Mechanized Assault & eXploration Reloaded

Subject: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

We'd like to see some feedback on the prefered map sizes. Please leave comments here about WHY you prefer and don't forget to vote for your favorite size of maps

Here's a list of an estimated number of rounds ∅ to reach an enemys base. It's an average distance of half of the true mapsize on most maps.

Mapsize | Traveling speed | total distance | average distance

1024² Fields : 5 Speed = 204 Rounds (Foot) -> ~102 Rounds ∅
1024² Fields : 10 Speed = 102 Rounds (Tank) -> ~51 Rounds ∅
1024² Fields : 32 Speed = 32 Rounds (Air) -> ~16 Rounds ∅
1024² Fields : 40 Speed = 26 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 13 Rounds ∅
1024² Fields : 50 Speed = 20 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 10 Rounds ∅
1024² Fields : 64 Speed = 16 Rounds(Air) -> ~ 8 Rounds ∅

512² Fields : 5 Speed = 102 Rounds (Foot) -> ~51 Rounds ∅
512² Fields : 10 Speed = 51 Rounds (Tank) -> ~25 Rounds ∅
512² Fields : 32 Speed = 16 Rounds (Air) -> ~8 Rounds ∅
512² Fields : 40 Speed = 13 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 6 Rounds ∅
512² Fields : 50 Speed = 10 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 5 Rounds ∅
512² Fields : 64 Speed = 8 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 4 Rounds ∅

256² Fields : 5 Speed = 51 Rounds (Foot) -> ~26 Rounds ∅
256² Fields : 10 Speed = 25 Rounds (Tank) -> ~13 Rounds ∅
256² Fields : 32 Speed = 8 Rounds (Air) -> ~4 Rounds ∅
256² Fields : 40 Speed = 6 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 3 Rounds ∅
256² Fields : 50 Speed = 5 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 2,5 Rounds ∅
256² Fields : 64 Speed = 4 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 2 Rounds ∅

128² Fields : 5 Speed = 26 Rounds (Foot) -> ~13 Rounds ∅
128² Fields : 10 Speed = 13 Rounds (Tank) -> ~7 Rounds ∅
128² Fields : 32 Speed = 4 Rounds (Air) -> ~2 Rounds ∅
128² Fields : 40 Speed = 3 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 1,5 Rounds ∅
128² Fields : 50 Speed = 2,5 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 1,25 Rounds ∅
128² Fields : 64 Speed = 2 Rounds (Air) -> ~ 1 Rounds ∅

Thumbnails of attached images:

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

mine is 196²

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

Doesn't this depend on the number of players? More players => bigger map.
I'll vote now with a player number of 4 in mind.

My thoughts about big maps:
Bigger maps means longer games. Max games are quite long already. The part of the games, where I ship my units around a large map in 10+ turns, is for me not the funniest part.
I think that large times to reach an enemy base will be good for the defending player, because it's not at easy to get new units to the front. But if you have to plan an attack so carefully some dynamic of the game can get lost. One possible result of large maps will be, that the players wait with an attack until they are quite sure, that the attack will work. Then there's a good chance that they will overpower their enemy by large (unless all players have roughly the same skill) so that the resulting fight is not so interesting.
For me a 128x128 size map is a good compromise between having space to expand and explore, but reaching your opponents in a reasonable amount of time. 192x192 could be ok, too, especially for large player numbers (6-8). I currently don't see the point in bigger maps than 192x192 (although I have to admit, that I didn't playtest big maps, yet).
So I prefer 128x128.

Toranaga

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

Toranaga is right. If I play only with 2 or 3 players I prefer small maps. I want to see some action before turn 400

A really large map can be fun for some campaign like playing but due it's size hardly playable in e.g. one evening.

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

Well, maybe things will change if it will be possible to join a running game at any time and allied play options.

I like 196² and 256² most. Sure it's not very fancy playing with only 2 players on such large maps, there should be at least four players. But, if you had missile launchers with a range of 29 (which is an radius of 58!) reaching far into your base, you'll find out, that 128² can be very small, even at 1on1. You have to "explore" more on bigger maps too.

And I don't share the opinion of Toranga in that spot, that it's hard to get new units to the front. Thats the point, you HAVE and now CAN work with subbases and the fighting goes about subbases and not about the mainbase. And it´s possible not to overpower the game by playing with less ressources, so you have to think about what you're doing.

I try to design most of the maps that way, that there are many strategic points that should be reached early in the game and be defended. Small Islands and stuff.

I do like it to play a game over several days or weeks, too. As it's possible to save a game and reload it another day, instead of starting a new one again and again.

And if you play the bigger maps with much more water, than land, it's not so easy to expand like hell. You get to use Air- and Seatransport much more on bigger maps or Ressource-trucks & boats may get more important, supporting a forepost, which the enemy tries to destroy. You can play some seek and hide and can't defend everything, especially on the open water.

