Create Game
View Games
Planner
Map Analysis
View
Export
View Favorites
| For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat! |
| Comments: |
|
RBFenn (04/29/2016 02:52pm | Edited: 04/29/2016 03:17pm):
This idea came from looking at the High Funds maps. Overall funding is quite high, but each city will still be worth 1000 funds, so losing one or two isn't the end of you. The Black Boats are there to heal your infantry in case of mass damage from COPs. Because losing a few properties doesn't hurt you as much proportionally, so the terrain is intended to make attacking easy. Not sure if I succeeded with that. Bans: Usual 5 + Sasha due to the number of cities. Sami, Kindle and Lash may also be a little too good here. |
|
Xmo5 (04/29/2016 03:25pm):
I might suggest adding some mountains near the frtons, just to give some sort of a barrier. Since funding will be so high, there will be a lot of air units, I'm sure, so the extra mountains won't hinder combat too much. My concern is that when you have a high funds-to-base ratio, you have very few meatshields, meaning your units will tend to be overpowered and overexposed. If you both have 2 neotanks and few other units, how do you propose mounting an assault? Defending against one? You don't have anyway of protecting yourself from attack/counterattack unless there's terrain around to help you. That terrain helps make the balance between too conservative and too aggressive easier to achieve; otherwise, there reaches a point where there is no balance and the game devolves into mayhem. Of course, that's not to say you need to fight in a jungle or a mountain range, but I think it would be better to have a good amount of terrain to help. |
|
RBFenn (04/29/2016 04:37pm):
I get what you mean. I've added some more mountains, particularly in the center, and rearranged some other terrain. Should be a little more indirect-friendly now. |
|
Xmo5 (04/29/2016 05:51pm):
Looks good. We'll see how it plays out :) |
|
RBFenn (04/29/2016 06:20pm):
I might end up adding a third base after the test game...depends on how the funding situation shakes out with how quickly you get up to the max level of funding and how soon people get their airports going. |
|
RBFenn (05/02/2016 01:10pm):
This map definitely needs a third base. Maybe the Landers over the airports need to go too. |
|
Xmo5 (05/02/2016 10:36pm):
It's surprising how much the pressure of a big bank account weighs on the decision making process. It wouldn't be a big deal, except for the fact that you know your opponent's going to spend all their money to buy big shiny destruction machines, and if you waste money/production space on anything but the best you can afford, you'll be wiped off the map. It would be okay if you both understood the other would be more strategic and buy lower tier units (and infantry) too, but the risk of counting on your opponent to follow suit every turn is high, as is the opportunity to take advantage of an opponent who does follow suit. Moral of the story: When the fund:base ratio is too high, you get problems. You need some kind of outlet for all that cash. |
|
RBFenn (05/03/2016 01:00am | Edited: 05/03/2016 01:01am):
No doubt. Thanks for the advice, making a map is harder than it seems! After the first test game finishes, I think I'll add a neutral base near the airport, remove 1-2 cities from the fronts, and possibly put mountains or ocean in between the bonus cities to slow down how fast you get money from them. |
|
RBFenn (05/08/2016 06:09pm):
Alright, changes made: -Added third base, replacing a city -Opened up the back area so the Infs there can escape -Minor terraining changes to eg the airports There's still improvements to be made in terms of the city arrangement, but this should play better than before. |
Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.