Choke Point Equals Bad Map?

[SmackCakes]

I think ever since I was new here, I've come across map comments saying things like "too many chokes" and "-1 because of the choke points" and people generally working under the belief that if a map has a choke point then it's a bad map, and that it won't be fun to play a game on.

You would expect then that the ideal map would be wide open, giving units freedom to zoom wherever they want unobstructed. Well I have something to say about this, which I think has needed saying for a long time...

You know them wide-open maps? The ones with no chokes? Yeah? Well they suck! They suck and they're boring, and bland... and have FTA.

Seriously it seems like back in the day, someone said chokepoints were bad and everyone just accepted it. but it just isn't true, not all choke points are bad. choke points are areas of interest in a map, they are the one place were strategy wins out over numbers, and they are important to stop the map from just reverting into a crap shoot.

I think the thing is that people need to distinguish between an interesting narrow point on a map and a bottleneck. I made these two maps to use as examples.



The map on the left is a true bottleneck. Both armies have a large amount of production, and are being filed into a very long narrow space where there in no way to pass each other. there is also no extra income to be gained by advancing along the bridge and indirects will annihilate anything that does. This map has all the makings of an endless stalemate. When people said to avoid choke points I believe this is what they were talking about.

The map on the right also has a choke point, but this time it's a completely different state of affairs. Firstly the narrow area is nowhere near as long. Secondly there is plenty of room here for mechs and air units to harass vehicles near the mountains. There are also a lot of cities near by which can be fought over. and there is more space for indirects to take up proper firing positions without being forced into the choke like they were on the bridge. This map is not only playable it's actually a pretty good map IMO, and I think tussling for control of the choke with copters and mechs and trying to get rockets in position so you can eventually bust through with your tanks. would make for and awesome game.

I think the crucial thing with chokes is not how narrow they are but how long they are, and how many options there are to break them. chokes are not good or bad, they just map elements that can be done well or poorly. I'm tired of people throwing "choke point" around like it's some kind of insult. Sometimes choke points are awesome, and they add interest to a map.

[amarriner]

I agree wholeheartedly. Part of the reason that "Pheasant" is such a good map is the presence of chokepoints and how you can handle them. There are several areas on that map where the action occurs and you have a lot of variety in how you approach each one. Having chokes in no way hinders the map.

[Fugue]

Amen! A map without chokepoints is a map without a purpose!

[Ultra Storm]

(nods in agreement)

[wrokstar]

I think both of those maps are bad because they have one single central chokepoint, but if a map has like 5 separate chokepoints and 2 or 3 production facilities (like pheasant) then it is typically pretty solid in-game.

By the way, I really like all this mapmaking stuff you're doing.

[Taz]

I have a theory for chokepoints:
Define the chokiness ratio as the ratio between the total number of factories on the map and the lowest number of open tiles (meaning plains, roads, forests, properties) a (somewhat realistic) frontline may have.
For land-only maps, I tend to think that a chokiness ratio of 1 is somewhat optimal. If the most chokey frontline includes a lot of rivers/mountains, a slightly higher ratio is okay. On the other hand, if it includes a lot of forests, and few roads, a slightly lower ratio will be okay.
If you include air units, you also can have a slightly higher ratio, because air units help breaking chokepoints.
For example, PHNAR, which has these two characteristics, has a chokiness ratio of 2, and is fun to play on.
This is not valid for sea maps, of course: pure sea maps have an infinite chokiness ratio
Very generally, the higher chokiness is, the more the battle will degenerate into an indirect fight, and the lower it is, the more it will be a direct fight. You have to balance it if you want to have an use for every unit, and an interesting game.

[Juigi]

"You know them wide-open maps? The ones with no chokes? Yeah? Well they suck! They suck and they're boring, and bland... and have FTA."

You can see why land units in GBW3 have lowered Movement Costs, some MCs of 2 even being 1.5, and some vehicles can cross rivers and/or mountains, if at high enough MCs that the Rivers and Mountains still work efficiently at being barriers.

[BASEBALLFURIES]

heres a map i made a while back about the current issue:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/editmap.php?maps_id=20276

[Paine]

[quote="BASEBALLFURIES"][/quote]

fixed . . .
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=20276
. . . and it's horrible anyway.

[Twinblade]

Um, that specific map includes the chokepoints that are the bad kind. They are long, and take up almost half the map... The map also has other issues.

[jhuni]

Certain chokepoint related tactics can be used to prevent opposition in chokepointed areas.

The actual problem is vital points and properties that are chokepointed.

I cover this in my article on centralization. This is an old article.

http://jhuni.freehostia.com/games/awds/balance/center.php#chokepoints

[kaji]

I think most people would agree that the map on the right is clearly more playable than the one on the left. Just as you added air ports to the right map, adding ports/airports to the left would also increase its playability as well.

I think you are right in that people should not automatically discount a maps rating because there are choke points, but only if the map forces all play to occur in a narrow choke point.

For instance, if you removed all the airports on the right map and made the mountains 5 rows deep, it would also become reletively unenjoyable.

[srstarry]

oh my god its kaji


hi kaji~~~

[kaji]

Hey-Yo ^_^

[Mabolle]

Chokepoints are often where I have the most fun in Campaigns. Of course, this is largely due to how badly the AI handles them, and against an evenly matched human player they can be a nightmare.

I agree with whoever said that multiple chokepoints makes for fun maps.