Actually they're all about the same size, between 25 and 29 planets.  If you don't count pirate bases, Separation of Powers and Double Edge both have exactly the same number of planets.

 

It's not the look, it's the layout (though that does affect the look).  For starters, your map uses a "mirror image" layout (like Double Edge), whereas mine uses a ying-yang layout.  This is substantially different, since your maps have a line of symmetry but mine does not.  Secondly, you have longer strings of planets, whereas mine tends to be more webby

Another huge difference is there is that there is a chain of phase lanes along the "line of symmetry" of your maps (it doesn't go all the way down on Double Edge, though).  The mid-point of my map (strictly speaking there is no line of symmetry on Separation of Powers) has no such connections down its middle. 

 

If you control the entire outside of the map, you've probably already won the game.

 

This is the multistar Separation of Powers (I scrunched the systems closer together for this screenshot; the white line marks the boundary of which side of the solar system divide planets lie.  In reality the distances of the interstellar jumps are all pretty long to avoid Z-axis issues, hence as I said the aesthetic problems):

Double Edge only has two asteroids, terrans, deserts, ice and volcanics... so thats two planets and two asteroids short of Separation, and a further two planets short of my new one.  It makes for a smaller game in terms of fleet. 

Your maps seem to both be more webby and not have connections down the middle then!  Separation is more more stringy than most of your maps though?  Its really an either/or with mirror image and having gravwells on the line of symmetry, or yin/yang.  I tend to prefer dead asteroids, neutrals or pirates on the middle.  Having a planet on the middle is again something I took from Separation.

The basic concept of the matchplay multi-star 1v1 could be much like the map above?  Six inter-system phase lines seems too many to me though, on Escalation the choke is too easy so you have to use the star, whereas with six phase lines there is no choke at all.   I'll work on a map along these lines... it should put an end to some of my symmetricalising habits, anyway!  What's the minimum length of phase lines to avoid Z-axis issues?

Should we move this to another thread, would you like this one reserved for the compilation ? 

There are some other... less conventional... designs that are possible, but typically not pursued due to their complexity.  Quagmire and Nightmare are two examples; they do not fall into either category, though they do have aspects of both.

I like to experiment with different formations at the "midpoint" of the map.  With Separation of Powers, it's the area with the desert, asteroid, and neutral, as well as the string of gas giants connected to the magnetic, that form my central battlegrounds.  With Escalation, it's the two deserts and the two stars.  I always find it interesting where the initial "battle lines" are drawn and how players end up with certain groups of planets. 

In Separation of Powers, both players should be able to control their own ice and volcanics, and this makes the contested planets the deserts, the terrans, the middle asteroids, and the neutrals.  I designed the phase layout such that the terrans are a little inaccessible, and the other planets are all difficult to defend because they do not lie behind any useful choke points.  Unless you can take your enemy's ice or volcanic, he can harass and invade those planets quite easily.

I'd agree; I was simply transcribing Separation of Powers to a multistar scenario as faithfully as possible out of curiosity of what it would look like.  Without significantly changing the layout of the map, I don't think it's feasible to reduce the interstellar lane count.  Part of the difficulty is that Separation of Powers uses planet-based chokes, rather than lane-based chokes.  The choke points are governed by ice/volcanic gravity wells, but there are plenty of alternate lanes to pick.

These two represent opposite design approaches that I've experimented with.  With Escalation, the deserts are indeed hard "lane-based" chokes.  There's no way around them save the long-way (the stars).  However, the flip-side is that the gas giants are essentially the "center-points" of each solar system.  This means that the defending fleet can sit right outside of your front-lines and essentially be in an ideal "response" position to defend the rest of the solar system!  On the other hand, if you're on the far desert, you need to make two jumps just to get back to this centerpoint.  So strategically, sitting on the far desert is actually one of the most dangerous tactical positions to be in.  That design is not coincidental.

Separation of Powers is the opposite approach that gets the same effect.  Both factions have chokes relatively close to home (the ice and volcanics) and the central areas are pretty open.  You can control the desert and asteroid, but the enemy can go around them and pick targets with ease.  Unless you can push through the enemy ice/volcanic, you have lots of different planets to protect even if you can take all the central stuff. 

This is a tough call; I've been experimenting with multistar systems with interstellar lanes for a while.

Off the top of my head, you should ensure that two planets connected by interstellar lanes have a distance between each other of no less than two thirds the distance of their parent stars.  That is to say, if the distance between the two stars is 3000, then the distance of any interstellar lanes between these two systems should not be less than 2000.  Secondly, ensure that stars themselves are placed a reasonable distance apart.  I made a system once where I put the stars practically side-by-side... big mistake.

