Omega Hills
Creator: Lazureus || First Published: 10/31/2006 || Players: 2 || Size: 30x20
Categories: Casual Play
Rating: 7.23 in 56 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
SmackCakes (10/31/2006 08:52am):
this looks awesome 10/10
jhuni (10/31/2006 09:48pm):
I agree with smackcakes! 10/10.
felix45 (11/01/2006 08:58pm):
homgz add reefs to make it prettyful.
sirfuxalot (11/02/2006 04:26pm):
I would say add reefs, which you should, but it appears to be an excellent map anyways.
the only sort of problem I have is the middle being sort of chokey, and right and left
sides are kind of bland in the middle. 9/10
Sylux (11/02/2006 06:20pm):
*agrees with sirfuxalot*

9/10
Archromancer (11/02/2006 09:18pm | Edited: 11/02/2006 09:19pm):
This map is terrific! The main fighting area is square-shaped, but I see you allowed access to the center through
four mountain passes and stuck in some incentive. The central mountainous region also lends itself well to sneak-
attacks in FOW. Excellent! 10/10
satou (12/26/2006 01:48pm):
I'ts a pain in the ass in fow...

Indirect-stalemate heaven X_X
Where no one knows (06/08/2007 06:45pm):
This map is my absolute least favorite map to play on. The center is hell, and the outsides are
lucky to see any action at all. It is balanced, but it screams stalemate in the center, I wil lavoid
this map with all my heart, and I wont rate it, simply because I'd be inclined to give it a 1,
which it doesn't seem to deserve >.>

Sorry for my negativity.
Thefishdude (06/14/2007 08:54pm):
reminds me of Spann Island in a way, but I still like it
8/10
Attack and Defend (08/07/2007 09:40am):
Y does blue start off with an infantry
lindsay40k (09/28/2007 06:58pm):
It's far too easy to prevent capture of the contentious properties, and the chokey
mountains make the centre a drawn-out battle of attrition.
Hemskinator (12/04/2007 07:27pm):
Way too wide open
inevitability (02/19/2008 12:17am):
I agree, this is a good map.. why not add a port in it for each to encourage a sea war?



Dhomochevsky (03/19/2008 02:25pm):
This map is great as it is. It has three fronts, none of which give too much of an advantage if you control but
controlling 2 or more usually guarantees the victory. The key to the map is balancing the three fronts and capturing
the four contentious cities. Nice work!
Flawed Logic (06/20/2008 09:09pm):
Why do people berate a great map for having one or two spots that they define as "chokey"?
Whilst other, absolutely terrible maps, are given 10/10 for being wide open? Why? Ask
yourself that crucial question. This is one of the great maps of our time, it deserves to
be respected. 10/10 it has probably achieved my friend nirial1991's Ultimate category of
10/10's, it deserves it.
Meta Rexy (07/30/2008 04:31pm | Edited: 11/26/2008 07:39pm):
I find this map... too open. Way too open in the middle...
I thought this map was fine at first but it wasn't very fun playing on this map...
Personally I don't like it when the map's too open but I guess it's good to have variety.
8/10
rast2 (01/29/2009 07:51pm):
Why is this in the leagues still? Always turns into failmate
Rast (05/28/2009 10:32pm):
why is this still in the leagues? FAIL
Harti (10/12/2009 08:35pm):
The sea design is exciting
walkerboh01 (12/02/2009 05:07am):
This is a pretty decent map. The key is obviously controlling the center while holding on the two side fronts. It's fair,
well-balanced and fun. 9/10 for me.
airob (12/24/2009 07:13pm):
donīt you think itīs time to chage the league maps a bit? this oneīs getting a bit old to
me :E
JoystickHero (01/20/2010 12:18am):
I'll agree that a couple reefs would add to the aesthetic.
CompleteDuck (03/31/2010 05:11pm):
This one is a freaking stalemate on FOG.
Seriously take this out of the leagues, as it can easily stalemate if the closest base to
the center mech spams or infantry spams, along with several Arty.
Nyvelion (03/13/2015 02:16pm):
I really doubt any of lazer guy's maps made it into the league.



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