A comprehensive discussion on maps, or

[1dread1lahll]

I had sometime back given up on tactical discussions as no-matter the discussion, nor the evidence or facts presented, "blind men just cant see". However today I start anew. This will not be in-depth; I will explain only "advantage in terrain" and "advantage in position" as they relate to maps and the game.
Those that played Shogun will recall the "flat earth" look that the game had, and how many people complained about it. The developers have gone to great efforts to improve this. One thing done was the distant horizon giving the appearance of great distance. Another was to raise the edges of (many) maps. This has given us a great number of bowl shaped maps; (hills on the edges, flat in the center).
Many people host such maps for attacking, (for this discussion we are talking about 3v3's or 4v4's)thinking that they are the better for it, when in reality they are giving themselves (not the defenders) the advantage.
(see diagram)
http://dreadmastersclan.com/Hidden%20files/anymap.gif
While the defenders have the advantage in terrain, (the hills), the attackers have better position, (they are able to stand closer to each other; and enforce each other.
(They can more easily double one side). While you gain an advantage camped out on a big hill, you still lose to an attack from two enemies.

[1dread1lahll]

Another map type is one in which defenders gain both advantages in terrain and position. A classic such map is Acre. While I see this map hosted a lot; I normally see it hosted with the intent that it will be defended. If such a map is competently defended attackers have Little chance of success. The defenders (most note able the center) are not pushed back away from the center of the map to make use of the heights, thus do not give away the advantage of position.
(see diagram)


http://dreadmastersclan.com/Hidden%20files/acre.gif

[1dread1lahll]

Steppe maps then; obviously the defender does not get any advantages in terrain. Defenders do get a very small advantage in position though, as it is impungent upon the attackers to flank and miniver, while defenders need only to stand close to each other to enforce one another.
(see diagram)


http://dreadmastersclan.com/Hidden%20files/steepe.gif


Defenders also enjoy a few other advantages such as "interior lines" and a half dozen other things that are sometimes dependent upon situational factors, and maybe not the maps.
So, what is the final of this? If you dislike steppes for "tactical reasons" while boasting a wonderful attack record on some "inland" map, your record on those maps may be impungent upon factors other than "skill".

[ElmarkOFear]

I would agree on your assessment of the maps Lahll, but I think the only way to win as attacker on most of those bowl maps is to attack as a team together, with the same goal understood by all. That is a special type of tactic in and of itself. In step mappes there is not as much major maneuvering being done. No way to cut off an enemy from the rest of his team, no way to gain a height advantage to then charge down upon the enemy, etc . . It is a pretty bland type of play that almost always turns into who has the baddest horses left at the end of the game. If you notice, on the steppe maps you see a lot of 8 horse or more armies. On the hillymaps, you do not see quite as much of the horses. They still factor in but you will find most players get around 4 horses on this type.

I am not sure who has been complaigning about steppe maps, if they don't like them then they should not join. Same goes for hilly maps etc . .

I think the main problem on those bowl maps, which you say gives the attacker the advantage, is the fact that a lot of defenders get in the "camp" train of thought. If they would attack as defenders, they would find they would have more success on these maps. So there is really no disadvantage on those bowls, if the defenders go offensive too.

I like all the maps and play one for awhile then switch to another type. Mix it up and you can maintain the joy of playing.

[1dread1lahll]

As you say Elmo, on any map that has hills, defenders often turn to camper mode to their disadvantage. And the strategy of the double team is universal; I just point out that some maps make it easy to do. Who is most likely to join a game and go to defend?; the newest least confident people?, and attack? the organized clans? Well thats why we join clans, and you dont have to stay in the game if you see noobs joining as allies. But to declare it strategy to select a map that imparts advantages to your side (attack or defend) hummmmm.....and as you say learn to attack/defend on all maps (including steppes).

[ElmarkOFear]

Sounds like you have recently run into some braggarts Lahll.

You have been around long enough to know that there will always be those who pick the overpowered army every time, camp or attack on the easiest maps, and brag about how good they are. The game is supposed to be fun, if these guys are in it just to win every time, where is the fun in that? Same goes for many of the clans, and other players who will only play with those they deem the best, no matter how new the 4 enemy team might be.

On another note: I like the way you illustrated those maps. What program did you use to make them and what format did you save them in? This would be good for finally getting everyone to discuss 4v4 tactics for a lot of the maps. You can only describe in words so much. A picture would work wonders for such discussions.

[Dionysus9]

Great analysis lahll, I agree 100%.

I also disagree somewhat with Elmo's characterization of steppe maps as encouraging "bland" play and lacking "major maneuvering." On the contrary, I think steppe maps encourage lively play and require mastery over movement-- against good players of course.

There are no trees to hide in. There are no hills to hide on. There are no terrain advantages that can be exploited by a terrain oriented general. It's ALL about movement-- ALL about flanking, speed, and being in the right place first.

I'm not dissing hill maps--but I find the play to be lively on all sorts of maps, provided you have worthy opponents.

[Duke John]

Well thought to differentiate terrain and position. Since this is a discussion, I must say that I disagree with your opinion that attackers give themselves an advantage by playing hill maps. My opinion is that defenders give themselves a disadvantage. Let me explain with some diagrams:
http://chronicles.metw.net/images/mp/tactic_terrain_01a.jpg http://chronicles.metw.net/images/mp/tactic_terrain_02a.gif
In both examples, the defenders pick their own hill and decide to stay on it; the well known camping. Seeing and anticipating this, the attackers can doubleteam a defender and then move on to the other defenders. If the latter decide to attack the third attacker then they're giving up the hill advantage and it turns into a 2vs2 with the attackers now being in the defender's position.