 

It's already three pages long; as far as I'm concerned, we've already reached the point where people don't read the entire thread before replying, so it shouldn't matter.  If you want to make another thread about map design philosophy, that's fine too.

Okay, here's another two attempts.  This is a smaller single star 1v1 map because I wondered whether the maps were too large, on the other hand a map is how much you use of it.  Other RTS use 4 player maps for 1v1 fairly frequently, I've considered producing a map like that so you wouldn't know your opponents start position- might that work?

This is the map I produced as a multi 1v1... the stars are shown closer together than they are in-game here.  Its yin-yang, and has more planets and more trade possibilities than Escalation, as well as the second normal choke.  It includes one or two of your concepts though.  Of my maps this is my best for the 1v1 tournament- unless you have any suggested improvements, or want another concept? 

As maps, those are great creations.

Regarding "the" map, I don't quite like your multistar rendition.  The central area has a string of three planets in a row that must be cleared without any alternate lanes (desert, dead, volcanic).  This seems too much a railroad and could hem in player strategies.

I'm playing around with some designs right now.  One thing that's working for me at the moment is a central star system.  This enables me to create some interesting middle ground between the two systems without having too many interstellar lanes.  That's somewhat similar to Derelict, I suppose.

des, your single star system is a pretty good map, but my one complaint is there is no quick way to get to the enemy homeworld, and there are too many uncolonizables, dead asteroids?

for your multi star, i would be game for trying it, but i don't know if people will buy the multi star concept, give me a download link, and i'll see what people think

A few other maps for 1v1 consideration:

 

Separation of Powers 1v1

Escalation

Fallen Paradise (technically a small 2v2 map, but within reason)

Jagged Maw

 

They're all part of the map pack:

www.tinyurl.com/sins6

i will make one tomorrow and see what you guys think, where can i get galaxy forge

thanks for all the consideration too guys

Just on the downloads page of this very site: https://www.sinsofasolarempire.com/downloads.aspx

 

Just a warning, the default quick-start settings that galaxyforge assigns are incorrect and you'll have to change them.  The population/emergency/logistics/tactical upgrades should be 4/2/1/0 but for some reason are set to 3/3/3/3 by default.  You'll need to change them unless you want very weird settings.

I added a couple of asteroids to the single star map.  It is supposed to resemble the classic 'push' maps of other RTS games, with space in the middle, but there weren't many asteroids to begin with.

GalaxyForge is from the downloads section of this site, just use the red tab above.  If you make maps from the basic template you may want to alter the quickstart settings, as it defaults to all max except population... 

Other RTS also use 2v2 maps for 1v1 fairly often, though not all are suitable.  Fallen Paradise looks as if it would make good practice for 5s!

i agree, fallen paradise would be a great 2v2 map as well, but maybe a little too big for 1v1, would certainly bring some fun strategies into play tho, i'll check it out

thoughts anyone?

2nd draft

change log: makes vasari more fair

Beware of using random uncolonizable!  It could turn out as a magnetic cloud!

That aside, my only gripe is that there's virtually no room to maneuver in the middle of the map.  That's a recipe for stagnation if big starbases go up, since the defending fleet only has to go one jump (tops) to respond to any trouble, and the attacking fleet has no alternate approaches.  Moreover, there is virtually zero opportunity to split up into multiple fronts.  I'm thinking that maybe you should add a little more content near the middle of the map, at least some more lanes (from the ice/volcanics, maybe?) leading to the sun so the pirate base bypass is a more realistic attack option.

 

A few more maps from me.. Download them here:

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-f0059446.html

Darvin could you add these to the map pack please?

'Restraint' A small map I used to test AI, with the addition of a third home planet not connected to the others by any phase lanes.  I can upload the AI-test version if anyone wants it.

'Confinement' The smaller of the single star maps from the thread. 

'Catalyst' My first attempt at a multistar 1v1.

'Golden Veil' A reworked map- I added a second desert to make the wormhole attempt more attractive.

'Vastness' A large-sized 1v1.  Its symmetrry was remarked upon.

'Sphinx'  The test of this map went very well, I prefer this sort of multistar 1v1. 

'Outcast' A multistar 2v2, mine had been all single star.

'Mistah Kurtz'  A wormhole option multistar 2v2.

'Iron Gates' All my maps went across so I decided I wanted an up-down one.  2v2. 

