Reasonable Levels of Fuq Integrity
Creator: Jimmy(Payne) || First Published: 06/13/2016 || Players: 4 || Size: 21x21
Categories: C-Rank, FFA Multiplay, Standard
Rating: 9.00 in 1 rating
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Jimmy(Payne) (06/13/2016 12:28am):
Subject: Re: _ 06/11/2016 11:37pm
From: uFuqinwitme
[Quote]
Yes
[/Quote]

Jackie please the integrity of Fuq must stay at reasonable levels.

-J(Fuq)
Xmo5 (06/13/2016 08:21am):
The towers feel a bit contested to me.
Jimmy(Payne) (06/13/2016 09:04am):
I did want them to be pretty contested, after all, reasonable levels of Fuq must be maintained. But I could
swap the position of the labs, and make the lab unit something that preserves the Fuqing integrity of the
map.

-J(Levels)
Jimmy(Payne) (06/17/2016 03:31pm):
Removed mountain base (too close to front IMO), and swapped positions of tower and lab.

-J(Integrity)
Xmo5 (06/19/2016 10:42am):
Without that other base, you can probably afford to swap them back, since the defending team now has two bases
that are closer than the closest enemy base. Before, that mountain base was about even distance to the tower as
the (current) defender, and the other base was only two spaces further away, which made it a pretty close battle.
Now it's less hotly contested to have it back where it was.
liandry (06/21/2016 01:15pm):
Questions:
Is this made for teams or something?
Any suggestions for lab units? (no Fuqing idea man, if you can see my games I almost always leave the lab untouched)

And comments:
I can handle base swaps, but HQ swaps??? Kidding.
They could stand to be better protected though; as they currently are, they can easily fall from a Sami Victory March from
downtown.
Aesthetically speaking, the city arrangement feels iffy. It also feels too conveniently designed to favor Kindle, but maybe
that's the way it was meant to be idk
If only the map could be larger, a third (neutral) base would be nice; I like the idea of a dangerous game, but it's kinda too
dangerous to my taste. Fuq taste anyway, I just hope this is fair.
Jimmy(Payne) (06/21/2016 02:32pm):
Teams or FFA, weighted more toward the latter. No suggestion for lab units.

Ban Sami and Kindle, then. Not really worth it to change the map if two COs are broken.
I did have a third base in the mountains, but it made it just too close to the opposing base.

-J(of)
liandry (06/22/2016 08:08am):
Totally forgot this isn't for 1v1 lolz
Would this still work with air units?
Xmo5 (06/22/2016 08:56am):
The main issue with air units on this map both stem from the map size. By being such a
small map for 4 players, air units would have a lot of mobility, and this could be
dangerous because much of the small map mechanic relies on terrain barriers, which air
units could overcome. You could compensate with pipes, but that's not as aesthetically
pleasing and limits footsoldiers too.

The second issue is funding. With a map this size, it's hard to get enough funding to
support 2 bases and an airport. There's almost enough per side right now, but it's really
better suited for 2-3 bases than 2 bases with an airport. 5-7k income per base is pretty
standard, and with 15k income per side, that pretty much means that 2 bases would be near
the high end of income per base and 3 bases would be near the low end. Airports require
extra money and you could probably squeeze it in there with just 2 bases, but personally
I'd like to see a couple more cities for it to work and there's really not much room. (As
an aside, some maps might get away with it without changing the income, but since the map
is somewhat chokey and uses a lot of rivers, I'd want to limit infantry by keeping the
funds:base ratio near the higher end. If you don't, you probably end up with overuse of
copters and infantry because of cost and mobility advantages)

Just my take on it anyway.
BobCW (08/12/2016 04:04pm):
Fun map. Works well for Max, not too many chokes and only two bases means you've regularly got the funds to
deploy stuff like Neos.



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