Favourite ESOC maps!

[pecelot]

So what is your favourite map? Bear in mind not only starting resources, but also design!

[Kynesie]

:praise: :praise: Indonesia :praise: :praise:

[mnogud]

manchuria, both aesthetically and balance wise.... kamchatka has wayyy too many hunts and it makes it easy for civs like japan , brits french

[WickedCossack]

I quite like Cascade.

Didn't like it the first times I played it on it as low res, but it's kinda cool once you accept that fact and play it out differently.

[Hazza54321]

Manchuria, hudson bay and arkansauce are the best

[zoom]

Maps like Cascade Range, Bengal and Tibet are cool, but favor specific civilizations to a far greater extent than maps like Arkansas, Kamchatka and High Plains, which is unfortunate as they are otherwise interesting in terms of design.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Hudson Bay

[_DB_]

Hudson Bay and Manchuria.

I love the ice version of Hudson Bay, epic graphics. I love graphics of Manchuria and the voice which the marco makes when it dies. Mey-E-E-E-EA.

[Goodspeed]

Kamchatka never gets enough love

[mnogud]

Kamchatka never gets enough love

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

[pecelot]

I like Kamchatka - decent TP line, nice wood treasures, some hunts and choke points . You can finally play as Brits!

[Goodspeed]

Kamchatka never gets enough love

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable

Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.

[iNcog]

Oh, you can vote for 4

[PoniPoika]

Hudson Bay, Manchuria, Arkansas and High Plains all day every day.

[zoom]

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable

Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.

THUS SAYETH THE ORACLULZ!

[zoom]

Winner: Kamchatka. Honorary mentions: Baja California, Pampas Sierras.

[[Armag] diarouga]

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

It might even make vill shipments viable

Lol, next meta is lb behind a wall and push with more walls for map control

[Goodspeed]

Yeah walls are a problem. For now (:))

[yurashic]

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable

Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.

Yeah high res maps make builds from your guide somewhat viable.

[yemshi]

Why is it possible to have a place Nr.1 and and a place Nr.3 without Nr.2?

And finally Mongolia gets what it deserves: Hate.

[pecelot]

Why is it possible to have a place Nr.1 and and a place Nr.3 without Nr.2?

Maybe there were two first places at that moment.

[momuuu]

i dont get it why people are fond of it... its just has wayy too many hunts.... BOOORING

High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable

Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.

but the more res their are, the bigger chance most early game strategy gets somewhat discarded and people start playing it more like treaty 10.

I think some maps might slightly overdo it tbh. 1 decent starting hunt, a good and relatively large second one and a third one a bit out of range is best imo. 2 or even three hunts that could be herded to your base is just too much to me.

[gibson]

Yea im not a big fan of extremely high resource maps. Since I have the micro of probably a corporal I win my games by either just having a better build order or out macroing my opponent. High resource maps are easier to play on, but I think make it harder for me to win.

[pecelot]

They are always a nice addition, I think it's the best to play on ??ESOC maps", which chooses a random map from the poll (althought Indonesia too ') ).

[Goodspeed]

High natural resources make for very interesting games, actually. It can make eco builds viable which otherwise wouldnt be viable, the timings are slightly later. It opens up a largely unexplored meta and leaves the predictable and boring "I need to take map control instantly because otherwise Im going to get starved out" meta behind. It might even make vill shipments viable

Overall there is a strong bias towards aggressive maps which makes the game more strategically shallow than it should be, and favours mechanical players.

but the more res their are, the bigger chance most early game strategy gets somewhat discarded and people start playing it more like treaty 10.

I think some maps might slightly overdo it tbh. 1 decent starting hunt, a good and relatively large second one and a third one a bit out of range is best imo. 2 or even three hunts that could be herded to your base is just too much to me.

Agree, FP GP is an example of a map that overdid it although even there Ive seen more interesting games than on most maps. Anyway there is nothing wrong with high res maps in the pool, especially if most of the other maps already favour aggressive builds. You say the more res, the more people start playing like its tr10. Whats wrong with that? It will never turn into actual tr10 because AoE3 is a well designed RTS where semi-X is always better than naked X. Making units to raid and idle their vills when the other guy isnt making units is always useful. Do you see the kind of meta this would spawn and do you see how interesting it would be?

Actual high eco builds becoming a viable way to play adds a lot of depth to the game. Imagine people actually being able to justify building a second TC in fortress, and even starting to send economic shipments in fortress because they are no longer forced to send units to fight for map control? IV will start to become an actual relevant age on land maps. Rushing will become a meta play against high eco builds because they are cutting corners and vulnerable to pressure, eco civs like Ports may actually see some play, etc. Theres a whole lot of interesting stuff here, but sadly forgotten because everyone wants to see forward base French mirrors.