However when I defend on hilly games I always ask my allies which hill we're going to defend. When I see a defender camp on his hill I write him off and try the best with the other defender(s). The best though would be to join forces and take one hill to defend:
http://chronicles.metw.net/images/mp/tactic_terrain_02b.gif http://chronicles.metw.net/images/mp/tactic_terrain_01b.gif
While this is in my opinion the best thing you can do as defender it might also become a mostly stationary game and that is why I mostly pick the attacking side.

I think that maps who are not completely flat provide a more interesting game. While steppe maps is certainly ALL about movement, flanking and speed I agree with Elmo that they lack major maneuvering. The armies most of the time line up and move in a single direction. Units on themselves provide interesting maneuvering, but that is all.
When playing on non-flat maps you do not also have the unit movement but you also need to position your entire army at the correct place. Besides your allies in one line is not necessarily the best choice. You will need to think on 2 levels and that is more to my liking.
Although I must say that maps should be hilly to a degree, very steep sides and mountains are no fun.

Cheers, Duke John

[ElmarkOFear]

Duke those have to be the prettiest and most well thought out map diagrams I have seen. If we had one of those for each map, a team could discuss a battleplan ahead of time and then try it out once everyone knew where they were supposed to go. Very nice :)

[Duke John]

Thanks


Quote[/b] ]If we had one of those for each map, a team could discuss a battleplan ahead of time and then try it out once everyone knew where they were supposed to go.
Wouldn't it be great if R:TW featured this. The leader of each side would have a map where he can draw lines and the others can respond via chat realtime. With one click he can erase everything and start a new battleplan until the team is satisfied. In the same way as coaches explain the tactics in a football game. In my eyes that would be best feature R:TW could offer for MP.

But can we do this in a way for M:TW? We can't do this before games unless they are clangames in which the map is agreed up beforehand. Are you meaning something like this?

Or if we want more a larger mp-community perhaps battlereports are the way to go. A few years ago, I read a S:TW report where the flow of battle was shown using the minimap and screenshot. The same can be done using diagrams. The clanmates each writes some small notes why he did something. Requires a bit of work, but it will be a good read for everybody.

I don't know, but I do know that diagrams have alot of potential and they have been neglected a bit. But this discussion and my pavwar one are certainly the way to go in my eyes. If anyone has an idea for another topic, I would glady make some diagrams, as these discussions are topreads.

Cheers, Duke John

[1dread1lahll]

hi JohnDuke, hummm I point out that I stated that the 'bowl shaped' maps give an advantage to attackers, not by any means all hill maps; by giving attackers position over Terrain. The diagrams where-in you show the defenders with an advantage are the same as the "Acre" diagrame; defenders have advantages in terrain and position. Elmo,..I for once try to do a informational post rather than my usual rant, so is not pointed at anyone. I used photo-impact to do the pics, but to upload them to the org they need a url; so I created a hidden folder at the dread site and host them there. Its actuall easy to do and photo impact 5&6 should be easy to find and "pass arround to friends". If this should become a popular form of discussion maybe the org could host pics for people that have no site....moderators??

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]I point out that I stated that the 'bowl shaped' maps give an advantage to attackers, not by any means all hill maps
I don't think it would really matter if the map would be bowlshaped or not. As long as the defenders have a hill at their back then they will deploy there.
The hills on the attackers side do not matter at all since they "need" to attack. The hills at the side might give the attackers an advantage as they can attack the defenders on almost equal height.
I have yet to see any defender deploy on the hills on the side, if they would do that they would be attacked in the flank or their forces would be partially on the flat.

And that is why I only drawed the hills on the top of the diagram, the other hills at bottom and side do not matter much.


Quote[/b] ]The diagrams where-in you show the defenders with an advantage are the same as the "Acre" diagrame; defenders have advantages in terrain and position.
My diagrams where not meant to prove my right or my ultimate tactic. They were meant to explain that slight height differences over the defender's ridge means that some defenders stick on their own hill. They only see that their current position gives them an advantage but they do not look further. My diagrams were meant to show that the defenders should pick a position that is best for the team and not by definition the best individually.

Perhaps you misunderstand because you only play with clanmembers who do not make such obvious mistakes, but when I play I see players making them. I hope that this thread gives them the insight to make better choices.

Cheers, Duke John

[1dread1lahll]

hi again john, look at the diagrams again, (yours too) in a 'bowl shaped' map as in the diagram, deployment spaced is limited, they are squeezed to the limited high ground...the defender center is set quite far back (in your map diagrams too) that deployment allows the attackers to gain superior POSITION, note the attackers are over all closer too each other than the defenders, allowing for a greater chance to double 1 defender. Note the ACRE map is not bowl shaped, but rather hills run the length of the rear of the map. Here defenders are not squeezed at the center or sides of the map; defenders have advantage of terrain and position. Attacking this type of map is much harder. I dont meam that the defenders actually deploy on the sides of the map, but rather the rased rim of the map places the defender center rear-ward allowing the attacker center to move foward. This gives attackers 'advantage in position. I think inland 17 is a good example, look that over and Acre and see which would be easier to attack. Also i've played with and aginst enough new people to know what they do, and not making some misinterpetion due to a lack in gamming time/styles.

[Duke John]

I am beginning to understand what you mean. The bowlshaped maps hinder the defenders to help each other as they are forced to spread out if they want to stay on the ridge and they are limited in movement because the ridge is too small. They can't effectively move around so they're kinda pinned down. While in Acre the hill is quite large allowing the defenders to move around while remaining on the hill. Do you mean that?

Still my maps weren't meant to show this hindrance of movement. I guess I drawed the defenders too much far back. But I intented to show that defenders shouldn't stick on their own hill but look for the most defendable position for their entire team. And that kind of teamplay is lacking sometimes.

