What Makes A Good (Competitive) C3G Map? (Alkali Lake)

[MrNobody]

What Makes A Good C3G Map?

So we discussed making a thread like this in-sanctum and I finally had the free time to start it up.

Basically, the Valhalla/Classic sector has a really solid Maps community, and with that comes lots of design philosophy talk about what makes a map good. Now I'm sure many of us have played C3G games on Classic maps, and while they totally work, I've generally found that C3G-specific maps have a better feel when it comes to your average superhero game.

I'm hoping we can have a bit of a concrete discussion about why that is, and what makes a C3G map work or not work. Similar to how FreshFoods is handling the unit retrospectives, I figure we could look at maps one at a time to determine what works and what doesn't with each particular map.

I figure we can start with Conflict Chernobyl, since pound-for-pound it's probably the most popular C3G Competitive Map. I'm gonna write up a brief post for it.

[MrNobody]

So Conflict Chernobyl:



Biggest Pro:
One of the things that I love about this map is what I personally call "two turn deployment." That is, if you spend your first two turns of the game moving the same standard speed* up on the battlefield, that unit will generally be in a well-primed strategic position. On Turn 1, you can move them next to the Palm Tree nearest your Start Zone, then on Turn 2 you can move them up to the high ground on the middle of the map.

This is great because it means your units can get into the battle fast, but it also gives lots of different types of units a fair shot. Fliers and faster units might still want to hang around the Palm Tree on Turn 1 if they aren't fast enough to get to the high ground, and slower units can still usually make it to the Palm Tree on Turn 1 and can huddle around it for protection as they move up.

It also means the battle gets going fast. Usually I have troops engaged in combat by the end of Round 1, if not sooner.

*For these purposes I consider "standard speed" to be a Move 5 character with no abilities that affect its movement, like Flying.

Biggest Con:
I'd have to say the Glyphs, at least partially because we don't actually use them in practice?

I have played with them before and they add some interesting strategic options, but a 50% chance of a Pit Trap usually isn't worth sending your units out of their way for.

[Arkham]

1. Symmetrical
-Each team has the same opportunities.
2. No major height/levels at play.
-Flyers don't have a distinct advantage over walkers.
3. Smaller
-Start zone sitters and hubs with unlimited range aren't completely safe, and on the flip side, it doesn't take a ton of time moving up your various figures into the action.
4. Just enough LOS blockers
-The few Evergreen Trees and 2 Destroyed Ruins offer some opportunities to break LOS.
5. Terrain Variety
-Concrete, Asphalt, Grass, Jungle Pieces, Water, and Destructible Objects offer a decent amount of battlefield decisions and can enable the powers that can otherwise be niche to a few units like Luke Cage, Hulk (Avengers), or Poison Ivy etc.

[quozl]

I linked the map in the OP. I think the glyphs were added for theme and are not needed for competitive balance.

[Ericth74]

I like Conflict Chernobyl but I feel like I play the same game over and over again. I think great maps offer different ways to play on it and different experiences. I don't feel like I get that with that map.

[Shiftrex]

A Map where multiple types of characters can shine but others are not inhibited horribly because they lack flying.

So, if there are very high points there should be ladders or ways for other characters to easily move onto height at given points. If there are vantage points that enable ranged combat then there should be line of sight blockers.

Road in general is a great addition to any map because it allows for grounded units to move a bit faster over select areas and somewhat keep up with flying units.

A great map should enable a variety of units and strategies to be functional. It's hard to enable everything but enabling either a variety or just one very specific synergy is definitely a plus for me.

[Splash]

Great idea for a thread!

Chernobyl is probably my favorite. Not sure I can articulate exactly why, it's just good. Maybe some other maps only really have one way to go (meet in the middle on a road/bridge) or are unfair if you have no fliers/range.

Chernobyl has a solid meeting spot in the center with some height, it's nice, but optional. You can move along the road if you want to go fast and don't care about height. There are also great height spots to target the center on the other side of the ruins if you don't get there first. ruins give you defense against range as do the many bushes. There aren't so many obstacles/DOs that they are a hindrance, but there are enough trees and things where you want to plan out your moves. Overall, very fun and balanced map.

Reflecting I think what makes a good map is a map where anywhere your figure happens to be, there are multiple good places to go and still keep the ball rolling.

[IAmBatman]

I feel like I've used the road on this map before, but for the life of me, I'm not sure why I wouldn't just want to deploy to the middle of the map almost all of the time, since coverage is about even and most of the height is there in the middle.

I'm not sure if I've ever played with the glyph in (I don't like having to choose a glyph as I feel it's too variable competitively) but I do feel like the glyph has a role in pulling figures to less used areas of the map.

[GameBear]

Originally Posted by MrNobody

I've generally found that C3G-specific maps have a better feel when it comes to your average superhero game.

I'm hoping we can have a bit of a concrete discussion about why that is, and what makes a C3G map work or not work.

This interests me - I've often wondered what makes a good C3G map. How frequently do you all try new Classic maps for your C3G games? Of my recent maps, I wonder whether Sunnywood would work well for a C3G game. Or Underwood (its twin), if there is a preference for Marvel terrain.




This map has a smaller footprint, dampened elevation changes, fixed glyphs, a road for getting around the middle, and a new approach to limiting ranged attacks. At first glance, does this look closer to being a good fit for C3G? Or is it still way off? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this map's suitability.

No obligation to comment on my map specifically. I'll check back regardless, to see what else you all have to say on this topic more generally. I am curious.

[Tornado]

I had hoped you would pop in. Thanks for chiming in GameBear.
Always fun to get a fresh perspective on things.

[Ericth74]

There are some great classic maps to play on. But I feel like most are small for C3G. With the big move so many heroes have its so easy to be in a startzone quickly. Classic maps are also typically balanced with glyphs that we don't use. They are designed for squad scape and without DOs in mind. I've played plenty of C3G games on Classic maps but would never playtest on one.

[toyhandle]

Sunnywood looks like a fun map. Looks like a face sticking out its tongue in the second picture.

Conflict Chernobyl is my favorite. Never played with Glyphs, but would be interesting. I use all parts of the map often enough. That bushy-height area off to the left is a good spot to camp a commander needing LOS and/or ranged attackers, with the water giving a little distance between that figure and those in the center.

Had Echo with Human Torch's range and her normal 6 Move ring-around-the-rosey with the water against a full life Thing for the win in a Miek test.

I feel like all maps are pretty repetitive to an extent, but this one feels less repetitive than Dark Dimension, and more exciting than Mogo, as examples.

Destructible Objects really change how this map plays. A lot of fun options open up when you have all these non-opponent "figures" all over the battlefield to interact with. Can't remember the last C3G game I played without them.