WWII:Poland [Quenched]

by **fumandomuerte** on Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:19 am

I have to say that the map is great. It works perfect on a 1vs1 map.

by **Ogrecrusher** on Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:59 am

This map actually makes 1v1 fun! Nice work!

by **WallFacer** on Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:05 pm

As a 1v1 this map is quite unfair. With a good string of rolls it is possible to take out an opponent on the first turn. I just played a game where I took an armor with good rolls and then took PAF. This allowed me to take out a leader and then I had 8 troops to deploy on my second turn to take out the other leader. That seems like too much of a reward for going first. I think that PAF needs to have more troops deployed on it at the beginning.

by **japser_be** on Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:12 pm

jdenvil wrote:As a 1v1 this map is quite unfair. With a good string of rolls it is possible to take out an opponent on the first turn. I just played a game where I took an armor with good rolls and then took PAF. This allowed me to take out a leader and then I had 8 troops to deploy on my second turn to take out the other leader. That seems like too much of a reward for going first. I think that PAF needs to have more troops deployed on it at the beginning.

I have the same opinion. more neutrals on PAF

by **samuelc812** on Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:19 pm

How many neutrals would you think to be sufficient?

8 neutrals? 10 neutrals?

~Sam

by **the.killing.44** on Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:22 pm

No more than 8 please…

by **fumandomuerte** on Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:34 am

The P.A.F. Is OK at 6 in my opinion, but the way to get to it should be a little more harder.

by **darkangelsguy205** on Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:07 pm

love the map

by **Rémi** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:39 am

jdenvil wrote:As a 1v1 this map is quite unfair. With a good string of rolls it is possible to take out an opponent on the first turn. I just played a game where I took an armor with good rolls and then took PAF. This allowed me to take out a leader and then I had 8 troops to deploy on my second turn to take out the other leader. That seems like too much of a reward for going first. I think that PAF needs to have more troops deployed on it at the beginning.

So, with 9 troops on first turn, you succeeded in taking PAF (4+6 troops) then an opponent Leader (3 troops) ? I think any good player won't try to do this on first turn, there's too many risk (9 vs 13 and 3 territories to take...). You've got more chance to loose on doing that

by **PLAYER57832** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:53 am

I play almost all 1 vs 1. I like this map, but the more I play, the more "weighted" it seems to feel. Control a couple of areas early (the bonus areas ear the center, in particular) and you are almost gauranteed to win. I don't know how to fix it or even if it really needs a fix.

by **Cyantist** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:31 pm

I don't quite understand the forting in this map...
Are there no forts allowed from any of the planes?

I've only played this once but it seems that any sort of reinforcement weirdness should be addressed in the instructions/notes.

by **thenobodies80** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:33 pm

ryansigg wrote:I don't quite understand the forting in this map...
Are there no forts allowed from any of the planes?

I've only played this once but it seems that any sort of reinforcement weirdness should be addressed in the instructions/notes.

Because planes can ONLY bombard tanks (legend on the left side). No border from inside to outside.

by **nippersean** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:23 pm

Nice work - really like this map. Fast n furious, bit like AOR on speed. Think the neutrals are fine + well balanced.
Great fun 1v1 - cheers!

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:52 pm

I'm really enjoying this map and working out the different strategies for the different settings and positions, I think it might be a new favorite.

But one thing did catch my eye that might need to be remedied is the border between Edward Rydz-Smigly and SU01. I had near panic attack thinking I could be attacked in the rear from SU01 while all the other starting positions were invulnerable to the same kind of attack. Fortunately I have BOB to tell me I couldn't be attacked this way... but it might not be the same for those who don't use the add on. I'd suggest adding some of that barbed wire down to the bottom of the map.

by **samuelc812** on Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:46 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:I'm really enjoying this map and working out the different strategies for the different settings and positions, I think it might be a new favorite.

But one thing did catch my eye that might need to be remedied is the border between Edward Rydz-Smigly and SU01. I had near panic attack thinking I could be attacked in the rear from SU01 while all the other starting positions were invulnerable to the same kind of attack. Fortunately I have BOB to tell me I couldn't be attacked this way... but it might not be the same for those who don't use the add on. I'd suggest adding some of that barbed wire down to the bottom of the map.