Cheers, Duke John

[Puzz3D]

Well this discussion comes at a critical time for me because I've been attacking a lot of so called "flat" large custom maps in team games and becoming increasingly frustrated with the game. I tend to grab a map at random when I host. However, after looking at about 20 of these maps in this category in the editor, I find that most of them offer significant terrain advantages to the defenders. There is plenty of time on a large map for the defenders to move to the best position before the attackers can close and engage. This is in battles where the defenders know enough to concentrate their armies on the most advantageous terrain feature, and not games where the defenders don't know enough to do this. The terrain features in this group of large "flat" maps tend to be large, and easily accomodate all four armies. Virtually the only chance for the attacker is to overload one side, and hope that the defenders don't respond to the threat fast enough.

It's important to provide some avenue of attack on a large map as I did with my Red Field of Patay map where the main defensive position can be outflanked on both sides, and if the defenders choose to block these two approaches they give up their height advantage. The height of the central defensive postiton was also adjusted lower several times by me after multiplayer testing. I've come to believe height and depression geographical features on large maps should be modest at best or at least small in area covered if there is no attack avenue provided. You have fatigue, shooting disadvantage and more time for the defenders to setup all working against the attackers.

I think smaller maps can have more pronounced features since you usually can't fit all four armies on any one hill, and often at least one army can't even get to the other three before being attacked. Maps which give big advantages to the defender are fine in games where the defenders are weaker players. However, it might lead some new players to think they need even bigger terrain advantages to survive. In STW you could be very successful on hilly maps like Yamato, but STW maps were all small. I recently played a 4v4 on Yamato in MTW/VI, and it played just like it did in STW with Elmo style tactics. I spoke to Obake online last night, and he pointed out that his large Horselands map for WE/MI was popular for a reason. The reason was it's a fair map. Other than steppe or plains, right now I've only found about six large flat custom maps that I'm willing to play when defending and attacking teams are of equal quality.

[shingenmitch2]

Hmm...

I think many of the hilled/forested maps offer more advantage to the defender, but for those maps that are well balanced in terms of where hills or trees are for both attacker and defender offer some of the most interesting play.

In the strictest sense a "Green" is the most fair map, and does allow for broad cav sweeps. However, it can be bland as there is no incentive for armies to deploy other than in line (as has been pointed out.)

I don't know enougth VI map names to give good examples, but in STW maps like Wooded Roads4 and Nagashino (i think that the right one) were the most fun because the topography offered advantage and disadvantage equally to both sides, depending on who capitalized on features first. Although Flatinlands 11 is flat, the way the trees are set up at least creates some interesting maneuver points especially in the 2v2 games i've had.

So (as Yuuk said) a topographic map needs to be crafted carefully, but when done so can be said to be every bit as fair as "Green", but offers variety that the lawn-maps sorely lack.

[1dread1lahll]

Hi john puzz mitch.... youve got it john, no more to be said.....and I feel your pain yuuki, when I see the situation that you are describing,the only word that come to mind is 'camper'.....I think this is caused by the smallness of the maps more than any thing. The limited size many times makes it impossible to avoid anchoring a flank on the 'red-zone' without putting yourself in an impossible position. One of the promises of Rome tw was the one endless map, If that were kept any position could
be flanked; and no-one would be forced to defend of attack a position without the option of maneuvering to a more advantage position.

[Dionysus9]

i see the greatness of it lahll...

that would be cool as all get-out.

[1dread1lahll]

that was some time back thought bachus, they have backed off that.......one of the devs has said it will be same sore of maps again.

[Brutal DLX]

Interesting discussion, but again, nothing new has been found.
It's not really the maps, it's still all about whether the players involved want to have a fair fight or win by any means possible. In a fair fight, between equally skilled players and about equal armies, there's no "attacker" and no "defender", the circumstances dictate what it will be, and neither side will be found amassing their forces on a hill and camping it out.

[Puzz3D]

Brutal DLX,

95% of the defenders I've encountered move to the best terrain feature and stay there. From your statement, I would then conclude that 95% of players are playing to win by any means possible. That brings the discussion back to the maps and just how much of an advantage you, as an individual, want to confer on the enemy. The maps have varying degrees of difficulty I would say usually favoring the defender, but sometimes favoring the attacker.

[1dread1lahll]

I find this statement accurate. TW.com has a forum for ideas to be delivered to the devs for consideration in multi-player; I suggested "red team Blue team" to replace "attacker-defender". At least one team would not be predisposed to camp at the outset of the game...

[ElmarkOFear]

From what I have gathered over there, they may have taken that discussion to heart. The developers seemed interested in the idea at the time, but I am not sure what they may have done with the idea. They don't speak directly with anyone over there and you can never be sure what they are thinking. :)


Anyways,I love the idea of tactic discussions using diagrams. It would be even better as one of you stated previously if there was a pre-battle screen where you could annotate an overhead map of the map you will be fighting on. That way you could really plan a nice attack and would not have to use TeamSpeak, Roger Wilco, or other voice chat programs when playing. I stopped using them since MTW because they seem to bog down the game. Not sure if it is my PC, the game, or what.

Anyways, good discussion thus far. Lahll or Duke, if you need a place to easily post your pics for showing in the forum, you are more than welcome to use the new ugli.org site that Olds has made. I have uploaded several pics there this past week and would gladly upload some for you guys. Let me know. My email is el-marko@insightbb.com.

Yuuki: I agree with you, that most of the FlatInland maps are the most difficult to attack. At least on HillyInland maps you can sometimes cut off a player from his team, but on those flatter maps it is impossible. On steppe maps it doesn't matter, because you really can't cut off a player from his teammates. Instead, you have to look for weak points in a player's line and try to overload a flank. I would love an 8 player game that played large, like in Sid Meier's Gettysburg. You would move around, not necessarily knowing where the enemy was, until you had an LOS on him (Line Of Site). That way you could set ambushes, and it would force all players to move to a good vantage point, high spot. Also, scouting would be more of a factor in the pre-fighting stage. Games would obviously last longer though, which might be a detriment for some.