'Prospero'  A large 2v2.  Vastness doubled, except one of the systems is yin-yang.

'The Coronet'  FFA 5 Reworked because the quickstart was wrong.  I added a couple of deserts and moved the systems further apart as well.

'Hares and Lions' 3v3 This map was deleted from the map pack for a slight bias, so I reworked it.

'The Truest Taste of Freedom' 3v3 You want ice, you gotta earn it.

>_<

I just gave several weeks notice that version 2 was upcoming, and no one provided me with maps.  I'll shortlist these for the next version, but that release won't happen in the next few weeks, at very least.

Secondly, please rename any maps (at least with a "v2" tag on the end) that were released in a prior iteration of the galaxyforge compilation.  Because there is no imbedded version control mechanism for Sins maps, you have to manually do that in the file name.

Last time we had a cut-off date, this time you updated the pack somewhat unexpectedly, after the thread had been quiet for a few weeks.  It surprised me, especially after I'd said that I was working on more maps.  Also, I released some of these maps last year, they can be downloaded from this site.

The version number on my maps is included with the map name in-game, I prefer to have the maps write over older versions of the same map.

StarP, I'd second Darvins concerns about the lack of room for manoeuvre, it seems very easy for one fleet to cover all the planets owned by one side.

It's true, I didn't give a specific cut-off date, but I did wait about a month, which was actually longer than my cutoff date last time (a little over a week, iirc).  As for the maps, different people use different services, and to be honest I'm probably not going to see them.  I've had very bad experiences with Stardock's service in particular; over a month waiting for file approval is just unacceptable.

In-game map name is the file name.  Releasing multiple versions under the same name causes serious compatibility issues and confusion.  It's not worth doing.

 

 

Looking at the revise version of Starplayer's map, I still have the same concern.  It's way too easy for one fleet to defend the entire front.  Bypassing the pirate base remains an unrealistic choice; it looks much easier just to skip the enemy's front lines to hit the homeworld rather than going ALL the way around.  You'd be better off adding more planets and connections in the middle rather than that plasma storm off in the middle of nowhere.

All that I needed was a couple of days warning that you were about to update. 

I'm not sure what you mean about your experiences.  Is the download working for you? 

Overwriting the previous maps is the better solution, if we have an agreed community installer.  Otherwise folders are filled with redundant maps, and the galaxy.manifest becomes a problem.   

We still have too many maps anyway.  Our objective should be, by the time of the release of the expansion, to slim down to a few agreed maps.  Then we can set up a download from this site.  I'd be happy to have a tag like [Cmap] in the file names at the final stage, that should prevent any confusion.  But if we release far too many maps, or if the pack just contains one author's newest maps, then it won't work.

There's only three of us, how about four maps each?     

 

I'm agreeing with you on slimming down the number of maps.  My initial view, back in September, was that we would try to get it down to 6 maps each of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3... etc.  If we have a couple of 3-way and 5-way FFA maps, that's cool.  Aside from 3v3, where there are 15 maps, we have 6-8 maps in every category, so we are nearly there. 

Which maps should stay or go is the question.  Out of my maps, I have a general idea of which ones I'd give the boot first (Twisted Space, Hex, Crosshair, Pathways, Supreme Cross, and Critical Mass).  The problem is, I don't want to be the only one with the hedge clippers here and act on my own personal bias; I need feedback from everyone over which maps should stay and go.

I don't care much for giving each author a specific "budget" to work within.  It should be the best works - as judged by many people, not me - that get to stay.

That's just too many maps.  I've played the set maps many times online, and the advantage of 'knowing' a map is very substantial.  Also, were we to aim to present maps to Ironclad for consideration, more than thirty would be out of the question, we'd be lucky to get even 5-6.  It might help if our organiser was prepared to use the Ironclad download service!

Though StarP has offered comments and a design, and I'm hopeful that KL3MZ can be tempted into venturing further than 'is this a vas map?', I'd suggest that the concept of more than a very few players commenting on maps is a pipedream.  We have three different styles of author, if StarP is interested that would be four.  A small representative sample might be the best we can achieve. 

Also, if the criteria is that the maps have to be played a few times then it becomes even more important that the maps are in the pack to be tested.  I'm just not sure why you won't update it again to 2.1, it hasn't been updated very long.  If you want a limit on the number just say so.

Have you got a replay of the 1v1 between you and DS on the asteroid map?  What factions were you each playing?  You just mentioned that it convinced you that it was good, without adding much more. 

