Choke points

[dakky21]

Map Name: Choke Point
Mapmaker(s): me
Number of Territories: don't know, didn't count
Special Features: first map on CC with unique choke points
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: 3 choke points where battles of the century will be made

Map Image:

Click image to enlarge.

Long ago, I played original Starcraft, and some map where you should defend your base, the enemies were comming through a single valley, and the whole team needed to defend. Now, the idea is to create a map with choke points, ideally for 4vs4, but it could function in 1v1 also. I've entered neutrals, though the numbers should be bigger I guess.

All other fields should be filled with neutrals, 3 or more.
B stands for Base and should start with normal troop count.

This is just an IDEA and should not be treated as a finished map.

Tell me what you think about it... about whole idea with choke points or maybe better, single choke point between two teams or players.

[nolefan5311]

Believe me, this would not be treated as a finished map

But, I like the idea. It's going to have to go thru GP scrutiny when the time comes, but I hope you develop it. Do you intend to have starting positions coded so that each side begins on one side of the map? Don't think this could be coded for games larger than 1v1.

[dakky21]

Yes, the idea is that teams start on same side, whether it is 2v2 , 3v3 or 4v4. If that can't be coded, the maps loses its idea.

Assassin on this map would also be cool if your target is on "the other side" ...

Standard would also work if holding the passage gains a lot of bonus troops

[MoB Deadly]

Assassin on this map would also be cool if your target is on "the other side" ...

It would be a huge disadvantage to go through 100+ neutrals when someone else does not.

[dakky21]

Yeah, I agree. You got me. If only a map could be made for "only" team games...

[DearCyrus]

What if you made conditional bonuses that raised with the number of territories taken, to encourage forward movement. Then it could turn into a game of "Who can take over the most on the way to the choke point, wouldn't it?

[Aleena]

The problem with bonus that raise with the number of territories taken is that - it reaches a point the player who has the most lands, pretty much have won the game because they can way out produce more reinforcements then anyone else...

So the game becomes lope sided in the favor of the player with the most land... (Though this is the basic way the game way initially designed) - I think doing the opposite would be a better way to balance a game and make it more challenging of battles - where players with less land gain more bonus then those with more and - for the player with less land can focus their efforts more - while the leader of a large nation - must trade off troops for infrastructure, policing, and general corruption.

As for the huge disadvantage for one player to go through large number of neutrals while the other player just sit back and build-up:

1) Maybe add a few areas scattered in the neutrals that either offer their own bonus if controlled - and/or give the ability to bombard the other side... This way both sides will at least fight through the neutrals to receive these benefits...

Like Station Artillery guns that can bombard a large section of the enemy land and near the artillery guns could be a supply depot - which if you control the supply depot to the artillery gun - then that gun gains an auto-deploy bonus - also the Artillery guns are spaces that can not be moved off off - any units on them must be used for defense or bombardments.

This way the player who just tries to sits back and build-up will become the target of bonus bombardments from the other side that will be focused on reducing and/or neutralizing any bonus they would be getting for just standing still...