Beyond Infanteries
Creator: liandry || First Published: 05/08/2016 || Players: 2 || Size: 21x21
Categories: C-Rank, Standard
Rating: 6.00 in 4 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
liandry (05/08/2016 11:15am | Edited: 05/08/2016 01:41pm):
"The hell liandry this is just an exact copy of walkerboh's Beyond Eternity, you suck, go back to League of
Legends!"
Well, if we're going to be pedantic, NO. FTA counter mech, see? Also, they broke Malzahar into permaban
territory, so no
more solo Arab carrying into Platinum 1. You shall be missed, Mr. "Fuck Zed".

Sorry for digressing.

Why copy a map though? First, a story.
I've played a lot of Advance Wars, both on both GBA and DS games (sometimes vs reasonably skilled ~900 elo
friends), and on this site.
Imagine the sheer numbers of infantry (with complimentary servings of artillery) I've seen; I recall producing
5926483719 infantries throughout my life.
I'm TIRED.
So now, I'm moving beyond infantry (and into mechs...) This was chosen to be the starting point of my
pointless revolution because I like this map better than my current crush.

Ahem. First rule, BAN INFANTRIES. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE. (why would I even make a copy of the map with
a mech instead wtf)
This will put an end to such shit like my (AWBW Global) League game vs TRANlord on All Roads Lead to Sol.
( no offense to anyone, it's just the game, I hate practically just ending turn at times)
I sincerely believe Stall should only be an ability in Pokémon. kappa

On a more serious note, harassing capturing units will actually have a point, vehicles of all sorts won't just be
able to hide behind a horde of infs, you get freedom to maneuver with tanks and whathaveyou, capture phase
will be a lot slower but you get to think where you send your mechs because...

of the second rule: 1000 funds per property ownleh.
This would mean early game, you get to produce like 1 capture-capable unit (I think just "unit" is ok here) per
turn. Deploy it from a base of your choosing, and choose wisely!
This is not as non-negotiable as the first rule; make it 1500 or higher if you want, but you get the chance of
turning your "infs" into actual, tank-destroying infs(practically of course. wish for it for me if there'll ever be an
AW5, tho). Also, mech floods...

Which is why we made this third rule: aside from the broken (I prefer "sheerly fucking overpowered cheesy
mozzarella" as an adjective) five, BAN THE HELL OUT OF SAMI.
Leave her to go smooching with Eagle instead of forcing her to move mechs at lightspeed, OKAY? ("Lightning"
Sami, anyone?)
Adder and teh Koalz can be banned for the same reason, (but I can trash them with Kindle, ahahahaha!) Max
and Jess can also be a problem because +1 movement vehicles.

And methinks that's it. You've read to this point of the novel? READ THIS:

I don't really hate the current high-level meta. In fact, I love it slightly more than my mom. ( I hate my mom a
little bit lot)
But I find that the current "limiting enemy options by superior positioning (and infs. Mostly infs.)" game is
(vastly, most of the time) superior to the "find enemy weakpoints, rush in there and hit 'em hard" style. I wish
merely to provide an outlet for the latter, and this is the solution I suggest.

Therefore, THIS IS NOT A NEW ORIGINAL MAP IDEA BUT AN EDIT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A
(PROBABLY) NEW GAMEPLAY IDEA. Think "on a map full of mechs, the infantry is king."

And oooooh yeah, you can criticize this idea and/or suggest better ones. I'm open to criticism. Ask TRANlord.
Or not, maybe I'm just feeling close. Oh, and just like I trade strategy for superior (relative to how good I could
be if I didn't trade) tactics, I trade attention-to-detail for introspection. Basically, check for symmetry and
copying errors for me, ty;love you too, *blows kiss

Oh if you hate my language, I'll just bowlderise this AND THAT'S HOW FAR I WILL GO. This is the first time I let
myself go with my words. Too many parentheses? Shush.

If this finds at least acceptance, I'll make copies like this of whatever good maps I find/strike my fancy.
On the other hand, if people don't like it, go ahead and take this as a joke map.
And on the third mechanical hand behind my back, if people hate or sue me for (copyright infringement)
plagiarism, I'll gladly delete this shit. I have more ideas, anyway.

Finally, thanks for reading till the end, and I hope you listened to Klaypex- Follow Me (feat. Anne
[ohmygodImaynotbelieveingodbutIdobelieveinangelsanywaybecausehervoiceisangelic] Nguyen) while you
were reading, like I did when I was making this novel. No? I suggest you listen to it now and (if you actually did
lolz) tell me what you think. Put it after you say what you think of this map.

