Stolen Seconds
Creator: Boh Walker || First Published: 09/01/2018 || Players: 2 || Size: 23x17
Categories: B-Rank, Fog of War
Rating: 6.81 in 68 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
Boh Walker (09/01/2018 06:02pm | Edited: 09/01/2018 06:02pm):
This map is based on Bamboozle's map, Stolen Moments:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=66616

It has been adapted to be more suitable for Fog of War games.
Sami-YingXiangLi (11/01/2018 02:11am):
I played this map 2 times on fog,the contested cities location is just right.

The disadvantage front seems to be very weak, but in fact, another front can also be quickly
supported.

The terrain in the corner is very interesting. There are many possibilities.

And the middle is slightly blocked compared to some maps.But it can still move to the top or bottom
to mobilize the units.

Very good FoW map!
Armez (08/09/2021 06:35am):
The left team should be another country, with units facing right for better visual (so both player units are facing each others, and not the same direction), helpful for colorblind and better visually.
Aside of that, good map imo ^^
teranspecialist (08/17/2021 06:32pm):
I actually like the original better in fog of war
aLittleFishy (09/06/2021 06:36pm):
Some mountains or rivers in the middle section (Vertically not horizontally) would help slow down vehicles, important for
mitigating the dreaded max v max, other than that, as perfect as a map can realistically be (also please listen to Armez's
comment) 10/10
aLittleFishy (10/01/2021 07:02pm):
Having played on this map more, i have actually grown to hate it; in low level league it's not a bad map, the HQ is close
enough to cap if you are dominating and the contested cities and bases are located in good location to encourage sweeping
your strong side down to cap the HQ, unfortunately in high level league each player makes a beeline for 12,07 and 10,09 as
once you have them they are virtually impossible to take away from your opponent, giving your opponent a permanent
financial advantage that eventually wins the match, you know, in 35 turns, because even if you have those cities all 3 bases
and the airport can defend the HQ in 2 turns and rockets can be set up in woods to defend it too (09,03 and 05,03 for OS).
In conclusion you either get steamrolled early (especially by max having 30% extra firepower on direct units) or the match
stalls until your opponent gives up due to the extreme number of turns this match can last for. Sadly these problems don't
have any easy solutions as far as i can tell. 1/10
aLittleFishy (10/01/2021 07:11pm):
Also would like to point out that player 2 definitely has the advantage as the extra infantry on that base, given the map's small
size (vertically speaking) means taking those contested cities is distinctly easier for them. Moving it to the other base would be
much more balanced as they still get an income boost from getting a city earlier and having an extra infantry on the sides
without it influencing the middle too much.
Lost and Found (11/01/2021 07:56pm):
...huh?

Of course player 2 is ahead on the stronger factory. If they aren't, then player 1 is ahead
on said factory, which causes the same "problems" on the other side - except now
they're also backed up by the player with better cap timings also getting the first tank.
As is, the map is balanced about as well as a map in a turn-based game can be - there
is a resouce symmetry for overall capture phase gain and each side has distinct
positional advantages (being half a turn ahead on one side, mixed vehicle timings) that
don't outweigh the other side's.
aLittleFishy (11/05/2021 09:56pm | Edited: 11/05/2021 10:24pm):
@Lost and Found ...huh?
Let me clarify(also while i can appreciate you asking for other people on an ambiguous comment, in the future you can just
message me directly about it, i'll happily respond), P2 doesn't have the advantage because they get the factory first, they
have the advantage because that infantry is closer to the 2 game deciding properties on the map (if you think i am
exaggerating about how important those 2 properties are, check matches with both players over 1000 in rating), this gives P2
a stronger presence on them than player 1 has, and is therefore unfair not in terms of the map itself, but how people actually
play on it.
As for the how to fix it, i won't deny that yes, both players cappng the factory the same turn does put player 1 at an
advantage; as it is now P2 does still have an advantage. My suggestion was just an idea on how to make the map more
balanced; i am aware that, for this map, balancing the FTA is more complicated than that, my point is primarily that the
standard FTA that you explained doesn't actually work on this map specifically.

walkerboh01 (11/11/2021 03:20am):
Contested cities are important to control on all maps - this map is no different in that regard. The main premises of your
complaint regarding this map are:

1) Getting to the contested cities with the first infantry is a big advantage for capturing them initially, and
2) Once initially captured, it is very hard ("virtually impossible") to take them back from the opponent.

