Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread

[Dignan]

Updated 5/11/10

Logged vote Kahrma: YtR Underground Iceways
logged votes Riggler: YtI Slash and Burn, YtR Underground Iceways, NtI Vesuvian, NtR Cavern Entrance
Logged votes 1Mmrig: YtI Striking Distance, NtI Noctis, YtR Ratcatcher
Logged votes Dignan: YtR Ratcatcher, NtR Cavern Entrance, YtR Marshes and Mountains v2
Logged votes matthias Maccabeus: YtR ratcatcher, YtR Marches and Mountains 2, NtR Cavern Entrance
Moved Underground Iceways to review.
Removed Noctis from review.
Ratcatcher moved to review.
Removed Cavern Entrance from pending acceptance.

Maps pending acceptance for review:

Marshes and Mountains V2 by Einar's puppy
YES = 2 (Dignan, Matthias Maccabeus) ; NO = 0; Pending = 4 (1Mmirg, Kahrma, nyys, Riggler)

Maps currently being reviewed:

Striking Distance by Dignan
YES = 2 (1Mmirg, Riggler) ; NO = 1 (Matthias Maccabeus); Pending = 2 (Kahrma , nyys) *Dignan removed from process per being map creator

Slash and Burn by Dignan
YES = 1 (Riggler) ; NO = 1(Matthias Maccabeus) ; Pending = 3 (1Mmirg, Kahrma, nyys)* Dignan removed from process per being map creator.

Vesuvian by dok
YES = 1(Matthias Maccabeus); NO = 1 (Riggler); Pending = 4 (1Mmirg, Dignan, Kahrma, nyys)

Migol's Gate by Velenne
YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6 (1Mmirg, Dignan, Kahrma, Matthias Maccabeus, nyys, Riggler)

Underground Iceways by 1Mmirg*
YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 5 (Dignan, Kahrma, Matthias Maccabeus, nyys, Riggler)*1Mmirg removed from process per being map creator.

Ratcatcher by Gamebear
YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6 (1Mmirg, Dignan, Kahrma, Matthias Maccabeus, nyys, Riggler)

[Gulp]

Has anyone compiled a list of tips for getting a map at least to the review stage of the BoV? Might be a bit time consuming to go through nearly 300 pages to find the nuggets, but I'd be willing to go through 25 pages or so and compile any map building notes if others are also willing to put in some time.

[Killometer]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Has anyone compiled a list of tips for getting a map at least to the review stage of the BoV? Might be a bit time consuming to go through nearly 300 pages to find the nuggets, but I'd be willing to go through 25 pages or so and compile any map building notes if others are also willing to put in some time.

I did about a month and a half ago, and I got all the way to page 60 or so (set at 20 posts per page) but as judges come and go and the metagame changes there aren't a whole lot of consistant rules of thumb to follow.

Edit: Here are the super-general things I gleaned to keep in mind for a submission: keep it balanced for flying/nonflying, range/melee, 1-hex/2-hex figures, and make sure all glyphs are roughly equally accessible from both start zones.

[Darkmage7a]

Originally Posted by Killometer

I did about a month and a half ago, and I got all the way to page 60 or so (set at 20 posts per page) but as judges come and go and the metagame changes there aren't a whole lot of consistant rules of thumb to follow.

Not to be rude or anything but it seems like "Check the physical build for structural integrity." Might be a good place to start.

I'll pick on one of my maps for example "Titration" performs very well when built, however I've heard complaints that the central tree tips over too easily if you don't use reasonably fresh swamp tiles. So, although the map holds together well in my home it isn't always true for someone like a TD whose swamp tiles may have seen more wear and tear.

[DrLivingston]

A few I've noticed from following the thread since its inception:

Make it look nice.

Make it stable.

Make start zones easily distinguishable (Back two hexes, 24 hex piece, all rock/sand, all level one grass etc).

Use LOS blockers intelligently. A tree on the extreme edge of a map may look nice, but it's not doing a whole lot.

Watch out for choke points. If one squad of rats can stall an entire army, the pathing needs work.

Use roads intelligently. Connect them. Have them lead to valuable terrain/locations (high ground, glyphs, opponent's start zone). Do not make them the highest ground on the map.

Give melee a fighting chance (good use of LOS blockers, jungle trees, shadow tiles, split start zones that bring the opposing armies closer from the start, good road pathing to potential high ground camping, etc.)

Use glyphs intelligently. Encourage movement across the whole of the map. Don't give one side an advantage to reach or protect a glyph.

Make the footprint small(ish)

The more sets that are used, the more that will be expected from the map.

Play on the map. Tweak it. Play on it some more. Get your map played on at a tournament. Solicit criticism from participants. Tweak it.

