I'm the developer of this map, and it makes me VERY happy that people are actually playing on it :-D

And I know it's unbalanced, I can't do too much about it.

I love these comments here although I haven't played on the map yet.

But one thing I want to ask is, do people actually enjoy having different values for mexes on the same map?

quote: Adjust the values of metal spots

Maybe this is an exceptional situation where it warrants that change, and maybe there's something I'm missing that someone else can fill me in on. But whenever I see that, it bothers me, because it makes metal so much less intuitive, and I have to be finding and analyzing the numbers instead of focusing on strategy. Also, despite that fact that I think I saw a GoogleFrog video on overdrive with a table that shows there's actually a difference between 4 metal on one mex vs split between two, isn't that the only difference for the most part?

If I needed to add more metal to an area of a map, I think I would without a doubt rather just add more mexes. But maybe there's a rationale I'm missing.

P.S. If we're trying to make a (semi-)realistic map but add balance to it, and you only wanted land mexes to represent cities and not fictitious future resource deposits, then I could totally see balancing areas with sea mexes, possibly representing fictitious offshore resources. I actually like the concept of asymmetric semi-balanced maps that encourage asymmetric fac choices. Like the amph/hover aussies vs. the sea/gunship kiwis. (also, something many are unaware of is that almost any asymmetric game can be instantly balanced by a bidding system [example: Axis and Allies], which can be done manually or coded into the game)