 

Holy cow!  It's a custom map orgy in here!  We even have the first ever multistar 1v1 that I've ever seen.

From the screenshot of Catalyst, it looks like players could star jump to the other small star but would never be able to jump to any of the planets there.

Personally I think 6 maps per size level is appropriate.  Most multiplayer ladders have about that many maps.  Blizzard routinely has 8-11 on rotation in Warcraft III for each game setting, and memorization is HUGE on those maps.  I myself still know most of them like the back of my hand.  If they're popular online maps, people will play and learn them.

I want you and DirtySanchez, at very least.

I am considering doing just that, but I'm not going to do it on the spot.  As I said, I'll wait at least a week or two in case there are other things that need to be changed as well.

 

It was actually a 2v2 on the larger variant, which is functionally similar to the smaller one.  I don't know if I have the replay, I'll have to check for it. 

It was Advent/Vasari vs Advent/Vasari.  I was Vasari, and DS was Advent.  I suspect my Advent ally was Fortune smurfing, and I didn't recognize DS's Vasari ally (though he played quite well).  My strategy was pretty simple: rush and starbase the two asteroid choke points and keep the enemy team out of the middle of the map.  I got those starbases operational extremely fast, driving off enemy attempts to stop the construction, and if it wasn't for my ally's incompetence we'd have had an easy win.

Normally, I'm patient with allies who screw up, but on top of his repeated and massive blunders this guy ended up quitting during the very climax of the game when the enemy team was making their last-ditch push.  It wasn't a dump, it wasn't a crash, it wasn't a drop, it wasn't a desync, it was him getting bored and quitting.  He said so himself.  This pissed me off to NO end.

 

Derelict

Okay here's some criticism then.  One map of yours you removed, Spheres of Influence, was among my favourites.  The reason seemed odd, the main chokes weren't affected.  Perhaps a remake?

1v1 Maps
Asteroid Belt 1v1 v03 (DirtySanchez) one neutral, the gas giant, is far too few... if the odd ice and the asteroids joining the gas and odd ice were all neutrals it would make a better map
Close Encounters OBS (Astax) same map name as Close Encounters despite the differing file names, should at least alter the picture.  I'm not sure about the principle of observer maps when we have replays, but I wouldn't have chosen CloseEncounters for one.  Can we make our own?
Escalation (Darvin)  Could use a volcanic between the worm and home, I'd also like a well between the home and the star.  Its a minor point but both asteroids attached to the stars should slant away from the enemy home.  QS is maxed, as well.
Jagged Maw (Darvin)  Tricky map.  I would have 2 deserts and 4 ice/volcanic or 2 ice 2 volcanic, as it is civic labs are not as useful... however by the name you can tell that it is intended to be a pro-Vasari map, so...
Separation of Powers 1v1 (Darvin)  The map pack version of this is better than the first one.  I like it.
Twisted Space (Darvin) Wot no pirates?  Infrastructure 3 on QS.  Sp in description.

3-Way FFA Maps
Lumaran's Folley (Darvin)  Six deserts on this one, and again no volcanics- or terrans, either.  Obviously made by a lavaphobe.  Great map for a game against locked AI, but 3 player games are always tricky to set up.  QS is default. 

2v2 Maps                                                                                                                                                 Asteroid Belt 2v2 (DirtySanchez)  I like asteroids really, you can never have too many.  Same criticism as the 1v1 version.  For all the asteroid imperialists out there.
Fallen Paradise (Darvin)  Too few players for 5s, but like the fast paced style?  It'd be a bold man who considered a civic lab on this.
Nightmare (Darvin)  More sandy capers from the Son of the Desert!  I'd be concerned that the outside phase lanes are a disadvantage, yet this isn't reflected in the design.
Separation of Powers 2v2 (Darvin)  Again this is a good map, enough neutrals and I like the seclusion of the central terran planets.  But how long before desertification affects them?  

