Swimming with the Fishes
Creator: Kruegstr || First Published: 02/08/2009 || Players: 2 || Size: 17x19
Categories: A-Rank
Rating: 8.00 in 2 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
tst5381 (02/08/2009 07:32pm):
Oh my... why do everyone fill their maps with shoal nowadays -.-
Do you guys even have creativity?

airob (02/08/2009 07:38pm):
tst5381 wrote on one of his own maps:
Sometimes you guys should try having some fun with different map styles. Advance Wars is a
interesting game because it has many different kinds of game-plays, which vary not only
from different players, but also from different map styles.

looks like shoals are nowadays the want-to-make tile for making maps....as for me...i used
them on my map to have a 1-movement tile for tire units that doesn´t make koal broken
Kruegster (02/08/2009 07:41pm):
tst5381 (02/08/2009 06:32pm):
Oh my... why do everyone fill their maps with shoal nowadays -.-
Do you guys even have creativity?

What? How is that not creative?
Everyone???? I have not seen anyone else make a map with shoals instead of plains-there
may be a few maps like this, but there are not many. It is a ridiculous and not true to say that
everyone fills their maps with shoals.

tst5381 (02/08/2009 07:45pm | Edited: 02/08/2009 08:04pm):
A good and unique map should consider both playability and appearance. In my opinion these
clumsy shoals look far away from decent. And I just felt kind of sick when many people are
using other's idea rather than their own ones.
My previous words may be a bit rude. I apologize for that.
airob (02/08/2009 07:54pm):
yea btu everyone uses properties..just look at it that way
what if i want to make a map where the poor rocket,reckon are not sad because they have a
dificult traverse...at least for me i just want a tile to let´s them traverse it
freely...i don´t use roads cuz of koal and i don´t use cities or used silos cuz of fund
distortion and imbalance and kindle´s broken status on cities...also used silos provide of
a hell defensive comparatively to what would be a 3-point defense filled map...that´s not
what i want
Kruegster (02/08/2009 08:13pm | Edited: 02/08/2009 08:16pm):
tst5381, I would like to make something perfectly clear: I DON’T CARE AT ALL ABOUT
THE APERANCE OF A MAP! And just to support this statement, here is a map I made that
has a very unusual appearance: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=42716
What makes a map good? I think that all that really matters is the playability. And to that
existent, this map should be considered decent; it will be an unusual battle, because there
will not be many tanks, but rather there will be many black boats, copters, and anti airs. I
am not saying a map that looks beautiful is bad; I am simply saying that what makes
AWBW fun, in my opinion, is playing the game, not staring at a pretty map.

Also I want to make it perfectly clear (even though I already said this in my other comment), I
have not seen another map with as many shoals as my map. So tst5381, you should not
accuse me of stealing the idea. I admit that someone else MAY have done something
similar, but I have not seen it! I thought of making this map with shoals on my own.

And airob brings up some decent points, but airob, you shouldn’t bar yourself from making
roads, or making a map how you want too just because of a CO like koal. If one CO will
have a huge advantage, then you can specify in a comment that the CO will be unfair.

airob (02/08/2009 08:34pm):
Kruegster wrote:
And airob brings up some decent points, but airob, you shouldn’t bar yourself from making
roads, or making a map how you want too just because of a CO like koal. If one CO will
have a huge advantage, then you can specify in a comment that the CO will be unfair.

yea..i don´t wanted to make a disvantaged koal map...i just wanted to make A MAP FAIR TO
TIRE UNITS WITHOUT broken COs i have said it a lot of times in my map and here........i
just wanted to make a map where most COs aren´t broken(except for the typical ones) for
example if my newest map would be with roads or a lot of cities...kindle and koal would
always or very often banned...and i want maps where all COs can be used as koal has the
movility CO powers...he wouldn´t be in any disvantage just as an adder or somehting like
that also...it IS THE FIRST MAP I MAKE IN THAT STYLE...also it let´s for the easy navl
transport as you said
Shadow Star (02/08/2009 08:50pm):
Koal's power and D2D is not enough to make you use less roads. Because he only gets the
bonus on roads, that means you're putting your troops in zero cover. it's better to have your
troops on plains than roads with Koal, 10% defense is better than 10% offense. (and there's
more ways to raise defense than offense.)
Kindle, is worth worrying over, but if less than 20% of the map is property, and there aren't
loads of property by the chokepoints, then she should be fine as well.
Kruegster (02/08/2009 08:56pm):
I agree with Shadow Star; Koal's advantage is small, and one should not have to make less
roads because of one CO.
airob (02/08/2009 09:03pm | Edited: 02/08/2009 09:10pm):
ok,ok....sigh..as long i think that will be the only map with lot of shoals i will make
also i will say it again...i made a map where tire units aren´t slow...that´s why i dind´t
put much plains and also i considered two things: give a 110/100 stat to koal or make
lander and black boat transport easy???..i choosed the second if it weren´t for cuz i
wanted the naval transport easy i would have putted mor roads than shoals believe
me....but tha are the two amin reason why i put shoals....
at least have you seen the map?? is the one below this
Kruegster (02/08/2009 09:07pm):
...Yes I have seen your map. I don't think it would make any differance if you would replace
the bridges with roads.
airob (02/08/2009 09:11pm | Edited: 02/08/2009 09:12pm):
bridges??? wouldn´t you say the shoals????...if the bridges are what concersn you then i
will replace them..
and shadow star look at my 3 coment..i explain what you say there
Kruegster (02/08/2009 09:22pm):
Fine… I will give a comment of your map. Link: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?
maps_id=42510
Harti1990 (02/09/2009 05:06am):
Singular: fish
Plural: fish
Nyvelion (02/09/2009 06:21am):
If you just want to be sure that Koal isn't overpowered, you could just use bridges
instead of roads. Koal doesn't get the insane bonus on bridges.

