In some ways I miss playing mechwarrior. But I promised myself onyl 1 minis game at a time. I enjoyed mechwarrior, knowing each match would be different, even if the 'meta' armies were very few. Map set-up could make or break armies. So I developed this new format to emulate the style of map set-up from that game


New Game format: Varying terrain.

Map: Any blank map.
Army size: 100,150,200

Each player brings 4 tiles with them. The tiles must be of the "5 squares x7 squares" variety. Players each roll D20 to determine who is “defenderâ€￾ and who is “attacker.â€￾ The player with the higher role is the defender. The defending player then picks which side of the map the defending forces will deploy from.

After that, the two players then place tiles according to the following sequence:
Defender places 2 tiles
Attacker places 1 tile
Defender places 1 tile
Attacker places 1 tile
Defender places 1 tile
Attacker places 2 tiles.

The tiles may be located anywhere on the blank map. They must not overlap one another, and they must fit within the confines of the blank map and not extend over the edges.

Play then continues with a normal deployment (4 squares from a narrow map edge) and initiative roll.

Gambit points are counted.

Analysis:

The idea behind this is that you will know, in general terms, what half of the battlefield will look like. You can pick tiles that best suit your army. Need a place to hide Mas Ameda? There are some tiles that, if placed against a map edge, make for suitable buildings. But you opponent controls the other half of the map. Do you set up to your advantage, or to thwart your opponents? The choice is yours.

My main concern is the number of tiles that are largely blank space. A 5x7 tile with 2 sqaures of low cover may bias the game towards shooters. But, if the format catches on, other tiles could be made with a more ‘permanent’ structure.

I played a game or two similar to this when I first started playing. It was back when Universe came out. I didn't know what I was doing too much and my opponent set up the tiles so that my AT-ST was stuck on one side of the map, while his Rancor could still squeeze through to get me. Still, the game was pretty close. Only problem was keeping the tiles in place. Of course, some tacky tack would have worked well, but we didn't think of that back then.

I haven't done anything like that since.

One thing that my group used to like to do was play 4-5 people on one map. Sometimes we'd play teams, but mostly every one for themselves. You just had to kill the number of points you start with...usually 100-150.

Your point on the AT-ST and the Rancor was exactly what I was looking for.

Map set-up becomes integrated into army building and deploying. If you can pin their huges behind walls, then it is their fault as much as yours.

As fas as them sliding around, I found that small pieces of felt glued to the bottom would provide enough traction for the pieces to stay in place.

When I started playing D&D minis it was with the tiles. I found that the tiles left some armies very abusive. I personally have one particular army that was never defeated in this format.
I would expect the same using the tiles in SWM. It would only be a matter of time before some really good squads turned into broken squads because of the tiles.
When they switched to the printed maps, it definitely evened things out. And I feel it's balanced. It makes choosing your map part of your strategy.
I would however like to see more maps. For example:

Felucia - Lots of cover, very little impassable.
Would be great for Huge which is currently lacking.
I'm thinking something like the endor forest on the bunker map.

Tattooine - There was a great desert map that someone made early on.
The only thing missing was a moisture farm on the corner.

Mygeeto - This could be another Huge friendly map.

Ruined Couroscant - Perhaps a map of the lower levels.
Or, a topside map post-Vong occupation.

Just a few ideas I have for maps.