Boxer's Forest
Creator: MasterKnightDH || First Published: 11/09/2015 || Players: 2 || Size: 18x18
Categories: None
Rating: 2.00 in 1 rating
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
BountyFrog (11/09/2015 01:58pm):
Hm... Way too many airports... But if you have high funds I guess it wouldn't be much of a problem...
Good job! :)
MasterKnightDH (11/09/2015 03:47pm):
3/side isn't too many. In fact, Airports can't spam units like Factories can. If you're
thinking spam Transport Helicopters, the Airports are still too far in the back and AA
Tanks will get to curb them as a result, whereas APCs don't get 1HKed in general by
something below 16000G.
Xmo5 (11/09/2015 08:04pm):
Sure, I think you can get away with 3 airports, but they don't really serve much of a functional
benefit except the extra 1k income apiece. They'd be useful if they were in more distinct locations,
so that each could feed a different front. On the other hand, feeding every front with an airport
loses a bit of the dynamic you get from having different fronts fed with different unit types.

The classic 2 on 1 shows this well. One front is fed by two bases, attacking the enemy with only
one base on that front, but with an airport as support. This generally gives the 2-base side an
advantage, but makes the battle interesting by making unit selections very different on each side.

Also, one of the biggest factors holding your map back is the symmetry, IMO. Not that I think it
should be asymmetric, but I mean the fact that your rotational symmetry is very very close to plain
old diagonal symmetry. There tend to be a number of problems with diagonal symmetry which limit
interesting gameplay, while still making it "okay". Emphasizing the rotational symmetry could go a
long way here I think, making each front more unique for each side.
MasterKnightDH (11/10/2015 10:52am):
At the very least, having the starting Factories on the front should be a new, probably
experimental concept. I call the map BOXER's Forest because boxing is about getting around
the other guy's blocking with burst damage, which each player would have to do with their
people on the frontlines meeting each other with reduced infantry from having to move
behind the frontal properties just to have further deployment points.

Though yeah, you do have a point that the Airports could stand to be spread a little
better (as of 11/9/2015, 6:30 PM PST, of course). Still, I have 3 Airports at all for
reasons you can guess. But like I say, the whole thing is fairly experimental.

Hmm...I believe the 2-on-1 thing is generally used to create intentional front imbalances.
That actually would end up being around here: standard battle lines are likely to be
diagonal, but with a sufficient vertical skew that ends up with the N/S Factories
threatened by mere positioning. The Road tiles certainly help put things in favor of the
attacking army too, because it neuters the defending army's defenses. Couple that with the
high income and Airports, and suffice it to say that the map should have the 2-on-1's
purpose covered. Also, see those 2 Cities at the very center? They're there to encourage
people to fight over the center. Taking the center would allow for flanking the N/S
Factory too. And air units excel at flanking-induced pressure.

Like I say, the whole thing is experimental enough.
Xmo5 (11/10/2015 05:34pm):
I guess my concern is that the supply lines on this map are very short, and due to the
symmetry (which, as I said, despite being rotational, is functionally diagonal symmetry),
this means that the space for combat is narrow. This will result in heavily contested
central cities (to the point of imbalance) and overly crowded fronts.

The thing about drawing attention to the center with the extra cities is that, apart from
making certain CO's very strong in that area (Lash, Sami, Sturm, and Kindle), it
exacerbates FTA (STA in this case, due to counter and importance of the center).
Basically, the center is very defensible and very easily accessible from the base with the
FTA counter. Whoever gets a strong foothold first will be very difficult to dislodge. The
center will become a huge focus area and become overly crowded, most likely resulting in
BM getting a stronger foothold in the center and taking it outright so that it can serve
as a great forward position to be used for mounting an assault on the nearby enemy HQ. The
center will already have a lot of attention because it's the quickest route to the enemy
HQ- you need to make sure that the outsides are important enough to attract units and draw
the battle from being a massive confrontation in a small area.

By all means, please feel free to try new things and experiment, but keep in mind that
many of the rules of thumb we have exist for a reason. A lot of site experience in balance
and playability has pushed us to where we are now.

Anyway, the main problems I think this map has are as follows:

1) Short supply lines/proximity of bases to front/each other

2) Heavy concentration of cities along the front line, especially in the middle
(exacerbated by #1)

3) Use of primarily diagonal symmetry, resulting in a single "uniform" front line, rather
than a more complex and rewarding layout with semi-connected fronts with different
focuses/considerations.

Overall, these 3 factors will most likely make gameplay over-concentrated in the center,
somewhat imbalanced, and otherwise fairly bland. Also, I just want to be clear that 3
airports does not necessarily mean more air units. Technically you can afford up to 2
bcopters per turn and still fill your bases, but any more than that isn't practical,
especially with 4 bases and a large fraction of the funding being contested. The only
other benefit would be to spread them out as I mentioned to gain advantages of deployment
location, but you don't do that here which severely limits any possible benefits of having
3 airports. 2 would more than suffice on this map unless you wanted them instead of bases.



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