off and would
probably get ignored or stalemate. (I like that chokepoint, but the ports are too close if
you want real naval units... personally I'd "ghost" them by placing a unit on them that
belongs to an army with no HQ, such as GE or YC etc. This makes them unusable for
building, but can repair/refuel just like temporary ports/airports in Days of Ruin, except
they still provide income)

By no means do you have to do what I show in that picture there, I just wanted to give an
example of how changing the symmetry and shifting the terrain around in that small area
could make a huge (beneficial) impact on gameplay. Feel free to get creative and think of
your own edits that could accomplish similar goals :)

EDIT...Just to be clear, that I knew the OS infantry was not intentional and I saw that
you already realized the problem. I wasn't trying to be mean, I was just joking around and
giving you a hard time :)

EDIT2 I would still recommend making that last pre-owned city neutral. Even with an
infantry as an FTA counter, OS still has the option of building a recon on Day 2 (which
doesn't slow their neutral base captures) and interrupt BM from capturing one of their
neutral bases (whichever side the FTA counter doesn't capture). Roads also play a key role
in allowing this to happen.
Xmo5 (10/29/2015 11:22am):
New comment because that last one is getting long... FYI I added this to Casual Play- if
you make the suggested edits and I haven't been around to take a look at it, feel free to
send me a PM and I can reevaluate the category and/or provide more feedback.
a9977321 (10/29/2015 11:36am):
Thanks a lot
a9977321 (10/29/2015 11:43am):
I will revise that when I am available.
Xmo5 (10/30/2015 08:38am):
Nice edits, though I think the cities surrounded entirely by roads will be hard to attack
(you're forced to attack something on 3-star terrain from 0-star terrain), so I'd
personally recommend removing the 2 horizontal roads between the cities (the ones parallel
with the bridges for the ports) and turn one tile into plains and the other into forest.
Just follow the same principle you did with the city/forest slightly further back and put
the forests in front of diagonal cities. (ie, the north set of roads you remove would have
the forest on the left and the south set would have it on the right, or vice versa) This
will look nicer, be a bit more playable in the middle, and help to reduce recon rush.
Xmo5 (10/30/2015 08:40am):
Actually, a mountain might not be a bad idea instead of a forest, but I'd probably turn
that nearby mountain into a forest and move it somewhere that looks nice if you do that.
Up to you.
a9977321 (10/30/2015 11:13am):
Revision is not finished yet, and I will take your advice in further changes...
a9977321 (10/30/2015 11:18am):
For the use of 4 ports in the centre, they are originally supposed to be a place for B ships to attack from, or crossroads which can be blocked by naval units......It is not easy to capture them with enemy watching.
a9977321 (10/30/2015 11:34am):
I don't know whether this look better, or you prefer the previous version. Some mountains are placed in the middle and some mountains are converted back into forests. Launched missiles are used to provide low moving cost & high star terrain. Thanks for the advice
a9977321 (10/30/2015 11:40am):
I don't know whether it's better to put forests beside the cities and mountains in the corner...(for the centre part)
Xmo5 (10/30/2015 11:43am):
Oh, my apologies, I thought you were finished editing.

If you removed the 4 launched silos in the middle and the north and south mountains in the
center and left all those tiles as plains, I think that area would be really good. If you
wanted to keep those mountains, I would move them so that the very center isn't too tight.
The 2 best places I see to move them would be if you took the south mountain and placed it
either 2 left and 1 up from where it is (diagonally behind the other mountain) or down 1
and across the street, right where you have a launched silo right now. Both of these
positions allow units to move around enough to have an interesting battle, while also
making them pick between two paths and giving them some shielding from vehicles.
a9977321 (10/30/2015 11:51am):
Thanks
Xmo5 (10/30/2015 12:29pm):
Edits look great, and I especially like how you curved the road out to the side. I think
it adds a lot to aesthetics here.

Now that you've made some changes, this might be a good time to test it and see if it
plays the way you want it to. (I'd add the FTA counter first). If you want someone to test
with you, I'm happy to join :)
a9977321 (10/31/2015 10:33am):
Thanks for testing
a9977321 (10/31/2015 10:56am):
As soon as I find a way to add the FTA counter, I will host a game for testing. Though I have to say I'm not a good player, I can try.
Xmo5 (10/31/2015 07:28pm):
No worries, you don't have to be good to test. It's mostly a way to really understand what kinds
of decisions people make based on how the map is set up. The same basic concepts will be
taken into consideration and you'll learn whether it's a good match or not. (and there's no reason
to think it won't be a good match =] )

Sunsp (11/01/2015 10:46am):
Hello，guys.Where are you from？l'm a high school student from
China.l began to play aw when l was a child,but my friends didn't
like it,so l have to play it myself.l 'm glad to see that so many people
like the aw.Can we make friends with each other？
a9977321 (11/01/2015 11:00am):
testing running
a9977321 (11/01/2015 11:03am):
to sunsp
This is Peter Wang, a sophomore from Shanghai, China. We can be friends if you want. you can also try to check tieba, where you will find access to others sharing the same interest.
Jackie Milton (11/01/2015 12:16pm):
I wish my maps got this much attention *sniffle*....

I was so happy when I stumbled on AWBW. There I was, staring at my monitor (as I usually
do), and I thought to myself, "I bet there is an online version of Advance Wars". And
there was. The end, I guess, haha.

Anyway, I'm just some dork from Michigan (the glove surrounded by water). I am a high
school senior, I like bad movies, and I listen to bad music.

Nice first map, by the way, most people's first maps are garbage (mine for example).
Actually, most people's maps are garbage. (Hey, X. That should be a map category
"garbage", this will be different from joke maps because those are actually funny.)

-J.J.M.
(The "J" stands for "Jackie milton isn't my real name")
BountyFrog (11/01/2015 03:10pm):
Lol, the glove surrounded by water xD

I am from the cowboy state lol
Xmo5 (11/01/2015 09:55pm):
Sorry kids, but I think I'm the vet in this group- I'm 3 years out of college and I'm in the US as well
(Virginia specifically). Pretty much the same thing happened to me as it did to Jackie. One day I
was in Calc 2 (or 3) in college and I suddenly had the thought "There *has* to be some sort of
online AW game I can play". Conveniently we were in a computer lab for that class (we used
Maple for integrals and stuff sometimes) so it wasn't hard to check :)

Also, there used to be a category called Pending Removal. Maps like amigo's would end up in PR,
as would prudefanflirtytree's.
a9977321 (11/03/2015 04:28am):
There is a game ongoing on this map. I'm looking forward to the result.
a9977321 (12/01/2015 08:54pm | Edited: 12/01/2015 08:56pm):
OK. The game has ended because someone got booted. It turns out that as long as the
land battle is intense, people tend to focus most of the funds on the front, resulting in late
airport capture & I don't see b-copters in their games...... Yet I do see B ships. It serves
as a good blockade and a turret until it was hit by a great meteor.......
FTA counter added. Thinking about changes.
a9977321 (03/02/2016 11:22am):
Update: port ghosted. Two airports are replaced by towers. 2 mountains removed to open
the centre. One port deleted on each hq area.



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