|walkerboh01 (04/15/2015 02:48am):|
I suspect that the chokepoints are located slightly off of where they should be. It seems to me
that the fronts will fall right on the 1-tile wide chokepoints near the HQ, with perhaps a bit of
fighting the center too. Either way, I think it's a bit too easy for a player to defend from an
inferior fund/unit count position.
I do think the airport is interesting. This might be a case where it's worth it to spend the $7500
to build air units from such a strong position, especially since the defensive positions will not
make it suicide to be down on vehicle count (which matters a lot more in maps where players
are actively trading units).
All in all, I think reducing some of the mountains and/or widening the shoal bridges in a couple
places will improve the map a bit. You can also consider tweaking the base positions slightly to
shift the fronts away from the chokepoints, if you like the current setup/shape of the land
|Knowledgeable (04/15/2015 06:33am):|
Looks good, i like the layout, good variety. Maybe HQ replacement is way to go if walkerboh
thinks it will be a bit pointy, i actually like the fact that you have one of each base around the
HQ for a good defencive stand if oppenent gets upper hand make him use his best artillary :)
Or am i just a turtle??
|Xmo5 (04/15/2015 10:00am):|
Haha layouts like that are always tempting for turtlers. I love turtling in most games and
historically I always did in AW(BW) but more recently I've strayed from that approach
here. I think it had to do with my (sudden) jump from casual play "for fun" style maps to
trying my hand at competitive 1v1 maps because I really had to think about how the battle
would unfold/ideal strategies etc.
God, now I need to go play a game where I can turtle hard so I can get my fix.
|Knowledgeable (04/15/2015 10:57am):|
Turtle or hare, one doesn't care. Aslong as its fun, who cares if you run ;)
|walkerboh01 (04/15/2015 06:08pm):|
Having a choke point here or there isn't a problem, if you provide players another way to go around or break
through it. In this case I'm not sure the map does that well enough. Basically you want to avoid situations
where a player who has gained an advantage has no way of consolidating or using that advantage to create a
bigger one. That's when you get stalemates.
In my opinion, maps should always reward aggressive play over defensive play - it makes for more fun games.
Note that encouraging aggressive play does not necessarily mean making maps very open.
|Knowledgeable (04/15/2015 08:19pm):|
Also great points, i too am in favour of the attacking stand point over a defensive one, a lot
more fun. different people play different ways, each to there own i suppose. But one thing
is for sure, if both teams turtled there would be a stalemate every game.
|BamboozleV (04/15/2015 10:52pm):|
Switched placement of the preowned base near the HQ and also adjusted the landmass formation so it's less
choky, as well as adding more shoals to those bridges~
|walkerboh01 (04/16/2015 12:39am):|
That looks a ton better, nice edits!