Design Map: Sink City

So I've made a new design map: http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=66019

I tried out several new things on this map. The most prominent is probably the piperunner, which is very strong because of the pipe layout, allowing it to hide from direct attack. Also it can't be outranged by arties or rockets, so it's actually nigh on invulnerable. The trick is that it sits on a broken pipe seam, which means it has to choose between guarding the corner (with airport) or the centre (with com tower + port).

Other things I'm trying for the first time are the inland seas with port, which potentially allows you to build B-ships and carriers. The B-ship is potentially very powerful, being able to watch 2 out of the 3 main fronts. In the case of the carrier, the corner airport is carrier-lockable (7 spaces so Max doesn't miss out), which should help to prevent stalemates. The inland seas also allow you to build transports to deposit units on the far shoals in case the chokepoints in the centre and sides become clogged.

As of this post, Bamboozle and Walker have both left comments on the map (thanks for the input, guys!) They have pointed out 3 issues:
1. The piperunner is a bit too strong against the lone base. I agree with this to some degree but I'm not sure how to lessen the impact of the piperunner without making it totally useless. I very much want to keep the idea of a semi-strong piperunner that has to choose between two good areas.
2. The port position is poor. I'm not actually sure why this is the case, perhaps Walker would care to elaborate. The point of putting it there was to kind of balance between the centre and the sides, because I think the sides are more desirable due to how the two bases can rush the far airport if they choose to send their piperunner there.
3. The silo shouldn't be there. Personally it doesn't make much difference to me whether there's a silo there or not, but is there an explicit case against having the silo there? Again, input from Walker (or anybody, really) would be helpful.

Things I'm considering doing to the map:
1a. Shoal locking the port because B-ships and carriers built there may be overpowered
1b. Perhaps just removing the port altogether and giving each player a lander there instead, which removes the option of building ships.
2. Removing the airport in each side's home territory to make the far airport more vital. If I did this I'd probably edit the terrain to make it more difficult for the 2-base side to reach the far airport and reposition the pipes so the piperunner can't guard as much of the side.
3. Shifting the neutral base to the other side of the map so the piperunner faces two bases, which means it'll have a harder time stopping any advance. It also makes it more difficult to rush the far airport, in which case point 2 becomes more viable.
4. Removing the silo, as per Walker's recommendation. (again, I don't mind doing this, but I'd like to know why it's necessary.)
5. Straightening out some pipe sections to make the piperunner more vulnerable to tank attacks, which makes it less strong.
6. Removing the shoals nearest the pipes in the inland seas to make transporting units there less vital.

As I said, I'm trying out a lot of new things, so any input is welcome. Thanks!

Everdan wrote:1. The piperunner is a bit too strong against the lone base. I agree with this to some degree but I'm not sure how to lessen the impact of the piperunner without making it totally useless. I very much want to keep the idea of a semi-strong piperunner that has to choose between two good areas.

I agree with you, it's definitely at least worth testing as is. You'd need pretty broad redesigns to fix this, so I'd say another map would be in order rather than edits to this one.

Everdan wrote:2. The port position is poor. I'm not actually sure why this is the case, perhaps Walker would care to elaborate. The point of putting it there was to kind of balance between the centre and the sides, because I think the sides are more desirable due to how the two bases can rush the far airport if they choose to send their piperunner there.

My concern is battleships being a bit overpowered, especially if the 2-base side does successfully block off the airport with the piperunner. The port position itself is okay - I misspoke in my comment on your map, but I would shoal it off to prevent battleships from being able to move down nearer to the airports.

Everrdan wrote:3. The silo shouldn't be there. Personally it doesn't make much difference to me whether there's a silo there or not, but is there an explicit case against having the silo there? Again, input from Walker (or anybody, really) would be helpful.

Maybe I'm just generally biased against missile silos.
I think it's bad to have a missile accessible during the capture phase, because it effectively creates a ton of contested cities and turns the fronts on most maps into a mess (if you can use the missile to disrupt key captures). On this map it's not quite as bad since it's comes in a little later, but it's still a bit early for my tastes. To me, missiles are most interesting as something a player has to spend resources on late game (bboat, lander, etc.) in order to help win a front or break a stalemate on a chokier map. I don't think your map needs it. Just my 2 cents.

My comments here in red italics

Everdan wrote:Things I'm considering doing to the map:
1a. Shoal locking the port because B-ships and carriers built there may be overpowered This is a good idea.
1b. Perhaps just removing the port altogether and giving each player a lander there instead, which removes the option of building ships. Preowned lander seems like it gives the 2-base side too much advantage. However, a preowned black boat for the lone base side might be interesting. I wouldn't remove the port though.
2. Removing the airport in each side's home territory to make the far airport more vital. If I did this I'd probably edit the terrain to make it more difficult for the 2-base side to reach the far airport and reposition the pipes so the piperunner can't guard as much of the side. Airport works pretty well as is, I think. Otherwise you have to start worrying about stealth wins.
3. Shifting the neutral base to the other side of the map so the piperunner faces two bases, which means it'll have a harder time stopping any advance. It also makes it more difficult to rush the far airport, in which case point 2 becomes more viable. If you do this, I'd make a separate map out of the idea.
4. Removing the silo, as per Walker's recommendation.
5. Straightening out some pipe sections to make the piperunner more vulnerable to tank attacks, which makes it less strong. Probably a good idea, I don't see any issue with doing so.

I would also add that I don't think the mountains around the lone base are needed. The map seems a bit more interesting if the lone base can easily send units forward instead of just sideways, and it makes the decision of where to send the piperunner a little less obvious.

I really like the idea of the piperunner having to choose between 2 fronts. One thing I'd do however to make the choice more interesting is to make the area the piperunner originally stands on completely useless. I'm not experienced at designing or critiquing maps at all, so I don't have much more to say other than it looks pretty nice.

Thanks Walker for that very detailed post! I've removed the silo, shoal-locked the port and removed the mountains near the lone base. The map should be decent for playtesting now, and I'll do that when I've got the time.

@Invi: I think so too, but it's a little difficult to do it on this map. I'll try the idea out in another map. Thanks for the comment!

Great map to boot! Autmatic Grit ban much?

Here's a few ideas I thought of that may help.

What about replacing the airport with a neutral base and adding a neutral airport close by the com towers? It could incentivize players on what type of coverage they want. (I.E cover base to delay production but lose a com tower + airport, etc.) I really like the concept of making the piperunner do a trade. A great inspiration from one map I remember, where 1 predeployed infantry had 4 choices. Funds, power, unit, and manueverability are all good trades.

Where the lone city is in the island next to the HQ's, they could be neutral bases instead with a predeployed lander or bboat in the lake. That way the base can produce units that are closes to the center, but are delayed due to transport as it is a sizable map to play on. This could give players an option to attack the sides or defend the center using the predeployed bboat or lander.

If you want to, I can help with playtesting and give some more in-depth analysis from gameplay.

Kamuscha wrote:A great inspiration from one map I remember, where 1 predeployed infantry had 4 choices. Funds, power, unit, and manueverability are all good trades.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're probably thinking of Stormy Glen (or Stormiest Glen) which was an idea hatched by Glen (hence the map names) and implemented by Walker. Also, HP made an inverted version, Suckiest Glen, where your opponent picks for you instead.