Both of these premises are not clear at best, and much more likely just false. Especially the second premise depends on a lot
of assumptions about decisions players must make in the capture phase and early mid-game for unit builds and positioning
which are not obvious and vary significantly from game to game. In other words, player skill and decisions matter a lot more
than for advantage than influence due to the map (which is negligible in comparison).

What you are actually observing and describing here (without quite being able to pinpoint it) are two separate issues:
1) The first infantry can reach BOTH contested cities in the same amount of time (4 turns).
2) The central contested cities are contested by the same (mirrored) base for each player.

These are typically only issues on smaller maps where the initial properties are contested by infantry before supporting
vehicles can be produced and arrive at the front. It can also be a problem on maps where one front is significantly more
important strategically than others (e.g., the other fronts are not contestable). For this map, in practice these are not valid
concerns because while the center is undeniably important, it is highly contestable throughout the mid-game and is not the only
available target on the map.

In any case, if they *were* problems, adjusting the FTA counter infantry to the other base does nothing to improve the situation,
as LnF pointed out. The better solution would be to either adjust the contested city positions or starting base positions slightly
to make the cities less contestable initially. However, as I described above, I don't think that is necessary in this case.
aLittleFishy (11/14/2021 09:20am | Edited: 11/16/2021 10:30am):
@walkerboh1 You state that the cities aren't highly contestable, and because it relies on the decisions on each player rather
than the city position themselves. Here is my problem, the way the map plays out, even among the highest rated players on
the map (yes, i checked) goes like this. The capture phase is pretty standard, infantry capture properties and tanks move in
the contest the important property. The 2 important cities will then be fought over based on which unit each player builds,
this is again pretty standard. Once the 2 cities are owned by one player, they will then set up rocket and artillery to ensure
they cannot be taken back, while taking advantage of it being the only good defensive terrain in the center, and healing off it
to maintain the army they place there. They can then, due to the control of the center, can move their tanks, md tanks, and
copters to either flank to respond quickly to anything your opponent does, eventually making their opponent resign. If this
isn't not how the map plays out, then by all means, lets here it, because this style of gameplay, on such a small map, means
the match if functionally decided after the initial tank skirmishes, the player who lacks both cities has never, in any match i
have viewed, been able to take these cities back after they have been lost and once they have been built up, which the
owning player will be moving units into the center from potentially all 4 production facilities and all fronts of the map because
of how important center control through these 2 cities is; the owning player dominates the center, and therefore the match,
and yes, while you seem to think otherwise, the flanks are not as important as the center, as the center, as i said, allows
quick reinforcement to either flank while a strong flank can only push on the center.

As for the infantry, it merely gives P2 greater presence on the contested cities, as in they literally have an extra infantry to
contest them that P1 doesn't have. Regarding FTA infantry position, i already admitted to LnF that moving out of that
particular base wasn't a good idea, i have no idea why you decided to double down on saying i am wrong when i already
admitted as such, if you required clarification, you did not ask.

Also, you said a lot about how i was making things unclear for you, and that is fine, clarification is fine to ask for, except you
didn't ask for it, you assumed what i meant, then decided (from what i can see) to take broad strokes without actually
engaging with anything i had to say. Instead of something along the lines of "i hear what you are saying about the cities
being too contested, here is why they are in their current positions and why i think it is okay in term's of balance" and instead
went for "player skill and decisions matter a lot more than for advantage than influence due to the map (which is negligible in
comparison)." which is like saying the map is balanced because the players matched against each other are of roughly the
same skill level, which is more important. You are right, and that is not what i am talking about. These 2 cities decide the
match, they are not highly contestable once owned; only switching hands due to massive mistakes on part of a player, which
if they are equal in skill level, is not going to happen because of how easy it is to reinforce, and how easy it is to reinforce the
flanks from the middle.

To be fair to you, i wouldn't expect you to understand, or to be frank, care. You seem to love making these small maps where
early loses lead to an unwinnable situation due to something important on the map itself (here) or the way it plays(cross
town rivalry), which is fine. wyj loves to make maps with terrain to slow units down when they first come out of the base and
throughout the match, which is also fine. I do not enjoy playing on these maps, many people do not enjoy playing on one of
or both of these map types, which is also fine, in other words, i, nor anyone else, cannot be wrong for disliking a map. So i,
and others, comment to either make that map more enjoyable, or just to get it out of league, where one is forced to play on
them. In this case, yes the cities are too contested, but changing them would also change the way matches are played on it,
which would likely make the map less enjoyable for people who enjoy this kind of map (given you are the one who keeps
making them, you in particular).