Link your nomination to your map thread to direct discussion there.

Definitely not all inclusive by any means. Just what I've noticed as a long time lurker.

You can also check Dok and Velenne's blogs for a bunch of insightful stuff about map making.

[1Mmirg]

Originally Posted by Dignan

Maps pending acceptance for review:

Cavern Entrance by jcmcminis

This map drips theme and has a great, original look to it. I'm sure it plays fantastically for a first room of a D&D campaign. However, as a tournament level map it has too many features that favor ranged units. The majority of the map is wide open and line of sight is easily drawn from most points. The hill over the entrance will only favor ranged units just based on the nature of such things. This map would be great to play on for a casual setting, but has a few things holding it back from a tournament styled map. I vote NO to review.

Marshes and Mountains V2 by Einar's puppy

This looks like an interesting revision to Marshes and Mountains. YES to review.

After what's been a long day, I'm not sure I could say this any better--so I won't . I agree with Dignan's points in both cases.

jcmcminis, that is a fun looking map, just not what I look for in a tourney or best of the best kind of setting. Thanks for sharing it. I definitely hope to try it some time.

EP, I'm looking forward to trying this one out. I wasn't around for round 1 of this map and am glad to be part of round 2 .

NO to review Cavern Entrance; YES to review Marshes and Mountain.

On the other topic:

DrLivingston, that is a great list; definitely a strong starting point--thank you! I also appreciate Killometer's simple statement:

keep it balanced for flying/nonflying, range/melee, 1-hex/2-hex figures, and make sure all glyphs are roughly equally accessible from both start zones.

Here's my similar, short statement:

The map should be as balanced as possible for multiple army types and units, use it's terrain effectively, encourage multiple paths to victory and active play, all while looking excellent.

[Riggler]

Originally Posted by Killometer

... and make sure all glyphs are roughly equally accessible from both start zones.

Assuming it's a symmetrical map...which it doesn't have to be to be BOV material.

[JC McMinis]

I have a question about submissions. When you submit a map, can you also submit custom rules to be used with that map?

[tcglkn]

Originally Posted by jcmcminis

I have a question about submissions. When you submit a map, can you also submit custom rules to be used with that map?

I think the only custom rules they accept are heavy snow/normal snow and slippery ice/normal ice.

[1Mmirg]

Slash and Burn by Dignan

This is a fast, fierce-fighting map. Battles engage almost instantaneously and play out in a fairly constant, barrage of bullets and blows. Definitely a fun map, but it does have some drawbacks:

1) Fairly close start zones lead to first round hits. Every game I’ve played has included multiple hits into the start zone; early initiative rolls have a pretty solid impact on this map’s play.
2) Start spaces are particularly vulnerable, adding to the impact of the quick access to your opponent--or yourself. If you get rocked back to your start space, it is hard to get out and even the battle again. The good news is the map usually plays pretty fast, so you’ll get another try soon .
3) Glyphs are a bit “yours and mine” – walking distance is close, but flying and cover seem to push the glyph more one way than the other. (Not a major impact, but a bit of an issue.)
4) Very hard to play large 2-hex units – the map is very congested (jungles, narrow placement areas, tightly packed ruins, etc.), plus there are basically no places to end a movement where you are not adjacent to a higher single hex. I definitely don’t like dragon perches, but I’m also not a fan of pretty much forcing dragons and other larger two-hex units to almost always have low ground (Grimnak has a rough run, Tor-Kul-Na is handicapped, etc.). This map plays strongly toward squadscape, which has enough going for it already, in my view.
5) Roughness of the terrain makes it hard for melee units (and slow and/or non-flying units) to make much progress. This map definitely gives a boost to fast, flying, and ranged units (well, other than Nilfheim, that is …)

No question this is a fun map. A very creative design and a lot of fun to play on. It’s just not among the most tourney-balanced map out there. I do love several aspects of this map:

1) The careful balance of high ground with lower, protected jungle places
2) The meandering central river, with multiple heights, and a fun effect on the map
3) The constant sense of foraging through a rough jungle to engage your enemy
4) The irregularly shaped/created, yet very clear, start spaces
5) The very intense games—these are not snoozers and there is a rough and tumble feel throughout.

This is a rugged terrain, quick strike kind of map. It can be a lot of fun, but it definitely gives an advantage to ranged and fast moving (or flying) units, able to negotiate the terrain to the few highest points.

I love this map (have used it at some of our game days, in fact), but I’m afraid I’m not comfortable with it as a tourney map. Even with my respect for what this map does offer, I vote NO to include it among the BOV.

