Can we get it off ladder please? Nearly everyone I play on it tells me it's a boring map and I strongly agree.

Another possible option on battleship balance: make them less effective direct fire (unit-vs-unit) weapons, thus only really useful for bombardment. Keep T2 destros (+ UEF T3 destro) as the navy mainstay. This could perhaps be achieved via damage classes (reduced damage, with bonus vs structures)?

That might also help reduce splash vs subs without affecting splash vs harms.

Honestly though, SC navy would need a lot of work (and probably a lot more units) to be properly balanced IMO.

The proper solution would be to create an intel entity which drops from the aircraft, every few seconds, and if it lands in water, becomes a short term sonar buoy. The code for that too, is already in the game - it's used in the Aeon Eye of Rhianne, which creates a vision entity. This would be an adaptation of that.

That might actually work okay. Can such a temporary entity be targetted by subs/ships?

And what about stealth? Should there be stealth subs which only show up in vision radius or is that too insidious? Would they be visible to scout planes anyway due to vision + radar?

Perhaps a better alternative:

• all water-based sonar are actually short-range omni + long range sonar
• all subs (even all underwater units?) automatically stealth when not moving
• (maybe) no underwater vision; enemy units are only visible as sonar icons: this could make nuke subs a key part of T3 navy

So Farms is saying air is boring because it has few units? Sure, more faction diversity might be interesting... well, Aeon already has swifties, mercies and restorers.

Back to navy, bias said:

Submarines are entirely boring units, they have no real solid mechanics associated with them

So make them interesting. Add a "stealth" button like the Selen and let them lurk, maybe, then try luring your opponent's ships to your subs.

But it's kind of hard to make "hide and seek" tactics work given the pace of the game, plus the way target locks work through the fog of war.

So Farms is saying air is boring because it has few units? Sure, more faction diversity might be interesting... well, Aeon already has swifties, mercies and restorers.

Back to navy, bias said:

Submarines are entirely boring units, they have no real solid mechanics associated with them

So make them interesting. Add a "stealth" button like the Selen and let them lurk, maybe, then try luring your opponent's ships to your subs.

But it's kind of hard to make "hide and seek" tactics work given the pace of the game, plus the way target locks work through the fog of war.

The proper solution would be to create an intel entity which drops from the aircraft, every few seconds, and if it lands in water, becomes a short term sonar buoy. The code for that too, is already in the game - it's used in the Aeon Eye of Rhianne, which creates a vision entity. This would be an adaptation of that.

That might actually work okay. Can such a temporary entity be targetted by subs/ships?

And what about stealth? Should there be stealth subs which only show up in vision radius or is that too insidious? Would they be visible to scout planes anyway due to vision + radar?

Perhaps a better alternative:

• all water-based sonar are actually short-range omni + long range sonar
• all subs (even all underwater units?) automatically stealth when not moving
• (maybe) no underwater vision; enemy units are only visible as sonar icons: this could make nuke subs a key part of T3 navy

Well, I have a few ideas for an "improved Emerald Craters". Not sure whether I'll get to them (it's been ~20 years since I did any map-making, for TA), so if another map-maker is inspired, go ahead.

First, gameplay:

• the main bases/expansions seem to work well forcing rapid drop/acu movement to take at least one
• lack of reclaim in the starting area is, as you all say, refreshing
• I personally don't like the way the centre or closer three-mex expansions play so much; the corners are "okay"

So, ideas:

• Keep the starting bases similar, but redesign a little. They are oases in an arid landscape, so they should be lower than the surrounding terrain, with a thin spread of trees. Perhaps push the hydro spot to the centre with 2-3 mexes and put the other mexes around the edge, keeping 6 total.
• Not sure whether the expansions should be identical oases or smaller (maybe only 4 mexes).
• Redo the centre completely. Either a central peak (mountain) or a lake in the crater's depression, or perhaps a flooded quarry. Have two 3-mex expansions, one towards each player, with terrain enabling easier defence. Have a few larger reclaimables, perhaps civ structures. This should make it feasible to drop both central expansions instead of the side expansions (but should not be too attractive, so not mega reclaim).
• Spread out the remaining mexes a bit. Possibly have a creek starting in each corner, with shallow parts and some mini-canyons, with mexes along the creek. Maybe similar mex count (5-6) spread along this creek. Have a few rocks and trees along the creek. Or maybe stick with the 3-mex+hydro expansions from Emerald plus a couple of mexes spread out within the crater.

This is mostly intended to offer similar gameplay except for the central area and more, smaller raiding targets between the main expansions.

Perhaps there should be more map-making for such "open" maps, then. Emerald Craters is almost uniquely bland (Seraphim Glaciers too).

Subs should be subs instead the current underwater LAB we currently have.

Subs should actually be stealthy-need-sonar-in-the-water-to-detect, but the game doesn't feature sonar-dropping aircraft. I'm not really sure if they can be fixed. Stealth really requires active and passive variants of both radar and sonar. Pretty soon we're talking whole-new-game.

Well I found a few ~1700 rated replays. A couple of drops to the far corner, some air play, but not really very interesting games to watch.

Players are forced to leave the starting base after 2-3 factories due to lack of reclaim/mass and there are only really two spots worth going to; failure to get one expansion is almost always game-losing despite so many mexes around the map.

The 8 middle mexes are potentially useful but easy to raid and to spread out to fortify.

Even the corner mexes are far enough apart that tanks sent to the middle of the clump are out of range.

My thoughts on a better version:

• make it a bit smaller, e.g. 15x15
• mexes in expansions should be a bit closer together to make defence with a PD easier
• add some mass reclaim
• maybe reduce the mex count slightly

Ultimately I don't think maps with four-fold symmetry are great for 1v1 or 2v2, personally. Some asymmetry makes choices about where to send the ACU meaningful instead of just 50% chance of meeting the opponent.

Since writing this I was wondering if it's just a crude inflammatory post. So lets try rationalising that statement:

• it is definitely visually uninteresting
• there are no rocks to click on - that isn't necessarily a problem however
• there are many mexes to click on - and inevitably some must be rebuilt after raiding - potentially some boredom here
• there are a whole bunch of positions to keep trying to raid - but raiding is not boring

Regarding NapSpan's point: yes, it can be a little stressful finding good strategies on such an open map.

But regarding that: why do I never see this map played in tournaments or basically never in high-level casts? As a mid-level player I tend to copy a few ideas from casts/replays but there don't seem to be many of those.

Can we get it off ladder please? Nearly everyone I play on it tells me it's a boring map and I strongly agree.

Another possible option on battleship balance: make them less effective direct fire (unit-vs-unit) weapons, thus only really useful for bombardment. Keep T2 destros (+ UEF T3 destro) as the navy mainstay. This could perhaps be achieved via damage classes (reduced damage, with bonus vs structures)?

That might also help reduce splash vs subs without affecting splash vs harms.

Honestly though, SC navy would need a lot of work (and probably a lot more units) to be properly balanced IMO.

@biass said in Astro FAF Version (Player Input Required):

Smooth the top of the mountains a little to prevent possible airplane issues (I need to know what is supposed to be “blocked” and what isn’t.

Good question. My feeling is that maps with mountains/cliffs which interfere with aircraft should be banned, but on this map I believe preventing bombing (even from strats) is intentional.

It's a long time since I played any astro/gap map however so am not "in the know".