Red Alert 3

Hey everybody,
with the Uprising Maps released to everybody, we now can start talking about putting some of them in tournament play. I am sure we all have had enough of playing the same damn maps every game basically. This is just more reason to make up our minds about the matter.

http://i.imgur.com/71nFLBp.jpg

These images are helpful, but I still would recommend you download the maps and have a look at them in skirmish, since things like ref placement, oil derrick placement and map size can only be seen ingame. You can download the maps here: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/1122_...ck-t955602.html

Also note that this thread is meant for 1v1 maps only, or 2v2 maps, that potentially could be used as 1v1 maps. + note that the map "Killington Cave" is not available as of right now, so discussing it seems kind of pointless.

So lets get started guys! What do you think? Any suggestions on what to change?

Looked at pure oniage

The map is crazy, the 4 refs on the the lower right side are so clustered it's a nightmare.
The dangerously close positions will make mcv pushing a prominent strategy, though there are a lot of garrisons for strong defense.

The most immediate expansions there are bound for abuse from an allied mcv.
On both sides...

I feel like the ore in the water needs to be moved to somewhere more appropriate, perhaps somewhere more obtainable and defendable, but yet vulnerable to water harassment, like the water refs on infinity isle.

Those refs being there all clustered makes a lot of the map less valuable strategically.

The amount of garrisons could be problematic too, like industrial's.

The 2 ore nodes on the raised part of the map on the upper left, are so close even a soviet mcv can go all snow plow on it's ass.

This map is insanely small, the minimap makes it look deceptively big though.
I do adore the shape of this map, but the map will need a lot of reshaping of the terrain to fix allied and soviet mcv placement abuse.

I think as it is now it's allied favoured, but with some work it'd be good for AvS, I think it's kind of an empire's worst nightmare because every expansion is so easily accessible from just a normal expansion of allied and soviet mcv's.

That's if they don't just tesla or mg push you straight away.

I feel like the map has potential, but it looks so cheesey and the garrisons will probably determine who wins the match because of how many there are to control.

What I do enjoy is the both the land expansion spots seem viable to go to and strategically important. There aren't too many ra3 maps that give you a non obvious expansion choice.

Lastly that bridge to just garrisons seems strategically pointless, I wouldn't mind seeing something added more important, perhaps a 3rd oil or a garage..

Though adding something like that may put too much value and ruin this multiple choice question potential.


I just don't know if this map is saveable against cheese, I think soviets would be able to get away with double rax openings to stay safe against it. But allies could always open a naval yard before going for the push anyways...
It's so hard because the map is just so damn small I can't imagine the cheeses being easy to defend.

Though what it does have going for it, is that the land is completely cut off from water to land area's, like beaches. Soo mcv's have no easy escape to water if overrun, unless they walk passed your own mcv or took the long way around.

This map could be the most intense and uncomfortable map, worse than indus and snowplow combined, with the exception of easier access to the ore.

This map might not be able to be saved, in reality I think it just needed to be larger in scale to be a viable map, the map makes infinity isle look big.

I completely agree. Sovs and allies being able to take 2 refs without having to reposition their mcv is something I am not a fan of. It makes it so that the base is kept very small and, even though the allies/sovs player is taking an addtional ref, there is not really any more ways to attack for the opponent then before.



Maybe put them in the very top right and bottom left side of the maps? would be very easy to take, but still would be a water ref (=hard to defend) + would be ANOTHER path of expanding.


I can also see a ref being up there. Put on of the bottom right refs in the very corner of the map, so an mcv has no easy time reaching it from near the island. the other one goes in the top left on that (pointless) spot.

Turret pushes seem to be a pain in the ass here indeed. I wonder if all of those garisonable structures would do the trick here but still, there could be a cryo and the mcv would just go around? :S What I like is that the mcv, in case of a push, would be very vulnerable, because there is no terrain making it hard to attack it.....

Also on all the maps: Bridges seem to play a more important role then on the current maps. I find that cool but a pain in the ass at the same time. For one: I love the idea of bridges. If we would "buff" them in terms of HP (so a bridge cant be killed of by a single flak trooper in 5 seks) would be a good idea. The problem is that they are (imO) extremly buggy and a pain to micro around. I guess we could just replace them by regular terrain, if we wanted to.

Bottom water ore nodes; should be separated

Because it is a small map; get rid of the obs posts.

The two bottom islands; are good to promote battles between those two ore nodes in such close proximety. But you should get rid of the bridge and add a terrain path between them. Once the bridge is destroyed, I doubt either player would bother repairing it. The Ore truck can be taken out by artillery on the other island but couldn't reach the ore refinery. (Only tested with athena cannon)

Top Island; was thinking a couple different things with this
a) add tech structure to make it useful. Small map so hospital might be good to promote infantry battles.
b) If I dare suggest it, add 11th ore node to fight for

Depending on other ideas, maybe having x2 hospitals would be good. If only one, it'll get taken out. If each player could get one it might add some length to the battle and another critical point for each player to defend. Replace two top ore nodes with hospitals. Don't have 5 expansions each, on such a small map. Or just add 9th ore node on top island to fight for

This map could end up being pretty good with 3 main points to attack/defend for each player. I see a lot of map wasted in other 1v1's. I don't think small has to be bad.