Well I am off to work. Take care guys and I will soon be posting the next super secret unit/building for RTW ehehe

[ElmarkOFear]

I was thinking of how we could easily get maps for the one we want to discuss, so that we could annotate it for discussion and not have to creat it from nothing.

Could we not use the mini-map and screenshot functions to make a quick map? Enlarge the mini-map to a large size, take a screenshot then pull it up and edit it with our info.? I will try it when I get home and see if it is feasible and if the info. it contains would be useful.

[Orda Khan]

It is such a pity that the Competitive ladder was removed from the game. Whereas I can understand the points being made, they do leave me disappointed about the state of things. At least with the ladder all the serious, fair only, win-at-all-cost, call it what you will people could please themselves. Taking a 'game' seriously to this point is a bit disturbing I think. So I take it we should only enter a game that we can guarantee gives no advantage to either side? How often do we come across that in our lives?
Life is seldom fair, the ground is never flat and there is always someone with better skill out there.

This game offers so much more than the I can kick your ass attitude.

I realise this thread is a bit of a dig at those who have passed comments on steppe games but I neither fear nor loathe steppe. I just find them boring, featureless and unimaginative; totally unrealistic, demotivating and I would not play the game at all if these were the only maps available. What is so bad about variety?

I made a load of Realm maps recently, ten in total, the majority of which are flat with no real hills. Judging by what is being said in this thread, map making is a waste of time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

What on earth has happened to fun these days?

.....Orda

[Puzz3D]

Orda,

I'm not coming from the "I can kick your ass" angle. I don't like that attitude either, but I don't enjoy putting tons of effort into games that are lost before they begin whether it's being caused by map topology, unit imbalance or faction imbalance. It's like playing steppe with one player getting 10k florins and the other getting 5k florins. I don't want to be on either side of that.

I used 4 spears in my mtw army from Nov 2002 until August 2003 where I finally gave up on that because too many players had moved beyond that to better armies. The disadvantage became more than I was willing to accept. Why should I play the game with disadvantages that I feel are too great? Should I keep taking 4 spears in the face of armies with all swords? Should I keep attacking a hill that I know I can't take? How is this fun? I use spears when I expect the opponents will use spears or when I think they are less skilled players. The problem with choosing a map is that it's done before the sides are known. You can end up with the weaker team attacking the hills, and for me that just means 30 to 60 minutes in a wasted effort.

[Pox]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Mar. 11 2004,13:17)]Other than steppe or plains, right now I've only found about six large flat custom maps that I'm willing to play when defending and attacking teams are of equal quality.

Hi Yuuki,

Large "fair" maps....

I've been wanting to host more games using custom maps from the map pack but I have been having trouble finding maps that do not give a huge advantage to one side or the other. It has been a trial and error process for me that is progressing at a snail's pace. Could you (or others) list off a few "fair" maps that you have found that are suitable for 4v4 battles? What about some of the regular game maps other than steppe or plains? With about 700 maps in my map file I'm finding this task to be daunting on my own. Thanks in advance to all for your suggestions.

Page_Pox

[1dread1lahll]

Map making a waste of time? well; sort-of as there are so few people playing, its hard enough to get a game on a standard map, let alone finding enough people that have the latest maps....as for steppes being boring, thats a perception...I don't find any map dull on unimaginative...I even find the concept odd.. its like playing a game of chess for the sake of the board rather than the game. The game is what matters to me not the eye candy.

[Puzz3D]

Pox,

Try these large custom maps for 3v3 and 4v4 games:

(fL)_al_Villa
(fL)_bachs_farmlands02
(fL)_O_Historical Liegnitz (this one isn't available yet)
(fL)_O_Mizulands 16
(fL)_O_Nishapur
(fL)_O_Orda's Khanate 2
(fL)_O_Realm of the Horde 2
(fL)_O_Realm 001
(fL)_O_Realm 004
(fL)_O_Realm 005
(fL)_O_Realm 006
(fL)_O_Realm 007
(fL)_O_Realm 008
(fL)_O_Realm 009
(fL)_O_Realm 010

The numbered Realm maps are all from mappack Vol 2.

Of the standard maps, I suppose carcano, flatinland03, flatinland04, flatinland11, flatinland13, flatinland16, flatinland19, flatinland20, liegnitz and sicily can all be recommended, but they are not large maps and most of them have that high ground to the right of the attacker which I think makes them better suited to 3v3. I've probably overlooked some that could be included. I haven't looked at the hilly maps, so someone else would have to make recommendations on those.

[Orda Khan]

Yes Lahll, it's a perception and one that is obviously different from yours; no doubt there are other perceptions too and that is my point.

The game and not the eye candy is exactly what I meant when I mentioned the Ladder. If we had that then those who enjoy a more light hearted game with eye candy could carry on our own way and leave you serious guys to it. The scenarios mentioned so far, ie camping etc would be less of an issue also, I say this because I feel games are being approached in a competitive way. Perhaps this is also the reason why we see the unit exploiting too, which in itself determines gameplay. We don't see many of the sweet units being used because your opponent will be out to win at all costs.

Yuuki, you will keep on coming across those things until we get a Ladder because all games are played like competitive games.

A large flat fair map that is good for 4v4....I just made (FL)_O_Historical Liegnitz with this in mind. We have tested it and it is fair ( an opinion shared by all )I'll upload it very soon. My recent Realm maps have at least 7 flat, fair maps Realm 001 and 002 are less so. I always think 4v4 when making my maps and try to add some interesting features now and again on some for variety.

.....Orda

[ElmarkOFear]

Actually Orda, even when we had the comp ladder, there were many individuals that would make sure they had the advantage in terrain, teammates, etc. before playing a game.