3v3 Maps                                                                                                                                                 Asteroid Belt 3v3 neutrals (DirtySanchez)  Not for me, I suppose Dirty must be an asteroid miner in a future life.  Some like the 'grid' style and because of that it merits its niche in the map pack.
Breakdown (Darvin)  "Water! Water!"  Aggressive map, slightly deserty.  Again, this sort of map has a place.
Crosshair (Darvin)  Large multi- but why use the wormholes?  Perhaps add more wormholes to avoid the huge jump to them, and sacrifice a planet in each system?
Hex (Darvin)  Might be fun, bring a towel for some sunbathing, the wormhole comes in near one of the chokes though.
Ring of Risk-2 3v3 (Dirty Sanchez) Very choke map, it might be good to have another option to get to the empty arms, otherwise the map could be over very quickly.  Each empty arm has two terrans a desert an ice and a roid, as well as two neutrals- overkill?
Separation of Powers 3v3 (Darvin) Dead asteroid fans might be wrongly reassured by this Darvin map that their team was preferred to the downcast plasma storm outfit.  They're doomed to least favoured grav well status, despite this strong showing.  Will just controlling the key planets be okay, or is the iron fist really necessary?
Structural Integrity (Darvin)  I find the grid style repetitive, as I've said.  This is a traders and grinders dream, if grinders do in fact dream.  I doubt it. 

4v4 Maps
Asteroid Belt 4v4 (DirtySanchez)  I suppose one point in the favour of this map compared to Ring of Risk is that you can concede ground in the centre without it being the end of the game.  Build those factories and get those ships to the front!  Should come with pictures of American aircraft factories from WW2- all those rows of unpainted planes.
Diamond 4v4 far (DirtySanchez)  QS is wrong on this.   Does it have more asteroids than the asteroid Imperialist maps?  I started to count how many consecutive asteroid jumps you could make to a different asteroid each time.  More than twenty.   That's a lot.  Aficionados of a bleak asteroid-oriented environment might be disappointed if they chose Asteroid Belt rather than this.
Diamond 4v4 near (DirtySanchez) Or this.  They have more neutrals than the asteroid maps however, so they lose points for variation..
Diamond 2v2v2v2 (DirtySanchez) Does this have to be a separate map..?  Some flaw of the editor?
Pathways (Darvin)  Plasma Storms!  Yay!  Another grid map.  It is difficult to get a more irregular map with so many players in a single system, though.....
Quagmire (Darvin)  ... however this seems a bold attempt to make a more interesting 4v4.  Good map, though I'm bound to say that, as I wouldn't want sand kicked in my face...
Solar Conquests (Darvin) Lucky I don't play 4s and 5s online, as if no-one likes you you'd be at a huge disadvantage on this.  Premade heaven, good for what I believe is referred to as 'ganking'..  QS is porked though.

5v5 Maps
Asteroid Belt 5v5 (DirtySanchez)  More asteroid aggression.  Is it just me, or does this grid-based grinder not have quite as many asteroids in proportion to the number of players?  Of the Asteroid Belt maps I prefer this.
Critical Mass (Darvin)  Watch out for the 'hun in the sun'... I like the maps where you get your own little empire at the start.  Man should stand on his own two feet and farm his own patch, not work for others or rely on handouts.  Fill your hands!
Ragnarok (Darvin) Perhaps unnecessarily large?  5v5 multis lag enough as it is, I'd either drop three of the unoccupied systems- or four and enlarge the remaining one.
Red Crush-2 5v5 (DirtySanchez) Of the grid-based sloggers I prefer this one.
Solar Dominion (Darvin) Buy extra RAM.
Supreme Cross (Darvin)  I imagine you'd get some huge fleets in this multi.  Buy extra RAM and bring a packed meal.  Maybe two packed meals, or extra snacks.
5v5Imperium (EadTaes) Needs a description and QS is wrong.  Big.  Merits use, instead of havingthe constant whining about the randoms.

Perhaps we could make smaller 4v4 and 5v5 maps?  40 and 50 planets?  Don't allow me to do it or it'll be called 'Smurf Safari'.. I am tempted.

Having looked at so many maps I was cursed inspired to make another one of my own.  I enjoyed Lumaran's Folley but 1v1v1 is not popular... and as we didn't have another map of this sort-

Lumaran's Curse- Much toil has enabled water to flow freely on the surface of these worlds, after they were desertified by the mad Admiral.  The pirates are back though, and the Admiral's curse still hangs over the system.  Will war break out again?  3v3v3

 

The distance between homeworlds is somewhat significant on Jagged Maw, so civics are not uncommon. People who rush will go for your outer roid, not for your homeworld.  Still, I agree that I'm too heavy on deserts and if I make another version I'd swap some for ice/volcanics.


Hey, I'm getting better about that.  Nightmare actually has as many ice/volcanics as it has deserts, plus the ice/volcanics are soft chokes.

The outer lanes HAVE been dealt with, but it's not visible in the screenshot.  My solution was to hand-tune the scaling in the same manner as I did on Quagmire.  The short phase jumps take 2-3 seconds, the long phase jumps take 6-10 seconds. By keeping all phase lanes extremely short, the absolute difference between the outer and inner lanes isn't significant.