I didn't quote you guys but some points are restated because I agree.

FYI These are 1v1 maps added in uprising maps pack.

I applied dem photoshop skillz to gave a better overview of what I meant. The crosses stand for refs ofc.

No problem. Hope everyone agree with you.

I apologize if my post sounded messy when you read it. What you have Das makes sense. Here is an image to clarify my above post, and something additional to think about.

I want more maps.

I feel like keeping the refs on the high ground is a better idea then making them hospitals. Like Johnny pointed out, this would give each player the choice of what ref to take. This is something that is lacking on the current maps.

Generally speaking or even more than the ones that we discuss in this thread?

Took a look at "Hard Lesson".

The refs are not very well distributed. We will have to think of a way on how to change that. Like I said in one of the earlier posts: I think allies/sovs should have to reposition their mcv everytime they expo.

What I do like is the highground in the very middle of the map. Even though there is no obvious benefit to holding it, it could play an important role, since every ground army will have to go around it - giving the player who holds the highground time to prepare - or fight its way through a number of garrisoned structures.

An easy thing to change is the position of the starting ref in the water. Since those refs cannot be walled, they would be very vulnerable to tengu harras. This would be a problem in every matchup involving E, espacially SvE. A perfectly placed Tengu couldnt be removed by S, since they simply dont have Twins or naval units that early in the game.

I also feel like we should reduce the number of garrsion-able structures on the map. Right now, there are about 40 of them. I am not sure to which ones can be removed without having an impact on the gameplay of the map.

Good points. I will do.

I was looking at hard lesson already actually. Generally speaking you have the same sort of layout as Pure Oniage. Arranging the Ore Nodes in the same sort of way might be the way to go on this one too.



The starting water ref could be moved back to the corner so it's a water expansion, and move the lower land Node to become the second starting ref. Then seperate the top two Nodes to make them a little more personal for each player.

And ya, the middle high ground is cool, I say leave it alone to, and watch how it ends up being used.

Or additional thoughts I had that might interest you,

Was thinking making a double Ore Node expansion in the lower water might encourage some naval gameplay on a land dominated map. And add a twist from the pure oniage layout.

I think you'll have to reorganize/remove some garrisons with the top two Ore Nodes, and/or possibly move the Oil derricks down. It is a fair size map but it might get tight up top.

If you move the oil derricks down to either side of the middle high ground, it might give reason to use it for attacking other derrick or defending your own.



Just more to think about.

I also checked out Corporate Warfare and think it is an awesome map except it is pretty big. but would be easy to just decrease number of ore nodes to start in the right direction. What are others thinking on this one?

Hi~~my foreign friend Das~I think the uprising map is interested

Checked it out too. To find out if it is really as big as it looked I ran a few tests. I wont bother you with the details but in terms of ground distance it is pretty much as big as some of the maps are right now in the current mappool, given that players only spawn in the 12 and 6 o'clock positions. But air distance is alot longer, therefore vindicators will not be as effective as they are right now.

In terms of design I am pretty suprised how well designed it is. Deleting a few refs and MAYBE the garrisonable structure at the starting locations would acctually make this a fine map I think.

Sounds good.

I played it online last night with 3 others, and noticed when I moved my MCV to the middle island with the X2 ore nodes, it got stuck before the first ramp. This was in the lower left starting position. Not sure if this is a terrain smoothing issue where the ramp meets the low ground or what. But something to possibly look into. I noticed the same issue on a map I created too but haven't yet checked if that will fix it.

After running some tests I can say that most of the new maps are pretty much as big as the old maps, in terms of ground distance. Now I gotta wonder if allied cryo+mcv pushes are too strong on these maps. Ofc the cryo is in your base faster, but there is no good place for the mcv to deploy.....

Just to give everybody an idea on how big/small maps are in comparison I ran some tests. I built a core from the E MCV and move commanded it to the enemy MCV. I took times for every map. Here are the results:

BBB: 0:57 min
CR: 1:10 min (bugs make it hard to give a more accurate time here)
FI: 1:03 min
IS: 0:43 min
SP: 0:46 min
II: 0:51 min
TP: 1:01 min

Grinder Gulch:
Ground distance: 1:03 , air distance: long

The ref placement for this map seems to be completly off. The 3rd ref for each player is extremly far away from their main base. The 4th and 5th ref are placed right next to each other. So I took one of those and placed it near the main base, making it a more access-able third, compared to the orginal third. also there is alot of high ground on the edges of the map, (probably) making jevs a little too hard to deal with. My solution to this would be replacing the high ground with water, so the refs there are still easy to harass, but still somewhat saver then before.