I am like minded with you though Orda. I enjoy playing different maps, and whether I win or lose, it doesn't matter as much as if we can have some fun and play with a bunch of guys who will joke around an just enjoy being there.

I do enjoy the idea of having graphics and discussing the different ways to attack a map. I actually find that more fun sometimes than playing ;) I sill pick off-the-wall armies knowing I will probably lose to the cav/sword opponents, but I like the challenge, even though I know most often I will lose. Luckily, I have a group of guys to play with who are like-minded and just have fun.

[Dionysus9]

Hey, Yuuki--

I appreciate the tip of the hat to my farmlands02 map. That was awful nice of ya :). Means a lot to me.

Some would say it gives the defender a solid advantage...which it may--but I think it is not so much an advantage in a 4v4 that it is unfair. Anyway-- I appreciate it.

*bows*

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

[Puzz3D]

Dionysus9,

I wasn't trying to make a definitive list, but I've always had interesting games on that map of yours, and I've seen the attacker win many times there. Despite being the long Acre type map there are attack opporunities on the flanks, and there is high ground behind the front ridge which the defenders never want to use for some reason. I've also seen defenders play it out in the middle in some very hard fought games. The windmill on the mountain top looks a bit strange.

For a medium custom map, I was quite impressed with Ichi's (fM)_ichiscrossroads. It's a simple idea, but I think interesting for the attacker in 3v3 and suitable for 2v2 as well. I haven't tried it from the defender's side. It reminds me a bit of maps that Kraellin used to make, although, a lot less extreme in its terrain features which is ok with me.

I didn't put my Red Field of Patay map in the list, but would point out that the attackers have won there each time I've played it which is about 10 times. Maybe the attackers were better players, but for a map that seems to offer a definite advantage to the defender it appears it's a bit deceptive. I've been on the defensive side once there in a 4v4, and it's not as easy to defend as I thought. There can be some uncertainty as to which side is more threathened. If the centrally located defenders overreact to one side, they can't get back to the other side quickly since the map is so big. I've seen some massive defender confusion on that map.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

The miscellaneous (m )_ maps may be worth to check out. Many true aesthetic pearls there, interesting and fun, but also ones that may be regarded fair. Maps that have a big hill on the attackers side and plains on the defenders side, or terrain bits which are a handicap for both teams are in this category too.

[Pitt_Slayer]

cool graphic's lahall http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Mar. 13 2004,15:17)]. . .The windmill on the mountain top looks a bit strange. . .

For a medium custom map, I was quite impressed with Ichi's (fM)_ichiscrossroads. . . .

I didn't put my Red Field of Patay . . .
Next time you play bachs_farmlands02, set the terrain to "dark ages lush." I originally designed it in D.A.Lush and so it looks much better with that setting-- there is a stone cross there, next to the keep/church and graveyard.

Shortly after it was released I realized I could "lock" the terrain setting to D.A. Lush, but it was too late.

Ichis Crossroads-- yes a really cool one, always fun. I like the symmetry, it is somewhat reminiscent of Obake's Horselands and is a nice alternative to steppes.

Red Field of Patay-- I've seen the defenders win on it-- dont worry it aint the map. The stakes in the center avenue are interesting and I can normally walk my army through them if I have enough time.

Custom maps rule.

[Pox]

Yuuki, Orda, Bachus, Tosa...

Thanks much http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I'll start hosting some games on those maps and continue experimenting with the miscellaneous ones. Just to clarify, by "fair" maps I'm thinking about alternatives to steppes or "green" that might have some features that either the attackers or defenders could use to their advantage within the game. Should make for some very enjoyable games with two teams of fairly equal skill.

Oh yeah: thanks to you guys for making these maps

Page_Pox

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ Mar. 13 2004,19:16)]Actually Orda, even when we had the comp ladder, there were many individuals that would make sure they had the advantage in terrain, teammates, etc. before playing a game.

I am like minded with you though Orda. I enjoy playing different maps, and whether I win or lose, it doesn't matter as much as if we can have some fun and play with a bunch of guys who will joke around an just enjoy being there.
Yes Elmo unfortunately there will always be the few http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif but on the whole, the friendly games were more light hearted and people used to try new army composition. Like you I experiment with different armies but it does get tedious when you see a constant tide of cav/sword armies. That being said, a victory tastes a little sweeter when achieved with one of these'fun' armies, yes?

Similarly, different maps and game conditions make for new experiences. We did a 2v2 winter battle that was brilliant fun and a good, long, tough fight. We lost in the end and everyone had exhausted units but the battle was enjoyed by all...and that is the most important thing for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

I hope I did not come across all negative in this thread, it's just that sometimes I feel there are easy solutions. For instance, if people want a fair battle, say for CWB or CWC, then use Steppe or Green. For a moderately friendly/comp battle one of the flat (ish) maps. For a casual battle any terrain will do and conditions too. I remember most of the games I hosted on STW were attacking some hill and great fun. I really think the biggest problem with MTW/VI is the army composition. As for the maps, CA included too many standard maps IMO, there is little variation among the map types and the creative ideas forwarded by the community always produce some classics

Regarding these strategy diagrams and talks, perhaps it would be nice to have a sub category in the Jousting Fields forum, where maps could be posted ( using the mini map blown up as already suggested ) and tactics discussed. The diagrams are neat http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif a couple of screen shots to show how these tactics worked/failed would be nice too

......Orda

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Mar. 14 2004,17:00)]Custom maps rule.
Oh yeh........I'm with Bachus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

.......Orda

[ElmarkOFear]

Well Orda I got the failure replays hehe :) Actually, I always seem to forget to save the replay. They need to put the save replay in a more obvious spot so people, like me, can have their little brain recognize to save befoe going to the post battle screen :)

[Puzz3D]

Elmark,

If you forget to save the replay just alt tab out to windows explorer before the next battle and rename the file \Savegames\Battles\~tmp.vrp. That temp file always contains the replay for the last battle played.


