The Planetary Workshop

concept: solid 4p rotational, balanced cw and ccw


the bases should be ok, layout looks fine for me, but i need input for the design of the middle.

also if someone is interested to make doodads and/or texture I happily share the file.

some input from nullcurrent on non-squarishness and some coreections from lefix

albeit i think this map is very solid, i feel like sth is missing.
possibly looked at it for too long already.

maybe move the outside (midground) third more to the centre and ad an island behind each? i think the middle and the outer path via third is too far apart.

you can find the map in the dropbox mapfolder and see for yourself.

also i am open to any help with textures or ideas. right now i think some volcanic middle and tropical island bounds would be nice! any better ideas?

after some weeks away from 4p mapping and some concentration on balancing bases on 3p and distances and expansion patterns in both direction on 2p maps, i found a simple, but very effective fix for this concept.

changes:
i moved the cw third base towards the centre and put the wide ramp towards the nat closer to the centre and out of the reach of the XWT.

i made the nat's ramp wider.

i think this makes the map more fun and more dynamic, also the expansion pattern now are a bit better balanced, because the cw third effectivly is further away from the nat and easier to attack from the centre, similar to the low ground third (ccw).

i think i like the layout a lot. we have worse 4p probably

dicuss! (now i fix the mineral lines and distances to edges)

I think the bases and expo pattern looks god and varied. I havnt really been looking close at this map earlier, and for that I apologize.

- tower postion positional imba. One player can use it for his advantage while the other player will only scout / cover the alternative atk route. You should move the towers from the edge to the other side of the ramp towards the middle.

- only two paths across. The middle has several paths and I believe it will play out fun. But I would add a narrow path below the high ground at the map edges and LoSB-wall it. The shortest path is still through the middle, so going there is a concious decision and risk.



Edit: maybe the area in front of the low gorudn third doesnt have to be that open. You coudl narow it down some

Meltage wrote:I think the bases and expo pattern looks god and varied. I havnt really been looking close at this map earlier, and for that I apologize.

thanks for commenting now!

Meltage wrote:tower postion positional imba. One player can use it for his advantage while the other player will only scout / cover the alternative atk route. You should move the towers from the edge to the other side of the ramp towards the middle.

the tower placement you suggests makes the tower mainly a defensive help. i like how you can use it and how is there a certain imbalance. it makes it interesting, buzt the imbalance is not that bad. check out the discussion we had about the earler positions.

i read the cirrent placement like that: the cw player will expand away (cw) in most cases. he has the quicker access to the tower, but having it is not a must. due to placement he cannot be sure to see all attacks with the tower. the ramp to his outside (away from the opponent) is not seen by the tower. the ccw player can position himself in the centre!
on the other hand the ccw secure the "outside" path and ramp with his tower. his tower is pretty much uncontested! he can also position on the highround third base without being spotted.

it is not balanced, but i hope it balances out.

looking for more input of everyone!

Meltage wrote:only two paths across. The middle has several paths and I believe it will play out fun. But I would add a narrow path below the high ground at the map edges and LoSB-wall it. The shortest path is still through the middle, so going there is a concious decision and risk.

that is all the fun!. i had that in some early variant, but i might test it again. with losbs.

Meltage wrote:maybe the area in front of the low gorudn third doesnt have to be that open. You coudl narow it down some

i had that, too. unsure if needed. i do not think it is open enough for a CC, two small armies AND a terrain structure really.


QUESTION:

what do you think about the third base highrounds being moved towards the centre? in a way your idea with extra lowground path would be even more important with the old setup!

ANSWER: depends, it might be good to have the high grounds smaller, so that there is a choice to wall one ramp, but not much else. Might also be more balanced, so that the high ground advantage is less.

changes:
- added a strcture in front of lowground third (meltage) and moved third towards mains
- ramps are one size smaller at the highround third (dezi) and added rocks on one side
- moved XWT so that it does not cover the lowground third. XWT can be seen, but not activated from thh plateau for nice small action here
- added LoSBs between structure, cliffs and tower

nat and nat ramp changed a bit. also rocks moved and rampsize at third git adjusted.

1. i put the ramp a bit more to the ccw side, to make the low third closer than the highround third. is the highround third now too far away?
as the ramp2ramp distance is not very long, i created a kind of longer choke, by having a "choke" behind the ramp at same size.

2. enlarged the main, should be a bit bigger still.

3. made the ramp at third highround that looks towards third 4wide and the one facing the low third 3wide. rocks on the wide side.
reason:
4 and 5 wide was a bit wide and 2 and 3 was a bit too narrow. so rocks.
but where to put them?
i decided to have them on the ramp facing the nat.
when you take the highround for your third, you can decide to have them or not. also the rocks are an element that creates tension when watched as the advancing army wants to get them away.
when you take the highround as a fourth the rock's ramp, once rocks are destroyed is more open and easier too attack. 4th should be harder to defend.

if you think the rocks work differently or should be used differently please let me know.
please comment on ramp width and also balance between both thirds.
is the high fourth difficult enough compared to the low third?

Martin said the openenss and paths might be too much in th centre and makes expanding too difficult in close position, even when expanding away.

thoughts?


also: please comment on last changes