Though, having all shoals is still fine. It would be nice if AWBW didn't try to "fix" the
corners though.
Everzwijn (02/09/2009 10:18am):
You FOOLS! KOAL doesn't even NEED roads! >:[
Kruegster (02/09/2009 01:54pm):
Who started talking about Koal =\ there arn't and roads or briges on this map anyways, so
koal doesn't matter...

Harti1990 (02/09/2009 04:06am):
Singular: fish
Plural: fish

The plural form of fish can be fish or fishes, but “fishes” is less commonly used; both fish
and fishes are acceptable though.

airob (02/09/2009 02:05pm | Edited: 02/09/2009 02:07pm):
me wrote:
i don´t use roads cuz of koal and


yea i accept i started talking of him....but i tryoied to mean like in my map...maybe i
didn´t explain it very well and i apologie for that....but my intention was not to burn
koal i wast just wondering what terrain seth would be better for my map...and inthat place
i wanted to mean my map..so i apologie for my bad

also have you noticed how YOUR map got to be the topic of MY map.??? lol that and sorry too :(
airob (02/09/2009 02:35pm):
umm kuergster...i tihk you made a mistake...you comented on this map:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?
maps_id=42510

while the one i am talking about is this....what exactly did you wanted to explain me or
why to get that map too in the topic???or did you mistaked it?
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=43024
DuelStriker (02/09/2009 03:33pm):
I'm not a fan of maps filled with shoals at all, they look really ugly. Sorry, but I really don't like
it that much. 5/10
Ducky (02/09/2009 04:47pm):
the origin of the 1-10 rating system is somewhere dark. I want a 0-1 rating system where
you pick 1 if you like it and 0 if you don't. The 1-10 system will inevitably pervert into that
anyways.
Kruegster (02/09/2009 09:26pm | Edited: 02/10/2009 12:40pm):
DuelStriker (02/09/2009 02:33pm):
I'm not a fan of maps filled with shoals at all, they look really ugly. Sorry, but I really don't like
it that much. 5/10

I forgive you DuelStriker. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder-and some people need
glasses-(JK Duelstriker doesn’t need glasses just because his opinion is that my map is
ugly, and I believe it is magnificent). But seriously: I don’t really care what the map looks
like as long as its playability is good, so by that standard I believe the map should be
considered good- I think it can have a decent battle.

airob (02/09/2009 01:35pm):
umm kuergster...i tihk you made a mistake...

airob you have confused me XD… I don’t know what this comment means:
airob (02/08/2009 08:03pm):
at least have you seen the map?? is the one below this

http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=42510 this is the link to your map,
which was below mine in Waiting Public Games, but now you are saying you wanted me
to look at this map http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=43024 so what did
you mean by “is the one below this one"? I am confused =(

airob I am not trying to be rude, but now I am not understanding some of your comments,
for instance,
Kruegster (02/08/2009 08:07pm):
...Yes I have seen your map. I don't think it would make any difference if you would replace
the bridges with roads.
airob (02/08/2009 08:11pm):
bridges??? wouldn´t you say the shoals????...if the bridges are what concerns you then i
will replace them..

In this comment, I am not sure if you were talking about my map or your map.
airob (02/10/2009 03:04pm):
my map....as i say sorry....well let´s just leave it like how it is...the one map i have
been talkin about and arguing was "fiery beach" so if you didn´t understand sorry.......as
it can be obvious...my english is not so good and i tend to confuse most people sorry
airob (02/10/2009 04:50pm | Edited: 02/10/2009 04:54pm):
kruegster wrote:
airob (02/09/2009 01:35pm):
umm kuergster...i tihk you made a mistake...

airob you have confused me XD… I don’t know what this comment means:
WHAT I SAID IS THAT YOU COMMENTED ON THE WRONG MAP...I WANS´T TALKING ABOUT THAT MAP
airob (02/08/2009 08:03pm):
at least have you seen the map?? is the one below this

http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=42510 this is the link to your map,
which was below mine in Waiting Public Games, but now you are saying you wanted me
to look at this map http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=43024 so what did
you mean by “is the one below this one"? I am confused =(
WHAT I TRYIED TO MEAN BY "BELOW THIS" IS IN THE NEW´S LIST...YOU KNOW IT IS MY FAULT FOR
NOT GIVING THE LINK INSTEAD OF JUST "BELOW THIS"

airob I am not trying to be rude, but now I am not understanding some of your comments,
for instance,
DON´T WORRY I EXPLAIN EVERYTHING IN THE LAST COMMENT BEFORE THIS