Orda,

Players are determining through experience what works best for army composition. Unlike you, I don't see anything wrong with this. I intend to use what works best because that's what the people I'm playing against are doing. If players want to intentionally use inferior armies, team games should have rules enforcing that on everyone. I don't usually host games with rules because I want to see what works best. I have fun, win or loose, when the sides are balanced, and skill determines the winner. I don't have fun when terrain, unit imbalance or army composition are the determining factors.

I attack 99% of the time in team games, and maps with terrain features that are too difficult for the team to attack become tedious. It's called "biting off more than you can chew". I think what the maps are lacking are difficulty ratings. Of course, any frustration I may feel with repeated failure is proportional to the effort I put into the battle. I already experimented with this idea, and it works for me. I had shoot out of a hole last night getting very few kills and then attack up out of the hole. It looked pretty hopless since I was facing a good player and he had a "maxed" sword cav army in a "fun" game mind you. So, I just sent my forces forward without any attempt to get good matchups or do any fancy maneuvering, and I hoped that the defenders wouldn't hit my unprotected right flank. Well, they did hit my right flank, but I lost the forward attack anyway. My team then lost the battle with a massive chain rout. Well the loss didn't bother me since I didn't put in an extraordinary effort. It was just time spent with some friends. I already knew early in the battle that the approach being used by my team was not going to work. I've seen a team win there, so I know how it's done. I'm not inclined to continue playing that map with that team unless they are willing to try a different approach to the attack because it's pointless to keep trying the same failed idea over and over.

[spacecadet]

Most of the Mizulands maps and a good few of the others from the last 2 mappacks have been excellent in terms of fairness and interesting features, giving some nice games for attacking on.

As always its all about playing with people who can control their armies, then you will find that there are few maps with terrain features (within reason) that cannot be won. Strategies such as dummy attacks before overloading the enemy line at a different point, drawing the enemy out by outshooting a position and long shootout pav line harassment with cavs are just a few of ways to succeed aganst a camping enemy. Frustration on even slightly hilly maps always generally just comes down to you or your allies skill and patience, or lack thereof.

Nice tactical pictures by lahill by the way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Space http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Okee -- random thoughts as lots of catching up to do...

Lah,
Hills, slight slopes, trees are far more than just "eye candy" on the board. They create points of strategic and tactical interest, beyond the chess board. They can add a whole extra dimension. It makes me move to spots other than simply the best flank cover of my ally. Think about it -- a def. army in a forest might preclude you from doubleing them with a cav sweep. You are forced into different (and interesting tactics). The players must react to more than just troops, but WHERE those troops are. Unfortunately, too many maps do not distribute the + and - equally and they over-weigh one side.

When the best ground is truly up for grabs at the start of the game it adds a whole dimension "the ability to see the ground, and react to it" just like, large multies adds the strategic aspect of "ally support" to the live game.

-------

Blue Side/Red side... I'm not for that at all. Attacker / Defender makes it clearly incumbent on SOMEONE to initiate some form of hostility -- be it range war or full attack. Blue/Red only gives you... "You attack", "no you", "no you..."

----------

In it to win it? You bet. I have no problem joining games where I don't know my allies... big disadvantage... or attacking up big hills, again disadvantage... but if I get in that game, damn right I'm gonna find the best piece of ground and stay on it until I'm forced to move (either to support allies, or because I'm the attacker and def. is away, or whatever...) Ideally, as an attacker I find best piece of ground and force the defender into attacking me (usually by shooting him up).

I also take the best possible army for me, with the occasional experiment to see if I like something better. But I'll never intentionally take a weak army, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

So yes, I guess that is could be win-at-all-cost attitude and as long as I'm not being rude or hanging my allies out to dry... I see no shame in it. (now weather I actually win is another story http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif )

[TosaInu]

Play to win, don't play to not lose is as good as play for fun.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Hi,

On the lack of ladder thing - i actually think its an advantage not having it, as i never used to play competitive games in shogun, simply because of the amount of cheating and dice-loading that went on. With no rankings, this has taken away any incentive to do this.

On the maps front - well, I've always thought that battling without terrain features means that you are taking out half of the game play - as many peeps have already said in this thread - terrain can be both an advantage and disadvantage -it depends on how you use it. I thought Yamato in STW was one of the most fun, simply because it had many hils and woods which lead to numerous set-up possibilities and routes of attack/defence. Maps with many small hills and woods are especially good in 3v3/4v4.

I'm with Orda on Steppe maps - although it may be 'fair', i find them dull, especially as most aren't big enough to maneouver properly on 3v3/4v4, and i usually find that if you are not on the flanks of the map, your maneouver possibilities are really limited - you just have to march straight into the meat-grinder - which in itself is a reason why the majority of players keep to heavy infantry/missile/cav armies - as these are the 'best' for full on frontal assaults.

[1dread1lahll]

hummmm directing everyone back to the posts original intent,..... that SOME flat-inland maps impart(due to positional advantages) an advantage to attackers, this was not originally a discourse on steppes....(where attackers do not get any positional advantages). I thought people would pick up on this; that some maps (other than Hastings) are easier to attack than steppes. The bowl shaped maps where-in defenders are forced to surrender position due limited map size and general location of the high ground alone the maps edge (in 3v3s or 4v4s). Also again I remind people Ive not called any kind of map boring or limited (including hills).
Also Bacchus (or anyone) now do you lock in a map location???

[ichi]

Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Mar. 14 2004,10:00)]
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Mar. 13 2004,15:17)]For a medium custom map, I was quite impressed with Ichi's (fM)_ichiscrossroads. . . .

