Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi Chaps,

I read an interesting article on RPS about a Counter Strike (CS) map called 'fy_iceworld' which created a very different experience than standard CS mainly through map geometry.
I thought it would be fun to look for other maps which shake up the gameplay experience chiefly through map geometery.

I know two others;
Starcraft Broodwar's 'Fastest Map Ever/Possible'; a similar stripped back experience with no terrain other than base dividers that forced everyone to battle through the central area and an absurd amount of resources in the players starting location. The map also bent the rules of resource placement to ensure maximum gathering efficiency.

Age of Empires 2's 'Nothing' maps; basically a flat, empty map with few resources or terrain where the player's only option to develop is to purchase resources from the market. Sometimes one resource will feature in abundance whilst others are completely absent for variations such as 'Forest Nothing' and 'Gold Nothing'.

Does anyone else find this interesting and/ or have other examples of map geometry completely changing the way a game is played?

Hmm. Total Warhammer has a tendency to spit up river ford maps (or ravines with two side-by-side crossing points) on a somewhat regular basis. Sometimes the choke point is within your deployment area.

The fights tend to be a joke as the enemy clusters up to die to missiles, siege engines and magic.

If we think of total war then any of their siege maps throws map geometry into all kinds of interesting directions.

First they introduce something other than a military victory with a capture-point. This is typically either in the rough middle of the map or in a back-edge (it depends if the city has a back and sides to it or if the city can be surrounded and attacked on most fronts).

Furthermore whilst the area around most cities is fairly open, the walls create a unique barrier. Following that gatehouses and internal city layout create narrow corridors of battle.


The result is a wide variety of choices compared to an open map or even an open map with choke points.



That said there's also an element of forcing combat. Because an army giving siege if led to a draw will continue to win simply by sitting on the settlement until your army surrenders. Defenders thus have a forced desire to win.

It is therefore possible to either play into the changes and assault the city itself, or (as the Medieval 2 AI was prone to do) actually retreat and force the defending player to either risk a draw or move outside of the city. This can revert the game back toward basic battles. Of course if you're against a human opponent they can pull all kinds of tricks. Mostly focusing on distracting a defender and pulling them away from the defensive point in the middle. The capture-point. If a human defender gets distracted or has their army pulled apart on too many fronts; a smart opponent and sneak a unit in to contest it. It's also a great way to move a fast or weaker unit in to contest it and then distract the defender. Forcing them to pull back other units or to even camp a unit on the spot that is then pulled out of the fight until it comes to them.

I'm trying to think of the number of times I've won a siege battle in any total war game by way of a 'capture point' (in 3k it often doesn't actually do that anyway, and does a buff/debuff instead).

But the number isn't high. Maybe 5 or 6 at most.

Walls, too, in Total War are generally overrated. The placeable barricades in the historical games are often more effective at actually stopping progress.

Yea Total War has some cool examples actually, the siege maps make you re-appraise the strengths and weaknesses of each faction and their units.
Some of the Shogun 2 sieges maps are really interesting, where you have gates and towers to capture along with multiple levels and strongpoints.

The river crossings are a bit janky, but in Barbarian Invasion they introduced swimming for lighter units which made them a bit more doable. The maps with multiple fords are cool as well as you have a little 'war of maneuver' before the battle happens.

Voss wrote:
I'm trying to think of the number of times I've won a siege battle in any total war game by way of a 'capture point' (in 3k it often doesn't actually do that anyway, and does a buff/debuff instead).

But the number isn't high. Maybe 5 or 6 at most.

Walls, too, in Total War are generally overrated. The placeable barricades in the historical games are often more effective at actually stopping progress.

The AI is normally pretty religious at pulling back toward the capture point and leaving it defended in most of the games. Personally I find that when I play TW what I desire is a cinematic clashing of armies so I tend to play to that strength a lot of the time. I want the enemy to charge me, I want to charge them.