2 maps
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: 2 maps
Looks nice. I'll give them a try when I get home.
Re: 2 maps
For the first one, I would suggest swapping the P2 and P4 keeps. 1&2 vs. 3&4 is not balanced because of first move advantage. (I assume both maps are intended as 2 on 2...) If the second map is intended for north vs. south, then the same problem applies; if it's east vs. west, then there's still a problem because the west side moves first on both the north and south halves of the map; on a map as big as Clash this isn't much of an issue, but on a tiny map like this, it will be. If you swap player 2 and 4, the second map will be playable with either north vs. south (1&4 vs. 2&3) or east vs. west (1&3 vs. 2&4) teams.
Both maps seem to have very few villages, especially the second one (which is also possibly too small to be balanced, because of the mobility/ToD issues that afflict Isar's for example).
The oversized keeps of the second map are unlikely to be used unless you start with an obscene amount of starting gold for such a tiny map. Also, the use of deep water may make it excessively difficult for factions without flyers to break into the enemy's base, even after they get behind lines.
Other than that, you'll have to find a more experienced map balancer; but they look to me like they could be reasonable with a few tweaks.
Both maps seem to have very few villages, especially the second one (which is also possibly too small to be balanced, because of the mobility/ToD issues that afflict Isar's for example).
The oversized keeps of the second map are unlikely to be used unless you start with an obscene amount of starting gold for such a tiny map. Also, the use of deep water may make it excessively difficult for factions without flyers to break into the enemy's base, even after they get behind lines.
Other than that, you'll have to find a more experienced map balancer; but they look to me like they could be reasonable with a few tweaks.