I can see how it could be a bit confusing, however SU01 is a plane which should tell the player straight away that they cannot be attacked...

~Sam

by **ViperOverLord** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:08 am

I played a fog game and the guy miraculously took out my 2 generals and land support in like the 3rd round, so I was left with like 21 troops on a plane and it didn't matter because I'd lose @ that point. I think the plane troops should be able to land somewhere.

So only PAF can attack commanders with the impassable borders?

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:59 am

ViperOverLord wrote:I played a fog game and the guy miraculously took out my 2 generals and land support in like the 3rd round, so I was left with like 21 troops on a plane and it didn't matter because I'd lose @ that point. I think the plane troops should be able to land somewhere.

So only PAF can attack commanders with the impassable borders?

Yes. To be honest, it really isn't that hard to realize that once you advance all, or even most, onto a plane, you've lost. Reading the legend + some CC knowledge + common sense = stay on your generals

by **Mr Pink** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:32 pm

I agree that there should be at least one trritory that planes can attack. I played a game where I was left with only planes but had over 30 armies, plus a mixed set to cash! I could've got back in the game if there was at least one territory available . . . . perhaps an airfield or something would be a good idea?

Mr.P.

by **Mr Pink** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:36 pm

. . . but other than that, great little map. Good work.

by **00iCon** on Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:51 am

Mr Pink wrote:I agree that there should be at least one trritory that planes can attack. I played a game where I was left with only planes but had over 30 armies, plus a mixed set to cash! I could've got back in the game if there was at least one territory available . . . . perhaps an airfield or something would be a good idea?

Mr.P.

but you can't lose your general(starting point) i think it's fine as it is.

by **MrBenn** on Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:06 am

00iCon wrote:but you can't lose your general(starting point) i think it's fine as it is.

Ah, but you can - if somebody attacks it from PAF...

by **Mr Pink** on Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:51 pm

00iCon wrote:
Mr Pink wrote:I agree that there should be at least one trritory that planes can attack. I played a game where I was left with only planes but had over 30 armies, plus a mixed set to cash! I could've got back in the game if there was at least one territory available . . . . perhaps an airfield or something would be a good idea?

Mr.P.

but you can't lose your general(starting point) i think it's fine as it is.

Yeah, I was in a situation where my opponent conquered PAF and killed my Generals, but I still had big armies sitting on my planes. OK, I shouldn't have put them there, I have now learned that mistake, but still, some kind of recourse woulda been nice. I think an airstrip would work. Maybe one airstrip connected to each general?
As much as I am enjoying the map, the biggest problem for me, in 1V1, is how heavily focused on PAF the whole map is. Players who know what they're doing should be able to clear up pretty quickly.
I'd be willing to play a few games if anyoneis willing . . .

by **SirSebstar** on Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:58 am

I think there are to many territs on this map. I have played a game where i started my turn and killed the opposition in turn 1. (sure, lucky dice, but still) I have never seen more then 10 territs being owned at all. Its a very quick map. 2-5 turns unless both guys are builders. I prefer this map because i recieved my cross gold medal due to this map. thanks!

But all in all its a specialist map/ rape map, the legend could be more explaining so other people could actually win a game without being victimized first for not knowing how and what this map is about.

suggestions;
explain better that only PAF can attack the other commanders. explain that troops on planes have no where else to go.

by **Caenwyr** on Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:36 am

There are basically two things I hate about this map:

As soon as you lost your starting territories and have only airplanes left, you're doomed. You might have a million armies on every airplane in the map, you still won't be able to win the game
I just played a game (Game 5965434) in which I managed to kill the opponent in turn one, i.e. before he even had the chance to start the game. Never have I encountered this before on any map.

For me, those two problems should really be taken care of before I play on this map again. Luckily it's still in beta, which means the developers have all the opportunity to enhance it a little here and there.

To end with a good note: I really like the design of the map. It's nice, clean and simple. My compliments!