Kruegster (02/08/2009 08:07pm):
...Yes I have seen your map. I don't think it would make any difference if you would replace
the bridges with roads.
airob (02/08/2009 08:11pm):
bridges??? wouldn´t you say the shoals????...if the bridges are what concerns you then i
will replace them..
I WAS TALKIN ABOUT MY MAP...."FIERY BEACH" ALL THIS WHOLE TIME I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE...

In this comment, I am not sure if you were talking about my map or your map.

JUST AS A SIDE NOTE:
IN THE MY FIRST TWO COMMENTS I WAS DEFENDING YOU MAP FROM TST´S COMMENT TAKING MY MAP AS
AN EXAMPLE...BUT THEN YOU GOT TO ME SAYING I SHOULDN´T QUIT ROADS FORM MY MAPS AND SHADOW
STAR ABOUT ME BARING FORM USING KOAL AND ALL THAT...BUT IN THE NEXT
COMMENTS I WAS SAYING WHY I USED SHOALS INSTEAD OF ROADS ...THE THING IS THAT I DIDN´T
WANTED TO SAY I NEVER USE ROADS...I USE PLENTY OF THEM BUT THE REASON OF THE SHOAL FILLED
MAP...I HAVE SAID IT A LOT OF TIMES.....ALSO IF YOU SEE ALL MY MAPS...I ALWAYS USE
ROADS....THAT WAS(FIERY BEACH) THE FIRST SHOAL FILLED MAP I MADE..THEN I THOUHT YOU KNEW I
WAS TALKING ABOUT "FIERY BEACH" AND NOT ABOUT "BATTLE FOR SPARTA" THE ONE YOU COMMENTED
"WRONG"
HOPE THIS CLEAR OUR DOUBTS...AND SORRY FOR ALLTHIS TROUBLE AGAIN..I MADE THE ANSWERS IN
CAPITLAS
Kruegster (02/12/2009 09:55pm):
That’s one long comment airob, but thanks for the explanation; it has clear things up. I now
understand without a doubt that you have been referring to this map:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=43024 “Fiery Beach”.
walkerboh01 (02/04/2011 03:26pm):
Wow I think you're all crazy, this map looks pretty cool. I for one have not seen a single other
map like this on the site, and I just finished looking through over 1000 maps, re-categorizing
them. This map looks like it will play well (although it may be a little open in some places, the
center most notably). I think the map could use one more property one space diagonally
away from the NW and SE missile silos, and at least 2 more forests in that block of 15 tiles in
the center, and it would be improved.

Nice map though, I put this into Good 2 Player maps, it belongs in there.
Kruegster (02/14/2011 09:21pm):
Thank you Walkerboh (Kruegstr is my other account for maps). I recently played this map
vs blanci 1, and I learned quite a bit. The map had decent game-play, but I didn't like how
all the fighting came to the middle and had the potential to turn into a draw. blanci and I
disscussed some of the changes you have suggested.

I have made two major edits to it by moving the capitals and adding another base by
each capital. Now there are more areas of attack, and it will be easier to get to the
opponet's capital. However, the strategies of the map are not changed much. (This map
is good for units such as black boats, copters, recons, and maybe rockets)
walkerboh01 (02/15/2011 12:18am):
Looks good! One small thing with STA though. The fronts are uneven property-wise, and
because of the FTA counter that means 2P will get more properties first; i.e. STA. If you move
one city from near the backwards base to the forwards base, then I think it would be okay.
Kruegster (02/15/2011 12:59am):
Hmmm. I know the FTA counter should equal $1500, and so the infantry preferably gets
placed on the more important base when there are 2 bases and one capital. But this is the
first time I have heard anything about a possible STA because of city placement... you could
be right walkerboh01, but IF you are, it would be a pretty small STA.

Nevertheless, I moved one city nearer to the base by each player's capital.
walkerboh01 (02/15/2011 02:03am):
Yeah it's a deeper issue of FTA that not many people are aware of. It is a small matter of STA,
but it's easy to fix and shouldn't affect the game otherwise so there's no reason not to make the
change.
blanci1 (05/06/2011 04:00am):
WOW amazing amount of debate over what was a very trial idea-phase map, which was
totally stand-offish drawn in its previous life (without the wing factories) ... and that issue
was totally overlooked in all that debate ...Ha ha lol.

The re-incarnation has much more chances of making progress obviously, though the
walker-kreugstr test game has become a similar stand-off after the invasion of the other-
mans island got re-buffed for both. I think greater effort to hold the foothold on the other
island might just be possible ...

One other way to disrupt stand-off of course would be to put some seam on that pipe !!



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