So i comment, on this and all maps, to give my reasoning, as best i can, why i (and likely others as well) would dislike the
map and what COULD be changed to fix it. Most maps in global league have already been balance tested (more or less) so
the only actual criticisms that would matter would be which CO's belong in what tiers.
walkerboh01 (11/16/2021 06:14pm):
Noted, thanks for your helpful feedback.
SonjaTheSuperior (11/17/2021 08:14pm):
Note that infantry position is not very important in fog for central/very contested cities since vehicles will be around and
dictate who has control. That said I dont see how P2 is anywhere ahead on getting these cities then P1. Each player gets
their own city. Sure one player is ahead on the 2 base side, but that doesnt mean you will fight for the center stuff any better
(again since the cities are pretty well defined on who gets it, especially when you consider the nearby forest, so at worst the
city will remain neutral). I also see no issue with walker's interpretation.

You claim that you can use rockets to hold these cities later, but like most fog maps rockets are pretty poor units for the
usual reasons: front switch away from them creates gains and you can pivot back to ensure it cant advance or just break
through and clear the rocket.

I would also recommend joining the awbw discord (like I would to anyone playing awbw). Easier to have discussions and
hear feedback in real time.
aLittleFishy (12/04/2021 01:41pm | Edited: 12/04/2021 01:43pm):
@SonjaThe Superior
Please, if you are going to add your input to a conversation read the entire discussion, not just the singular comment; your
response doesn't seem to be taking into account previous comments, so while i will respond i have said most of this before.
You recommend discord, i recommend messaging if you desire for a person to explain themselves.

I stated that the infantry gives P2 more pressure on the 2 cities, which (while slight) is an advantage over P1, not that they
are ahead in capping them. Yes, the initial tank skirmish matters, but then your opponent capping your city could be bait to
get the first strike on your more valuable tank.

As for the cities being well defined on who get them, that is the point, owning one of your opponents properties puts a 2K
difference(1000 extra for you and 1000 less for your opponent) that can really add up over the course of the match.

You said rockets are poor units in fog for the usual reasons, front switching and breaking through. Neither of these work
because the center can be reinforced from all bases and the airport very easily, so you aren't breaking through unless your
opponent makes a misplay, and from the center can send units to defend either flank. Also, the rocket doesn't really need to
advance, it just needs to maintain the center 2 cities, if it prevents your opponent from advancing in the center and kills any
infantry trying to cap your cities, then it is doing its job.

Furthermore, yes rockets aren't generally very good in fog; but no player would ever suggest that you should never build one
if the situation and map are good for one. Rockets are zoning tools and highly effective at keeping your opponent away from
contentious areas provided you can properly defend them. It is a strategy, and on the many matches i have played and
viewed, yes it is the meta on this map; just because a unit or CO isn't generally good doesn't mean they cannot be used
effectively if the map enables them. On this map, yes it is easy to defend any rocket you build and yes it zones your opponent
out of an important area of the map.
SuKo02 (01/16/2022 08:41pm):
Dunning-Kruger Effect
cognitive bias is a very scary thing
Sami-YingXiangLi (01/29/2022 10:55pm):
This map is in the Hall of Fame as one of the most influential competitive fog maps.
speedrun (02/14/2022 01:09am):
this map is perfect top tier probably the best
speedrun (02/14/2022 01:10am):
this map is perfect top tier probably the best
omphalos (02/18/2022 02:14am):
This map is perfect for Sturm mirror matches.
speedrun (05/20/2022 06:53pm):
I can't stop playing it: I have done now probably more than 400 matches on it. Can't yet figure it out tough XD
xnoaname1997 (10/10/2022 11:32pm):
love this map but there's an FTA here. P1 can build recon Day 3 and interrupt 15,05. P2 cannot since they'll be a turn late.
platoisbroken (12/18/2023 12:08pm | Edited: 12/18/2023 12:12pm):
Feel this map is overrated (S-ranked). Since there is really only 6 contested properties and only 1 clear way and strategy for
pressing for an advantage (controlling the center, since by attacking the sides you get too close to enemy bases). Oh well,
maybe it being a Hall of Famer helps to explain why it's being overrated
walkerboh01 (02/18/2024 02:01am):
Removed from S-Rank based on day 3 recon FTA.



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