[Dignan]

Maps currently being reviewed:

Vesuvian by dok

Vesuvian by dok is a unique build using the RotV and lava set. Since the lava set has not LOS blockers included in it, this build uses the terrain itself to block line of sight. The 5 stacks are capped off with molten lava to prevent anyone from landing on them and do a fantastic job of blocking line of sight. I felt that most of the approaches to the enemy were fair to both ranged and melee armies. The stacks themselves were a bit wobbily, but I wouldn't consider the build "unstable".

From an aesthetic standpoint, I can't say that I'm thrilled with the look of this map. To me, it looks very "unnatural", moreso than your typical map. The symmetry and layout of the stacks really feels "designed" as opposed to "organic". This is a very subjective thing and it doesn't bring a ton of weight in on my vote, but there is some influence when your initial visual reaction to a map is negative.

The gameplay is the heart of the matter. I LOVE that the glyphs are on lava. I think this is a great choice as it inherently hurts passive glyph grabbers. However, with the combination of the glyph on low ground and lava, the position seemed too poor, tactically, most of the time. In the same area, it felt like the rest of the lava hexes around the glyph were a waste, as there was almost never a reason to even think about moving onto them. From an efficiency standpoint, getting the glyph on lava might have been better achieved with a one or two hex piece.

The center of the map obviously sees the most play here. Armies advance up the rock layer and dance on and off the lava when needed. Despite the large area of lava, there were very few rolls for lava death. People always seemed to be able to easily avoid it or didn't need to risk it. Part of the reason is the two exposed rock hexes in the very center of the map. I feel that this area is a fairly major flaw in the design. These spaces saw a ton of action in our games. People were constantly dancing around and onto them to avoid lava death. I feel that giving a little safe haven in the center of the map on pretty good height is a flaw (considering all the lava around it). I felt like the entire purpose of the lava was undermined by the presence of these hexes.

This vote is a little more subjective than I usually like to go with and one that I've spent more time thinking about and playing than I usually do. This is a really solid map and probably draws "the line" between "really good" and "best of the best". I just found my gameplay lacking on this map. I vote NO for it's induction.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Ratcatcher by Gamebear

Ratcatcher is a map that tries to do exactly what its name implies. It requires 1 RotV + 1 TJ. What it does is essentially slows down figures climbing up to the height in the middle. It takes about 3 OMs to get established on the plateau in the middle for 5-6 move walking units. I think this is a great idea. It really gives heroes a little bit more staying power because they can take wounds. Squads are constantly moving back up to the plateau after their brethren fall to replace them.

Dragons are especially tough on this map because of their mobility and good survivability for the most part. However the map is pretty range friendly. The mapmaker tried to counter this with the use of the jungle terrain, but it just wasn’t enough. Range units were often firing down on melee units and since it took so long to replace the melee units up on the plateau, they got 2-3 shots off quite often before melee had a chance. Often the melee units were hugging the jungle terrain, but it’s hard to withstand 2-3 attacks while climbing up.

Gamebear is one of the best mapmakers on this site and he constantly impresses me with how well he tries to balance the maps, but with melee struggling on this map I vote NO to induct it into the BoV.

Underground Iceways by 1Mmirg*

Underground Iceways is a map that makes good use of one BftU. It requires the DnD master set along with FotA and TT. It reminded me a bit of Jexik’s Derelict. There’s basically 2 paths out of your start zone. One to the castlewalk area that runs all around the middle area of the map with the big glacier in the middle. Or the other path is towards the edge where the glyphs lay. The glyphs are along the edges on snow and ice blocked off from the main road by glaciers and stalagmites.
There are little range perches here and there throughout the middle part of the map, but the castlewalk, LOS blockers, and shadow tiles do a pretty good job of keeping melee in the fight. The map is recommend to be played with normal snow and ice, however I would recommend heavy snow and normal ice. Most of the snow is on the little range perches throughout the map and I found that it helped keep them off of there maybe one more turn, so melee could get there to contest it. Also there were a few places that the bigger 2 hexers didn’t fit.

My biggest issue with the map was the glyphs. I think glyphs can be a big part of a map, especially if you are playing with powerful ones. The thing that was the most frustrating was that you couldn’t attack the unit holding the glyph unless you went around the edges. The glaciers / stalagmites were blocking LOS and access if you were in the middle of the map to the glyphs. I was torn on this. The glyphs force use of the whole map, which I think is great, but they also hinder your units if you’re not in proper position to contest the glyph. Maybe if there was a small gap in the glaciers that are by the glyphs so that you could contest them easier.

I really liked this map. I think I played on it more that any map I’ve tested for quite awhile but, the glyphs have me voting NO to induct it into the BoV.

Both of these maps were great, but great isn’t best of the best.