Login | Register

Inexorable Tides (Design Map by walkerboh)
Categories: A-Rank, Heavy Naval

[Games on this map]
[Play on this map]
[Map Analysis]
[Check Favorites]
[Export map as text]

For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Rating: 9.50 in 2 ratings
Map Committee Rating: 0 in 0 ratings
walkerboh (02/06/2011 05:33am):
Okay, I know the map is chokey. That's kind of the whole idea. The land battle should grind
to a stalemate right around those top/bottom shoal bridges, forcing each side to try to build
battleships in an attempt to drive back the defenders. As if that isn't enough incentive to gain
naval superiority, you certainly don't want your opponent to get their 2 towers, much less all

So to recap, there are 2 ways probably of breaking the chokepoint and winning the game. 1)
Win naval battle and use bships to drive the enemy back, and 2) win the naval battle and get
the tower advantage, giving you the firepower to break through enemy lines. Either way, the
whole point of this map is to emphasize a naval battle. Hopefully it works! Funding is high for
such a small map in light of this, and no I'm not adding airports.

Comments are appreciated as always!
MossGrande (02/07/2011 07:40am):
I think that planned naval combat is really vital in this map. With 23000 per turn at
most, player must watch out for defending expensive subs and battleships. Cruisers
wouldn't be so much effective since there are no airports and subs can take themselves out
as well. Land is indeed chokey, but I believe that if both players would lead armies from
their respective smaller islands in more offensive manner, front lines would end up
somewhere in the middle of the map, and there is some space there. Well, that's just a
theory. I really love the concept though.
walkerboh01 (02/07/2011 02:27pm):
Thanks for the thumbs up! I'm considering adding 1 or 2 more properties per side, but I think
i'll test it first.

Cruisers are just more of a sub-killer really in a map like this, but they probably won't be used
much. If I put airports in to promote cruiser use, then no one would bother using naval units
though haha.
thebranch16 (02/14/2011 10:47pm):
I played on this map and really enjoyed it. I do, however, think there should be a few
more towers, maybe some out of range of the rockets, so that the tower advantage is
really worth all the money spent on naval units.
Otherwise, it can feel like wasted effort to win the naval battle and be overrun on the land
by sheer numbers.
walkerboh (02/17/2011 07:41pm):
Hm I'll think about it, but I really think that if you win the naval battle and have even just a 2
tower advantage on someone (much less a 3 or 4 tower advantage), that it will be hard to
lose the game. If your opponent doesn't contest the towers, then you won't have to spend
that much extra money to win the towers; just one bboat and battleship. And if they do
contest the towers, you'll both be spending about the same amount of money probably. I
haven't played on the map yet though, so I don't know for sure how it works.
Meta Rexy (05/01/2011 07:17pm):
I think you should put the rocket units on a capped city so they'll stay useful throughout
the game.
ramdalucksta7 (06/06/2011 03:44pm):
But won't the rockets probably get taken out by battleships relatively early on anyways?
Definitely before they run out of ammo...

[Refresh map]

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