Super Wide Adventure!!
Creator: knbys || First Published: 02/27/2010 || Players: 2 || Size: 61x15
Categories: A-Rank, Mixed Base
Rating: 7.59 in 32 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
knbys (02/27/2010 03:53am | Edited: 02/27/2010 04:01am):
knbys (02/27/2010 03:53am):
I overdid it...
Red11 (02/27/2010 08:35pm):

Cut this Garlic bread in half, or it will make you fat!
i am not airob (02/27/2010 09:17pm):
you should take on base from the HQ zone to the zone with only one base...see, they are
too easily bumrushed.
knbys (02/27/2010 09:39pm):
Red11 (02/27/2010 10:00pm | Edited: 02/27/2010 10:01pm):
Sturm is 'the' powerhouse on this map. From my experience, large maps with lots of bases
means a cheap, level unit, and i mean recons, baby.
tst5381 (02/27/2010 10:22pm):
More HQs suggested.
i am not airob (02/27/2010 10:29pm):
^ this
probably two towers per side to spice this even more!
xushu (02/28/2010 08:51pm):
May be a few shoal-sea ports on the river too? xD

A rather large map... I say Kindle ftw here
Falconewing (03/05/2010 07:25pm):
3 HQs for each third I daresay.
airob (03/12/2010 06:04pm):
falken has a point, two HQs might play better than just one
magma (09/12/2010 10:05am):
Very good! Apart from having two hq's, but its all good! 7/10
blanci1 (11/25/2010 12:45am):
Original Idea..... though i agree with the creator... perhap just a little too much..... if it fit on my
screen ..... i really like to get a global view if possible... For example at about 3/4
the width of present would be perfect, and highly playable. ((Thats about 40-45 tile wide
rather than 60))
I think the battle would revolve around the comm towers which are all contestable in early
game ... a local gain of a comm has global effect.
It might also be interesting to have a version with no comms .. or 1 each and not so
prominently placed. In that case, "positional" strategy should be the main winning factor...
and this could be really extreme on such a wide map. Anyhow.... good one.

EroMango (05/28/2011 01:37am):
i really enjoyed it, think might also be fun with another version where its rivers and
bridges so it restricts tank movement across the boarder?
walkerboh01 (10/01/2011 05:55pm):
I'm giving this a 7/10. The number of bases, the two towers, and the absolute chaos of the map
anyways should make for fun games, but not something I'd want to play a serious game on.
CO_Raven (05/02/2012 03:07pm):
You know what would be funny? Using black squares to link the left side of the map to the right
Mori2 (05/09/2012 01:43am):
7. Very cool ideas here, and playable, but far too many variables for me to consider balance
here without many, many test games.
Joly (05/13/2012 03:35pm):
Should there be a city at column 10, row 3?
Charleslie (05/19/2012 10:36pm):
Nice find Joly. Get on it knbys.
Nyvelion (08/28/2012 03:24pm):
I'm sure knbys will come back and get right on that.
TarquinMitzi3 (10/12/2013 07:07am):
Could that be the reason BM has a better winrate on this map?
Nyvelion (10/28/2013 10:43am):
Win rate is currently 43 vs 40... how much more balanced do you want this to be??
CCCP (11/22/2016 04:16pm):
Well, actually the income is 10K, so BM should have five infantry. They only have four. It's technically
walkerboh01 (06/23/2017 01:06am):
It's because it starts with 7 bases, so there will naturally be some small inequality.

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