VVVVVV
Creator: mallam || First Published: 04/20/2016 || Players: 2 || Size: 20x20
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:
mallam (04/20/2016 07:41pm):
This is my second map. Any critique is appreciated.
I'm not sure how I feel about the shoal path on the top of the map. I'll leave it there until someone complains about
it. I also debated whether or not to add a couple ports. They would probably end up being useless, but battleships
outrange piperunners so idk.
I'm also not sure if there are too many cities or not or if the silos are worth having on the map. I want this map to
have the potential for competitive play, so any advice is appreciated.
Jackie Milton (04/20/2016 09:26pm):
Hi. With the craziness of the site lately, it's been difficult to settle down, but as
always, it's good to see new faces (Gives us hope ;), so first off, welcome to the site.

I think you're off to a very good start at mapping. Some things I noticed were you nice
variety of terrain, a good distribution of properties, and your FTA counter (Though it is
on the incorrect BM base), which are good things to execute. And before I get into much
critique, you said this was for competitive play, but missile silos being as OP as they
are, having four is game-breaking. So, I would take them out if you want balance

So let's address the things you mentioned. Shoal: I don't think it's too much of a problem
to be up there, but it is a massive chokepoint, and I doubt any "constructive" fighting
will occur up there. Honestly, I don't really know whether or not you should remove it.
Port: You are correct in ports not getting much use. With 22k funds per side divided among
4 bases and an airport, naval forces aren't really viable. Cities: funding is about right,
but I might change one neutral base into a city.

The main issues I see are along the fronts. The neutral bases are too close to each other;
the fronts will become bogged down too quickly with units making for a stale game, so I
would move those bases back. [quick tangent:] personally, I would move one of the starting
bases much lower and remove the bottom neutral base. Then take the top neutral base and
move it back closer to each HQ. This will eliminate the swarms of infantry associated with
4 bases, and solve the problem of being too close to the front [end tangent]. The airports
should probably move back a few spaces as well. Contested properties (the ones going down
the center) are crucial properties, and having them right next to each other can cause
some balance issues if someone rushes those properties, so the top ones are good, but I
would space out the bottom ones some more. Last thing, on the bottom half of the map,
there are some pretty big chokepoints. However, seeing as the map is supposed to be played
on either side of the river on two different fronts, it might not be an issue, but at the
same time you might want to consider widening the river crossings.

I hope that isn't too much. But I see good things on this map. I like the front divisions
especially. So keep up the good work.

-J.C.M.
(The "C" stands for "Consummate v's")
mallam (04/21/2016 02:04am):
Thanks for the advice Jackie. I made several changes based on what you said.
I didn't know silos were considered OP, so I removed them.
I also added two neutral ports on the top. If they really aren't viable, then people can just think of them as cities. I
was just thinking maybe a blackboat could spice things up.
I tried to make the bottom part of the river a little less chokey by adding a couple more bridges, but I think it will
still be chokey anyway.
I moved one base on each side to the bottom and removed the bottom neutral bases. I agree that 4 bases is
probably too much and people will just end up spamming infantry, especially with rivers and mountains hindering
vehicles.
Xmo5 (04/22/2016 12:35pm):
Great feedback here from Jackie; it looks like he hit most of the important points pretty
well. I didn't see the original version, but based on the current version and Jackie's
comments, you made some good edits.

A couple of things I'll add for both current and future reference:

#1- Keep in mind that the more space you have to fight over, the better. The battle can
get fairly boring if the fronts are too small (Jackie hit this point with his comment
about the bases being too close together). Basically, you want most of the map to be
"neutral" territory, so that there's more space to spread out, and also so that there's a
bit of give and take. You don't want one good turn to go from "fighting at the dead
center" to "overtaking the enemy base". It's okay the way it is now, but it could be a bit
better. You also don't want to shove bases to the corners and edges either because you
want some safe funding/properties too, but we call those "backward" properties, as
compared to "forward" properties because of the direction infantry have to go in order to
capture them.

#2, and probably most importantly for future reference, is the type of symmetry you use. I
highly highly highly recommend sticking with rotational symmetry over mirror symmetry.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but I actually have some map making guide material
that I've been meaning to post on the forum, and it has a section on this so I think I'll
try and get around to posting it, if I can find my drafts. I'll hold off on detailed
commentary so you can just read it in my guide instead.

... Okay, so I just went and put those up in the middle of writing this comment:

Map Making Guide:
http://www.takeyourturn.net/t877-map-making-guide-i-introduction-to-awbw-map-design#5099
FTA Guide: http://www.takeyourturn.net/t878-fta-guide-i-introduction-to-fta#5100

I don't think you need the FTA guide really, you seem to get the concept and that guide is
only a very basic overview, but if you want to read it, please feel free :)

Anyway, the combined effects of my two points means that the fronts are somewhat dull. The
southernmost front has little to fight over, and the other fronts force you both to
advance through low defense terrain to take defensible cities. This is exaggerated by the
symmetry more than anything, because it forces this type of map layout, or its
alternative, which consists of high defense terrain in the center surrounded by low
defense terrain, meaning the first to capture it will be able to form a strong defensive
wall and hold their ground.

Keep in mind that overall this map is very good, considering the amount of experience you
have. Its my job to nit-pick, especially for maps intended for competitive play. :) Were
you to use similar design techniques with rotational symmetry, you'd be in great shape, so
keep up the good work!
Jackie Milton (04/22/2016 07:51pm):
Ye. Good changes.
I think you've done a very good job adjusting it, this is the point where my suggestions
run out, haha. But you have X here to nitpick :P He knows waaay more about this than I do
(plus his being a map committee member kinda holds some weight).

So missile silos are generally frowned upon in competitive play because they can break a
front, or prevent another player from capturing his/her respective properties in enough
time, putting them at a severe disadvantage. Breaking a front might not sound deadly, but
it high-level competitive games, players generally have walls of units, in which randomly
creating a major hole can be game ending. This is not to say they shouldn't be used of
course, as everything has its use. Generally silos (
mallam (04/24/2016 10:34pm):
Thanks for all the feedback!
I read your map making guide Xmo and I realized my piperunner infatuation doesn't extend to the rest of the
community. I played a lot of Dual Strike and my favorite unit by far was the piperunner. Now I realize that
piperunners are the last thing this map needs since they just add to turtling and the pipes just further constrict the
fronts around the neutral bases.
Also I made this map as an experiment to see how interesting I could make a map with left/right symmetry. I'll
probably stick to rotational symmetry from here on out since most the top tier maps have rotational symmetry.
Xmo5 (04/25/2016 09:04am):
Yeah, most people really like piperunners until they realize how much of a pain they are
when it comes to designing a good map. On some maps (if you deign it well) you can allow
for piperunners, but more often than not, that's because they'd be a bad tactical move on
that map.

By all means, please feel free to continue using mirror symmetry if it's what you like;
there's nothing wrong with it per se, but I do believe that it is more difficult to make a
competitive style map using it compared to rotational. Caustic Finale is a great example
of a map that uses diagonal symmetry very effectively:

http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=36927

Granted, I think diagonal is easier to implement well than left/right symmetry, but you
get the idea: It can be done. (Personally I think mixed-base is the best way to approach
mirror symmetry)



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