EDIT: totally not forcing my music tastes on everyone. finale wording changed
liandry (05/08/2016 11:17am):
Oh, this is how to curve dem reefs? I see, totally did not know.
Xmo5 (05/08/2016 12:19pm):
People copy maps with minor edits to suit their own fancy all the time, so no worries there. I did look at it and
immediately think "this looks way too much like one of Walker's maps to be a coincidence" haha

That said, this could be an interesting game mode to explore and I'm always interested in trying something
new :) However, I think it would be a better idea to develop a new map style to accommodate the specific
needs. The slow capture phase could be a steep and boring price to pay for reduced meat shielding and
making vehicles think twice about attacking, so perhaps integrating transport lines could be an interesting
feature. Similarly, the FTA counter would have to be reconsidered for optimal balance; my initial thought is to
go with the standard high-funds counter. I'll give this some thought when I have the time, but this could be
pretty cool.
liandry (05/08/2016 01:13pm | Edited: 05/08/2016 01:40pm):
New map style? I thought of that too but I was worried the tedium will get to me while making a suitable map
and the no infs idea would be consumed by Oozium.

I have suggestions for mapmakers who want to follow this idea:
-scaled down map size, like ~17x17
-2 to 3 to 4 tile distance between cities
-I totally disagree with high-funds if you meant >1k funds per property, Xmo5, but idk about extra cities for
second player.
-4-5k initial funds is prolly a good idea. You're still limited in terms of deployment, but you can deploy an APC to
grab forward properties, or save up for double me(c)hs to start laughing to the bank a little earlier.
-I actually think the main point of the special rules is to prevent players from mass-producing units until late
game, so yeah. Keep that in mind.
-Aside from 5k starting funds, predeployed APCs/landers/Black Boats can be an option, especially when you
want to make your mechs zoom round and round/"integrate transport lines." Confine them in mountains, lakes
and stuff for moar lolz. The map should be bigger to accommodate these ferries tho
-[retracted Malzahar rant]

I'll follow up with my own maps with this particular twist, but I'll take 90210 years just to draft the maps, so I
need other actual mapmakers to run with this idea, teeheehee!
Meanwhile, I'll be keeping this map, and making some edits to make the capping moar fun and the STA less
intenseness. I'm not touching the terrain out of respect for Walker.
Bamboozle (05/08/2016 01:51pm):
I haven't even been keeping up with League recently. Is Malz really
permabanned now o_o
Xmo5 (05/08/2016 02:00pm):
I don't think I mentioned anything about high funds except the FTA counter bit. All I meant by that was that the
map style should adopt the same type counter as is used in high funds games. That said, I do recommend
having enough starting income that 2 mechs can be built per turn. My suspicion is that this will just devolve into
a slower development of the same meat shield tactic, but even harder to break through, unless steps are taken
to address this in map design.

One thing worth noting is that lower funding per base usually increases infantry use, and banning infantry
decreases effective available funding, which should increase the ratio of footsoldiers to other units, if left to its
own devices. I'll be happy to do some work on this myself- it could be fun :)
liandry (05/08/2016 02:40pm):
Bamboozle, yes, especially in Korea. My friends here in PH are also catching on. Goddamn free Banshee's Veil
passive on his passive plus reliable voidlings = top-tier jungling and being better than the Heimerdonger when
played midlane. Rito removed his burst? Pssh, as if that mattered on a DPS champion.

Xmo5, that high funds stuff was a misunderstanding on my part, I apologize. I haven't seen much high funds
games with proper FTA counters, I think I'll need to have it explained to me(I'm a noob when it comes to serious
AW)

I feel iffy about letting players make 2 mechs every early turn, exactly because of that scenario you're worried
about. I wanted to force players to decide whether to mech or vehicle, but rarely both, until later in the game. If
one makes vehicles, they can go on the offense, and if said player then makes mechs, he'll lose vehicle count
and lots of ground. If one builds a lot of mechs, artilleries can be deployed, and if he deploys tanks next, he'll be
going into a bad fight with enemy vehicles if that tank ever comes near, hopefully.
I guess for these above scenarios to work, one should cut down on predeployed transports when mapmaking.
Lower early game funding leads to mech flooding, yes, but with a large enough map, people will have to gain
ground with other units- this is where the tankies come in.

Bamboozle (05/08/2016 04:06pm):
Hm, looks like the mage rework was a lot more expansive than I thought.
Thought they'd be weaker since you can't QSS assassination debuffs like
Zed's Death Mark. I need to start playing again.

How's Draven? He was the only champ keeping me addicted for a while. Is he
still strong if you're good with him or is the meta too inhospitable for him?
Jackie Milton (05/08/2016 04:34pm):
(Eww, League of Legends)

First off, who's the phantom 1? Like is Walker mad you ripped him off? Honestly, that
would be funny, but sersly? Phantom raters are pathetic bottom-feeding scum, who seek only
to cause others pain and dissatisfaction. Also, why does it have to be 1-10 so we get
5.5's as a median score? like that's dumb. It's really just 5/9, and who on God's Green
Earth uses 1-9 scales? Of course people like Nyvelion might hack the site to give out
zeros, but that just leaves the rest of us peasants with a dumbass 1-9 rating scale. And
three, why is it "awful" to fahkin "Near perfect". Like wtf. Then what the hell do you
rate a perfect map? *dipshit player from aught '6*, "wtfFTAcounter/10". Or is it some
bullshit pretentiousness that "one can never make a perfect map, man". Maybe so, but what
do the numbers really mean? 10 for good, 1 for sucks. In fact, we should just rehash the
rating system to a binary- Good-Sucks, the Good-Sucks rating system would include just two
numbers players could rate: 1 and 0 (or 2 and 1, because flippin' wahtever, right?). The
Good-Sucks system would be a much more accurate depictor of public opinion, because as WE
ALL KNOW, anything rated under 8 by non-MC sucks. With Good-Sucks we're no longer wading
through the knee-deep pool of bullshit that pretends the current rating system has any
meaning.