I didn't put my Red Field of Patay . . .

Ichis Crossroads-- yes a really cool one, always fun. I like the symmetry, it is somewhat reminiscent of Obake's Horselands and is a nice alternative to steppes.
*dislocates shoulder and strains face facial muscles patting self on back and smiling*

I only made two maps and the other, ichis oasis, I considered my masterpiece - but didn't get a lot of props from the crowd - maybe 'cause its sandy dez. But now I think I'll try to make a few more like crossroads. Thanks guys, coming from people that really admire these comments made my day.

I read through all of the posts and find myself agreeing, almost to the letter, with Mitch.

Finally, lahll, I got the point of your thread right away. Thanks for putting into firm shape a vague thought that was swirling around in my head - Some maps give height to the defenders but this leads to their demise as the tactical advantage goes to the attackers.

On medium and large maps this can be somewhat countered by having all defenders run to one hill - the lone guy in the corner will get picked off, then his team will soon follow.

On small maps it seems that a well timed counter charge (the defenders come off their hills to converge on the attackers in the middle below) can work - but this requires excellent timing and some good skills.

*thinks about another simple 3v3 MP concept map*

ichi

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ Mar. 15 2004,19:21)]hummmm directing everyone back to the posts original intent,..... that SOME flat-inland maps impart(due to positional advantages) an advantage to attackers, this was not originally a discourse on steppes....(where attackers do not get any positional advantages).
The title of the thread mentions why you fear steppe. But as to you point about hills for defenders being a disadvantage, I don't agree. Nothing is making the defenders stay on the widely seperated hills. They can come off the hill(s), and play as a steppe map. So, the positional advantage that the attackers enjoy is something conferred on them by the defender's lack of movement.


Spacecadet,

The terrain isn't playing any role? But you hedge that with "within reason". What does that mean? Something that your particular team can win attacking? Any map can be won by the attackers if the defenders are weak enough. Hills are a way of handicaping the attacker when playing against a weaker team. However, many weak defenders often get the positional disadvantage that lahill is talking about by not moving their armies in response to the attacker moves. I agree that the advantage of a big hill doesn't outweigh the disavdantage of being double teamed. I play a lot of games where the attacking team is in a 1v1 mindset. Under those conditions, you can't take on much of a terrain disadvantage as the attacker, and lahll's idea of positional advantage is out of reach. I don't have to make a frontal assault 1v1 uphill to know it's not such a great idea. Give that those are the conditions I find myself in quite often, I intend to stick to the less difficult maps.

[Dionysus9]

I'm currently working on a map which will be called "bachs_arena" when it is released in a few weeks. The idea of the map is that it is completely symmetrical-- neither attackers nor defenders have any map-scale advantage. Either side could "attack" or "defend" depending on how they want to play the game.

It has hills, cliffs, etc., but it is symetrical, so you can't really complain too much. If you find yourself deploying in a valley--then you also know your enemy counterpart is also in a valley (and equally as vulnerable as you). There is a tiny bit of difference caused by the slight (very slight, like 1 square) difference in attacker/defender deployment-- but all other things being equal it is a perfectly "fair" hilly map.

Also, I've built upon some ideas I used in farmlands02 to disncourage camping. In the arena series of maps the "campsites" will be small-- too small for more than 1 or 2 armies-- and they will always be subject to being outflanked by careful movement of the attackers.

For example the right defender (always getting doubled) has some nice hills to sit on, and the approach to his hills is also guarded nicely by the center defender. This should discourage an immediate rush by the attackers. BUT, if the attackers move quickly they can outflank this "campsite" by using a mountain pass to reach some cliffs which overlook the campsite. If the attackers hurry, they can reach the cliffs before the defenders can. BUT in doing so, it gives the defenders a chance to shift to a different position.

And since the map is symmetrical, the same possibilities exist on the other side of the map.

Anyway-- I think you get the idea. It is possible to have a fair map with hills, you just have to put a lot of thought into balancing it. The "arena" series will be balanced by virtue of symmetry--even if my other attempts to balance (outflanking, small campsites, etc.) fail. I'm pretty stoked about it

[KyodaiSteeleye]

sounds great dionysus. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Orda Khan]

(FL)_O_Historical Liegnitz

Just uploaded the above map, there's a brief description in the maps and mappacks thread. Hope you all enjoy

.......Orda

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

There is theory, there is the actual thing, and then there is lie, lie, lie.

I got some rather nice statistics, or in other words, lie, lie, lie about games played, maps, era, win/ loss, etc...

Whatever the map is, attack win 56% of the games.

On flatinland, attacking team win 58% of the games, steppes 56%, and hills 52%

Considering those stats, I have no doubt now that hills are the more balanced maps, since they are closer to the 50/50 breakeven line between attack and defense

Interestingly enough, a few other variables seems to impact more who win/ lose between Attack and Defense than the maps... like era... How does that make sense?

Well, it does not.

The biggest variable seems to be the quality of teams on each side. No offense to people playing defense in my game (well, I also play defense) but newcomers prefers to defend, and it shows.

So sure, we can talk about maps, and it's a funny interesting conversation, but as long as we have huge discripancy between teams, it does not quite matters.

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Louis,

Your results show that the attacker won less often on hills. Assuming that the variability of teams and armies is uniformly distributed over all the battles, it still comes through that hills offer the defender an advantage. I guess the thing for me to do is to defend on maps that I know are not absolutely flat. Then maps won't be an issue for me anymore. If I have high ground, I'll be able to shoot farther with more accuracy, my units will have higher morale, will get a combat bonus in melee and be able to maneuver faster going downhill. A stationary ally will be less of a problem when defending because I can just move to him if he won't come to me, and he might have the better ground anyway. However, more than two stationary allies will be a problem because of the vulnerability to the doubleteam.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I shall have added more smiley in the previous post...

