Favorite 1v1 map

[Skomatth]

Whats your favorite 1v1 map? I know I don't really think about it, but recently I found a lot of maps aren't as good as they could be if just one little thing was adjusted. I made a couple of my own just to play against comp with and they're a bunch of fun.

So what's your favorite map? I guess mine is flatinland04 since I play it so much. Or Skoland_Arridz but none of you have that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Steppe don't count ;P.

EDIT: We should have a 1v1 map making tourney and the winner's map could be used for a 1v1 tourney.

[bosdur]

Why shouldnt steppe count ? Its perfectly neutral map, and eliminate the whining about "hill-camping". I would insist on steppe map if a tourney involve wager of my life.

[Nobunaga0611]

Yeah for a 1v1 I would pick a Steppe map simply because you can focus more on the tactics of the other person, and less on the trees that are getting in your way. But if I had to pick a non-Steppe map I'd say flatinland09. It's pretty neutral. The best way to get an advantage on it is to go to the top of the very small sloping hill and fight downwards. But even then your opponent can see what you're gonna do since its obvious. So a pretty neutral map.

[baz]

i find that 1v1 flatinland04 is pretty fair, but is hard to attack in 2v2 :S

[Tera]

Classic Totomi and that's it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If you want a totally fair match, especially for a tourney or so, a plainsinland is required I think. Would cut all the moaning and bull - but still retain the essential skills of the use of cover and the use of height - which are totally absent in steppe maps, leading to the "ironing board" tactics ('Nu Total War&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif which the majority dislike compared to the old skool, "totomi, 4th, aki, nagashima" tactics.

Tera

[1dread1lahll]

Steep.... I find it interesting that people snivle about steeps...that they say it lack skills to do.... the same people ive watched in hill maps have shown neither tactical nor stratic skills. It is proof of a lack of imigination/ability/skills to belive such; Ive as little reguard for such people as 'monk rushers' of old. I suspect the people who hate/snivle about steeps do so because they cant win on them. If you cant, instead of snivling, rexamin your imigination/stragitic ability/tactical skills.

[Tera]

In MI most played ironing board, a completely flat, texture-less map with no forests. I can't say that I hated it, because I didn't - the style of play to be played on it was fun - fast armies, shock troops, gun powder and cavalry. A potent mix that needed ability since the battle was resolved fast and small mistake often led to a huge defeat.

But now let's move forward to an accurate definition of skill at elite level. Most above-average players have all the abilities to choose a good army, set it up, control it, conduct a decent missile battle, conduct a coherent attack and flank/rear a bit here and there. In team games one must add the ability to be coherent with your allies and help out at the right time, in the right way and on the right place.

Basically, that constitutes a skilled player. Steppe-like maps are enough for him.

Now the question is...why do players like AMP, Magyar and only a handful others stand out of the crowd if the above definition includes many many other players?? I'll try to answer that.

- extremely good basic and advanced skills
- experience that comes from tens of thousands of games by now, always played at a high level vs skilled players
- good knowledge of game mechanics
- ability to be creative - instead of going in the "usual" way they have the ability to find a creative alternative, which might be complex, but very rewarding.
- can be constant in their level of player
- learn from every single mistake
- be able to exploit everything in their army/map/position to their own advantage
- being able to analyze the enemy's army...analyze the terrain...analyze their army...and come out with the best way possible to beat it...and maybe dump the conventional method of doing things.

and maybe some others which the directly concerned can elaborate on...

And steppe maps do NOT satisfy THAT. How can EVER steppe maps instigate creativity when they PUSH you to do things the conventional way...in a 1v1 on steppe, any above average player is able to beat Wolf_Kocmoc because the true discrepancy in skill cannot be fully expressed there...you need the right map.

Personally, I'm trying to make this ultimate step forward. It's a long way ahead, even if I've been now playing for more than two and a half years. You can say that this is a loads of bull, but well, I've seen it for so long now...and it works.

Tera

[Lechev]

Although i would like to play in a hilly terrain, i still prefer steppe for 1v1 as it is the only way to judge yourself the skill gap between you and your opponent in turns of tactics and movements. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Skomatth]

Steppe's are all right but here's why I don't like them. They remove a whole strategical element from the game. Wise players can protect their flank without seeming to do so by using terrain. Also troop type together with positioning in made more important. For example I lead my main body through a large forest with spears sticking out on the edge trailed by horses. This is great for killing enemy cav and I can just halt my spears and have cav engage if they're attacked by swords. It reduces my cav effectiveness so I'll send mine to my ally. In non-steppppe there's the added difficulty of terrain reading at first sight. I've had someone say they lost because they didn't know the map. I didn't either. I saw a hill and a forest, I saw he had spears. And a rush to get there that makes it exciting and can screw you up if your enemy is there first. I like maps that have variable positions. The defender with his bigger circle usually gets one hill but by setting up somewhere else you can draw him off. Steppe maps seem kind of like a "training map" to me. It seems like it takes a dimension out of the game. Sure it takes imagination to make steppe fun, but with less room and more variables hilly maps make you think more to win, you don't need to think on steepe. Though you can. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kas]

For some reason I love hilly maps (not the huge camper mountains though).

Hills keep me sharp and push me to think creative, as a result I do much better on a hilly map as attacker.

I tend to become bored and lazy as defender on a flat map, combined with lack of skill...mostly my downfall http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Flatinland04 is a very nice map, I disagree with Baz...it's a cool 2v2 map also.

Furthermore...a nice victory on a flat map is just that...a nice victory on a flat map, but a successful 3v3 hill or even mountain attack will burn into your memory cells and can be called epic.

I like forrests also, but I tend to get lost in them sometimes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Nobunaga0611]

I personally hate trees. I do like some small hills though. I like the maps in which you have enough hills in close proximity to make maneuvering more strategic. Like you can get on one hill and have your enemy still a safe distance away. See another hill off to the side, which can balance out your weaker side to make it slightly stronger, if you get the advantageous terrain. Well everyone here knows this already, so I'll also add a few other maps to my favorites, flatinland16 and flatinland18 are also good.

[Marco]

Not sure if I have a favourite, but I know which maps I hate. Ones wheres theresa massive lake stuck in the middle and u have to move around it to get to your opponent. All it does is delay the inevitable clash of swords.

[ErikJansen]

LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Thats a desert map, Marco. I love that map, it gives you all kinds of headaches http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Part from that my fave 1v1 map would have to be a desert map, since I play turks exclusively, hehe. Desert flats are lovely. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Brutal DLX]

I don't have a favorite 1v1 map. Maybe only scenery wise, but not for battle considerations.
I take any map, flat maps are somewhat nice for learning team play, as you can see your allies moves better and are able to better coordinate an attack/defense...I had some great games on Ironing board lately

In general, I have to agree with Tera, true skill shows not only in engagement tactics but also in exploitation of enemies' mistakes AND use of the terrain to one's advantage. This is in accord with Sun Tzu.