Oh, and cool idea.

-J.G.S.M.
(The "GS" stands for "Good-Sucks")
liandry (05/08/2016 05:09pm | Edited: 05/08/2016 09:48pm):
Bamboozle, Draven did not um, really change, afaik. He still assassinates assassins once he's cashed in. Every
AD Carry is viable in the meta, just not in the lanes you might expect. (Think Kindred, Graves, Corki, and Quinn
as prime examples) Keep enjoying your quadruple damage crit axes. ;)

OUCH Jackie. Not only did you diss League (no, that does not really hurt. opinions and stuff.), you also called
me a "pathetic bottom-feeding scum!" At least have some respect for the cute creatures in the Marianas trench
or something.
I AM THE PHANTOM 1 AHAHAHAHA I rated it such because if you think of it, it's not really a good mapmaking
idea to just practically nearly copy people. (this was before Xmo5 reassured me it's okay. he's so niiiiiice.)
In defense of the current rating system, I think it was designed to really measure how good a map is.
Like 10 is "I don't see anything to improve"
8 is "Polish this a little bit and you could see this in GL. Is alright tho"
7 is "baseline acceptable by the masses" good
6 is "Alright, you missed something..."
3-5 is "Horrible. Here's 40272849 things you should change..."
And lower than that would be some amigo123 shit
Xmo5 (05/08/2016 06:01pm):
My point is that the awbw meta will likely remain "fill every base every turn", so anyone with 6-9k will probably
get 2 mechs, not a single arty or tank. Number of units is crucial to winning, just like the type and timing of
those units. 2 coordinated mechs beat arty or tank and draw with AA. Keep that in mind. Search maps in the
high funds category- you'll see they leave starting bases neutral and leave predeployeds for capturing. This
would also help by providing 2 extra mechs to kickstart the capture phase.
liandry (05/08/2016 06:59pm):
I see I see.
How about separating the bases, like one base per front (in future maps)? That may reduce mech coordination
enough for other units to counter them.
OR
This would be a little extreme, but bases per player could be reduced to one? Probably weird and pointless
suggestion, but would really put an end to that kind of spam.
Jackie Milton (05/08/2016 08:46pm):
Haha. Sorry. I was mostly joking about the ratings anyway. You went off on a thing, so I
figured I had to as well.

Also, it's spelled "Infantry", not "Infantries", you filthy piece of human garbage.

-J.K.M.
(The "K" stands for "Kidding")
liandry (05/08/2016 09:32pm | Edited: 05/08/2016 09:44pm):
I stand by my pluralization of "infantery." you know, for the lolz.

Initial testing shows that it DOES devolve into mech spam. While this isn't bad, it's a disappointment. So much
for breaking the meta. (inf spam isn't bad either, you just copy the strat)

I guess I should just play AWDOR if I don't wanna see infantries anymore. (screw you, Jackie ;p)

Special maps with specific designs are needed if this is to actually work as intended; how to design them, idfk, I
just wanted to get my name up there on the Global League top 5/play (with) people, this is just something to do
before my next turn.

Anyway, I'll do the high funds adjustments as suggested by Xmo5 after finishing the tests. Meanwhile, I give up
on this for a while and let people play this for fun if they want.

This is not bad for a first try, I guess.
Xmo5 (05/08/2016 11:43pm):
Indeed, reducing the number of bases on the map will have the same effect as increasing funding. Generally
speaking what matters is the funds:base ratio, but the fronts:base ratio also matters. The fewer bases per front
(or more fronts per base) and the more money per base, the less you'll see infantry (or mechs in this case).
There are maps designed around this concept (base light and high funds maps both share in this feature,
though obviously it varies by map), but it's certainly not the full picture of the mech substitute you propose.

As I said before, I'll give this some thought and see if I can't design a map or two based on the concept to test it
out.
liandry (05/11/2016 01:27am):
EDITS HAVE BEEN MADE, PEOPLE.
Should be orders of magnitude more playable now, though city distances are preserved for lolz.
Nyvelion (06/28/2016 03:40pm):
I don't see any edits made to the title.
Jackie Milton (06/29/2016 12:13pm):
Ty^
liandry (07/01/2016 01:18pm):
The unseen edit is the deadliest.
Xmo5 (07/08/2016 01:11pm):
LOL
Bamboozle (07/14/2016 02:37am):
Brave the FTA, find the truth.
Nyvelion (10/12/2016 08:42am):
I have realized the truth...
There is no FTA.
walkerboh01 (06/24/2017 04:35pm):
This map is hilarious, as are the comments. I like the concept and am honored that my map was the base for this
innovation. Did you ever develop it further?



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