Yes, there is a difference between hills and steppe in attackers winning percentage. But it's a minor one (6%), and more important, even on hills, attack wins more often

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

I also looked if there were any relationship between era, maps and winning percentage...

I thought that maybe in late with more powerfull missile units the hill advantage would be larger and % of attacking victory smaller...

Well, I was wrong... Across the board it seems that attackers got a tougher time in early and viking eras No matter what the map is And with % more significant than the 6% difference between flat and hill

Do I believe it?

Not really... Again, I do not believe that team repartion is uniform across all eras (viking games more appealing for beginners? true for early too? But then how does that change the attaker / defender relationship?)... Also, I do not have enough games played in all eras / maps category to make the result statiscally valid.

Still, it's a funny result

Louis,

[Dionysus9]

You know why you get such skewed results for attackers?

Its because Louis The Great prefers to attack, and since we all know he wins most of his games, it is only logical that his statistics will show more wins for the attackers.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I got stats on that too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I'd like it to be true, but you'd be disappointed

Or maybe not, Bacchus the Sarcastic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


I shall put more smiley in my post I don't believe a minute that those % means anything... They are sometimes interesting (when it comes to the split between sowrd, cavalry misslie and spears in different era, etc...), but in this case, all it means is that the main factor which decide who wins between Attack and Defense is not the map.It has only a limited impact.

And it's not whether I am on your team or not either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Louis,

[Tomisama]

That’s probably the truth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Or it may be possible that folks assume a different attitude when they are “the attackers”, thinking that they are required to be more aggressive. Nothing wrong with that I guess (they are winning more right). But on the other end of the map, the assumption of the opposite attitude is a pet peeve of mine.

I move my army from it’s original lame defensive deployment position, to secure the best tactical advantage. In the process will hear an allied commander say, “where are you going” and /or, “I thought we were suppose to be the defenders?”. I never answer, being to busy actually studying the enemy’s movements, and coordinating mine (I'm kind of old and slow). If I had the time I would say, “oh, I thought we were suppose to be the winners”

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Puzz3D]

The map is going to have more of an impact when the teams are of similar skill level. The unbalanced teams are swamping out the magnitude of the effect by adding in a large backround noise level. Remove the noise and you'll see the effect more clearly.

Here is a simple idea. Two players each take one unit of the same type. I doesn't matter what unit it is just so long as they are the same. Give the defender a hill of various sizes. At some point as the hill gets higher the the defender will win every time, and I think you'll be surprised at just how small a hill it takes to do it. As long as the top of the hill is large enough to hold all the defending units and they all get up there in time, it's virually the same situation as the single unit test. The defender(s) can always move so as to counter whatever the attacker(s) try to do. Whether they do so or not doesn't change the inherent advantage the map provides.

If the map doesn't make a significant difference, why are we playing double cwc scenarios with sides reversed, and the final tie break on steppe?

[shingenmitch2]

Terrain can be a huge advantage. Period.

Yuuk is correct. When all other factors are equal (i.e. the team's skill levels) Terrain usage makes the difference.

Yet, it is not so big an advantage that it can make up for poor tactical individual play or lack of coordination among teammates -- and thus ur statistics.

My bet is that you attack more than u defend. You team with more often than not with known allies. Your opponents are more often pot-luck than coordinated teams. Thus, yes those stats are almost meaningless. But even with that, attacking vs. a hill won LESS OFTEN.

[shingenmitch2]

I think that "stats" is kinda confusing issues. As example I'll take a game from last nite:

Swoosh, myself, elm + ally attack 4 peeps 2 of whom start the game on a massive hill. At the beginning Elm holds, ally protects my flank, and Swoosh and I slam the 2 defenders trying to reach the hill. We crush them and thereby draw the other guys off the hill in attempt effort to save their allies, but it is too late and now they perish as well.

Any lessons? Attack hills because their easier? Attackers win more when attacking hills? The defender received no bonus from the hills or the bonus was too small to matter?

Quite the opposite.
We avoided the hill specifically to attack those defenders who weren't getting its bonuses. We forced them to forfeit the terrain bonus.

The fact that none of the defenders received the benefit of the hill is absolutely independent of the fact that the hill inherently gives anyone who is fighting from it huge advantages.

Attackers can win, but this is done IN SPITE of advantages terrain might provide a defender.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hum Mitch... I am not really serious with this stats thing. that's why I started speaking about it as lies. Yes, I got 52% of hill games won by Attacks despite hills. Does that mean that hills maps are easy to attack?

I sure don't think so. Hills do provide important bonus.

Still... Attacks win game on hill; mainly because experienced players go on attack, but maybe for other reason.

Psychologically, people on hills tend to be more passive; that might be something that attackers can take advantage of... Also moving to hills might put you in trouble you would not be in, just as in your game Mitch.
And maybe that the two sitting on hill went into action too slowly because of hill induced passivness.

Louis,

[1dread1lahll]

This thread still going? All good points; Puzz is correct about the units and terrain modifiers. Why do you win on attacking hills Louis? who is MOST likely to want to defend? The people lest confident in their skills? The newest.. that's one partial reason; skilled clans vs pickup up teams? Even if the pick up team is as good skill wise, they lack knowledge of each other, and often fail to act together. There is another, Lets pass up on unit selection and so-on...(but that could be another plug in), and as I stated at the very start of the thread...position... [I] your (and allies) placement on the map in relation to you opponents. This is a bigger factor on some maps than the terrain modifiers;(Naturally the relative skill of the opponents means a lot too).

[Tomisama]

Hills can divide up a defending enemy’s forces nicely. Give them two or more isolated peaks, and if they don’t have a team mentality, they will split themselves up every time.

Divide and Conquer