I was reading the Map Editor thread and i just had to ask... 

what are your favorite maps to play?

(i will had mine soon... i'm just kind busy right now) 

I don't really like any of them at the moment, heh... I guess the One-on-One and Aruba maps are acceptable.

I haven't had very many games yet, but so far I like Cruel Intentions. I'm doing a game on Badlands right now, which I think is pretty cool, except it makes for a really long game!

One-on-One is the one I'm most comfortable on, because it manages to be balanced by just handing each player equal numbers of bases. When there's a race involved, someone inevitably has an advantage.

My favorite maps at the moment are:

- Aruba (the fast and small map)

- Botanic Troubles (because you can fight your enemy in 4 different fronts at the same time)

- One on One (though i like it more without the pro units)

- Three Ways (it's fun for 1vs1)

 - Cruel Intentions (The fun map to play with 4 players)

- Dead Meadows (in 1vs1; never played it with 4 players though)

Ok... the main reason i'm asking this is: i might get bored of this ranking race thing one of this days (hell i won't be #1 forever i'm sure, and even if i was, that would be even more boring)... and in that day, i will have to think of some other way to keep weewar playing fun for me. So when that day comes i wanna know what maps everyone likes so i can be ready to create some kind of twisted tournament thing.

Super-King: I think you have hit on something there.  I think base races are actually... not so good.  I'm thinking about it now, and I remember that most Wesnoth maps *don't* have base races.  You start with bases in your own little corner of the map.  Which makes more sense, because bases take time to build, and they usually don't get built in areas where there is conflict -- rather, in areas where that side has geopolitical control.  So yeah, I think that's why I like One-on-One and Aruba.  Because your bases are already set, with no racing.

that and the fact that having an uneven base-grab phase pretty much determines the rest of the game, unless you fight back very quickly or out strategise them conclusively then the income difference will mean more damage ouptut and will eventually puch you out

On the other hand, a part of the early stages of Risk is pushing out of your turf to try and opportunistically grab as much land as possible, I suppose the difference being that there is no territory that isn't capturable in Risk 

I also just realized/remembered now: In Wesnoth, there are two different hexes: income-generating hexes (villages/cities) and unit-building hexes (keeps).  There are always races for the villages, but rarely races for keeps.  The difference in Weewar is that the base acts as both an income generator and a unit builder.  I'm beginning to question this in comparison to Wesnoth.  It's kind of like having a factory that is its own source of raw materials, or a waterfall that is its own source of water.  Should we separate input (income) from output (production)?

Separating income from production would allow for things like outposts - only worth taking because it lets you create units in a tactically advantageous area but that aren't useful at all for income, or the opposite.

Although it complicates other things - like the game declaring a player beaten, is it when you can no longer produce units, when you have no income, or a combination of one of those with a lack of live units... 

No income would make it likely that you fall soon, but you could capture a base, same goes for no production bases, but no income or no production coupled with no units and your definitely stuffed.

Doesn't really matter though - when you can't do any stuff you surrender, no matter if the game doesn't think you're screwed