Oh, come on, I AM getting better about that.  Look, the ice/volcanics are fricken game-critical choke points here!  No one in their right mind would lead with anything other than 2 civics.


Now that IS one of my early works where I did indeed have a desert problem. I'm conscious about my personal planet bias now.


So we're in agreement:  the ULTIMATE multistar!


Do it.  You know you wanna


Cool remix of Lumaran's Folley, by the way.  I'll do my own assessment of other maps (not my own) shortly.

Asteroid Belt (all sizes) (DirtySanchez): The asteroid-heavy inner area of the Asteroid Belt maps is superb for gameplay, leading to desperate planet grabs and bypasses. The layout leads to exceptional lateral mobility. However, all of the asteriod belt maps suffer from a dearth of a neutrals.

Double-Edge (DesConnor): A solid 1v1 map with four different approaches. There are few contested planets in the middle of this map, and little room for lateral movement. QS issues.

Golden Veil (DesConnor): Although one has to question the value of the isolated desert, this map otherwise has a solid premise with two easily contested asteroids and hard chokes. It's a bit low on colonizable planets for its large size. Like Double-Edge, there is little room for lateral movement.

Cyclone (DesConnor): Few contestable planets (none of which have strategic value), hard chokes, and an isolated rear-area that has back doors? Definitely a high-stakes map which could come down to a single gambit. This map has some room for lateral movement in the front, but none in the rear.

Preoccupation (DesConnor): The broken record drones on: few contestable planets of non-critical strategic importance, but this time some good option for lateral mobility. Very low on colonizables for the number of players.

Schismatism (DesConnor): This map is extremely low on colonizables, and with only average neutrals it's going to be very tight on budgets and resources. This map has a lot of lateral mobility, and its extremely low planet level may mean it all comes down to who captures those central planets.

The Coronet (new version) (DesConnor): This map has good lateral mobility in the central system, but the outer systems lack it and also suffer from a strong level of isolation.

Cast All The Dice (DesConnor): An odd map; some spots begin without asteroids, and a lack of team indexing could create problems with regards to disadvantaged starts. Definitely has a considerable amount of lateral mobility and contested planets, turning this into a very deadly rush map.

Deus Ex Machina (DesConnor): The massive amount of isolation on this map makes it incredibly unorthodox. Combined with its low number of colonizables, this map could easily fall to whichever team manages to knock out a single enemy first, since it's completely impossible to send any material support.

Duke Walk (DesConnor): I'm starting to sound like a broken record again: low number of colonizables given the size of the map, along with minimal lateral mobility and few contestable planets.

Falconry (DesConnor): Virtually every planet is contestable on this map, and combined with virtually no lateral mobility this map may as well be named "deathmatch". Very high stakes, very high risk, no room to maneuver with all-or-nothing fights.

Gateway to Paradise 3v3 (DirtySanchez): Characterized by a shared back-end defended by a hard choke protecting it and massive of resources in the central contestable area, this map is all about the fight for the middle. It has low lateral mobility, has lots of neutrals that are only accessible to Vasari early on, and several critical chokes.

Odds and Ends (DesConnor): A vicious multistar, there is a distinct inequality in terms of strategic and economic starts for different players. This map is very open, and all comes down to the early-game 2v1 that player 2 and 3 will be taking. Most players have very limited pickings in terms of colonizable planets, giving them little late-game potential unless they defeat these players.

Ring of Risk (1/2) 3v3 (Dirty Sanchez): This map is similar to gateway to paradise, with a shared back-end and some hard chokes blocking it off. The central area has some lateral mobility, but the "wings" of the map have none, and controlling them (along with the killer trade route they entail...) is clearly the key to victory.

Sun of the Joneses (DesConnor): Another map with zero lateral mobility, with two enemies directly in your face, this map has direct bloodbath spelled all over it.

Diamond (all versions) (DirtySanchez): Bristling with game-changing choke points and good lateral mobility near the middle of the map, and a heavy focus on grabbing some key contested planets early, this is a pretty vicious map for its size.

Red Crush 5v5 (1/2) (DirtySanchez): "Red Crush" iapparently another term for highly contested game-winning choke points. Reasonable lateral mobility given the hard chokes, though.

5v5Imperium (EadTaes): Awe inspiring map. Very heavy on the randomness, but a masterpiece regardless. A perfect balance of choke points and alternate approaches that give a great deal of lateral mobility, and a massive central region that could determine the outcome of the game.