Maybe there has to be made some matchings to the research to slow it down. (double or four times more research-centers or research-time needed).

AND there can be a 2 attackers vs. 1 defender or 3 attackers vs. 1 defender players game to balance. So many possibilities to play. If there are many players even the bigger maps will get quite tight.

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

In my humble opinion, maps bigger than 128² are generally not fit for competitive play. Sure, you can have fun on them and play really long and epic games - but personally, i prefer to play games that can be finished in one session. It is so rare that circumstances and individual motivation allow a game with 4 or more players to be resumed on another day. Usually one party would already be so far behind as to not see a point in continuing to play and rather opt for a new game.

Additionally, the huge distances to cross bring heavy imbalance with them, insofar as players who are far from each other can macro up undisturbed, whereas players who spawn closer to each other are at a severe disadvantage, because they weaken themselves and restrict each other's expanding possibilities.

It also means that air planes are even more powerful / overpowered than they already are - plus the usually prolonged nature of such "epic" games brings out the many imbalances in the upgrading process and unit handling (e.g. range and price upgrades tend to overkill with time and units can be massed endlessly with no "uphold limit" and get hard to handle for player and game engine alike).

So, in short: Fast paced, action rich games with close borders, immediate tenson from the get-go and quick decisionmaking in macro and micro - that's what MAX is all about for me. Much love to the designer of the 64² three islands map.

Edit: 64², 96² and MAX standard 112² are missing from the poll. :P

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

For me, Bigger maps = Bigger Bases.

I Like big bases as I like to build a big army.

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

What Nager says is true on one Hand and I understand it.

AND there are players who like big maps, to play seek and hide and have some room to expand or to "dodge". AND it is possible to have a TURTLE-MAINBASE and many small bases that are been fought about and nobody gets kicked out of the game early and can have fun with the others. Main problem is the time that is been needed and a disciplined group of people who will meet alltogether at the same time. But I think that is possible, if there are enough players, thwre allways be some freaks ^^. It could be a special session for 2 months for example. I wouldn't have the time to do that during the whole year. ;-)

I think 256² is just right for a BIG Map. But smaller than 112, well...that musstn't be for me.

A problem with MAXR is, rushing and attrition warfare, instead of strategical and tactical warfare. So there have to be some restrictions made, especialy on big maps. Like: limiting ressources and research to slow things down. An upgrade should be something special. Except that, Games can last 1000 rounds, I wouldn't care. I remember, playing MAX original, that it took ages to upgrade and you had to decide. It seemed impossible to upgrade everything. Now we rush through the upgrades and it seems that it's all about upgrading than tactics.

But as we in many games allready have agreed NOT to research RANGE and just buy RANGE upgrades with gold, which are limited, that's a nice start slowing things down. 29Ranged Missilelaunchers with 68Damage and 2 shots on a 128² Map can be REALY annoying.

---

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

The big trauma is the sheer wait to get an army from one area to another.
Also by the time you shift a surv/construc/eng to build a forward firebase / depot / air / docks you are talking a major undertaking when it's at least 8+ turns by air to bring reinforements (and about 40+ to bring anything by sea! I like to keep a forward force of subs to keep the enermy back while I set up, it's hard to do when you are operating so far in front of your main lines and 20+ turns from your docks at full speed)

Subject: Re: Poll: My favorite played map SIZE is...

---

Hi,
After 2 full games at lans and a few small / test games over the net I'm afraid to say that if M.A.X.R. is to make any impact with modern strat gamers (one of the guys I roped into a LAN game has decided that it's too slow which is missing the point) I have to admit that unless you have 3 WEEKS to dedicate to a game and are a fan of truly epic games then we are going to need more SMALLER maps for multiplayer.
64 of 92 squares would be ideal allow for earlier contact and keep the presure / combat on (do maps have to be square or can we do for example 64x128?)

I was a big fan of the original max SP and always went for the large target / epic goal / massive games (fav map high impact) but 15 years and a lot of evolution on the MP front means that unless you want m.a.x.r to only ever be a neich home LAN game, it's not going to gain impact unless the games hold interest and the gameplay is made less clunky (and no I am not saying dump the things that made max so awsome in the first place) but seriouly we were on a 256x256 (UK) map. It was well over an hour before I even found my opponant and due to our base locations (I was on south coast of mainland he was in iceland) meant that it was 10+ turns flat out for my airforce to get there and about 40 for my subs, the map was simply WAY too big for 2 player and probably even 4.
So what am I saying? well maxr can support lots of commanders but for the time being I can see 90% of games being 2-4 players, so I think that maybe to begin with we should conentrate on smaller maps that could accomodate 2 players or LAN games that can be played in less then a day (most gamers at LAN events will put up to about 3 hours on a game in a single session before breaking for another game or doing something else).
If anyone is willing to give me some pointers in making maps I am willing to help here