Anyone can vote as long as you have played all 3 maps.  You have until the end of August to vote.  Please invite me to a private game on any of the boards if you want.   Or post here to organize private games.  Vote by ranking the boards in any way.

• 1776
• Battle of Bladensburg
• Iwo Jima

http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:map_making_contest

1. BoB

2. Iwo Jima.

3. 1776

Fantastic set of maps!

Each of these is very high quality game.  (although ranking them is a little apples to oranges)

1. Iwo Jima

2. Battle Of Bladensburg

3. 1776

1) BoB

2) Iwo

3)'76

1. Iwo Jima
2. Battle of Bladensburg
3. 1776

1  1776

2  Iwo

3  BoB

1. Iwo

2. BoB

3. 1776

I still havent' played 1776 - anyone want to try and squeeze in a private game by the end of the month?  I need 3 more.  PM me, or post here.

i'm afraid to, but sure i'll jump in. 

I'll play it, if you don't consider it conflict of interest ;)

1. Iwo Jima

2. 1776

3. BoB

No one else is explaining their votes, but I can't pass up an opportunity to share my opinion on things. It's a personality flaw I'll likely never overcome.

First of all, all three maps are really good. It's hard to rank them, because they all do different things well and some better than others. I hemmed and hawed. I went back and played repeat games. I tried to weight decision factors. And then, ultimately, I just kind of sat down, closed my eyes, and blurted out an order. Basically, this batch is as close to a tie as you can get in my mind.

Iwo is a "just right" kind of map. Not too big, not too small. Games take just about the right amount of time for my attention span. Not too brainy, but it rewards experience and good strategy. Artistically, it isn't flashy, but it isn't crude; everything is clean and clear and some nice transparency effects are used. It uses some advanced features without being overwhelming. It suffers a bit from being a 1v1 map. Bad luck can be punishing. Also, if you play against someone who already has it figured out, plan to lose a lot. That's just kind of the nature of the beast, though.

1776 is a bit the opposite. It's heavy. It's technical. It has lots of rules, lots of borders. It's SimulGear, which is bittersweet. I love Simulgear. I love the board analysis and planning it requires. There are some good limits in place on 1776 to keep the SG tedium to a minimum. As the author, I can say it's a balancing act, but that I think I got a good balance. That said, SG can sometimes feel like a bit of chore because there aren't any turns you can just mail in. The pace of a regular map changes as a game goes on which can give some mental relief on turns where you only have a few obvious choices. SG rarely allows for that, and due to the detail of this map even more rarely.  To follow a theme, it's just the nature of the beast and to those who like that style of game, I think they will be rewarded for playing this map. Graphically, not my best work, but I think it finds a sweet spot in what needs to be conveyed vs what can be done on a hex/terrain map. The 3v2 team play is uncommon on the site. Everyone is packed close, so good team communication is rewarded (a conscious choice on my part).

BoB lands somewhere in between, i think, in almost every way. Personally, I feel like its crying out to be a Simulgear map, but I understand the choice not to. 1776 will never be a fan favorite because of it. BoB is much more accessible. The layout is good. It forces conflict while leaving some choices in how to duel. Good use of borders and fog. I've been both crushed instantly, and played back and forth ad nauseum on here so I'm sure there's potential for deep play, but also potential for some real trudging matches.

Anyway, really good set of maps. Hard to rank because they're all so different and all do well what they do.

Edit: and great work to everyone for nailing the theme.

I didn't comment because no one else did, but then Cram came along and messed it all up.

Unfortunately 1776 is SimulG, I've played it a couple times, mostly if not all in Dev (I can't remember). While I don't doubt that it's balanced, because SG makes no sense to me, outcomes always seem too random.  So while play may be fine, I found the artillery borders to be confusing, and I seem to remember the graphics forced me to use the player buttons to highlight territories/ownership.

BoB is kind of like Waterloo on steroids.  Like BoW, while the map may seem to cry out for a SG-like play, SG's ability to move only one or two (I'm not quite sure) hexes at a time makes these large maps untenable for that engine.  Both BoB and BoW pseudo-solve the problem with limited moves, but this is really a workaround for the lack of unit autonomy that a Unit Movement Count feature could provide. Because the way units are produced on BoB, units get scattered all over the board and even 3 fortifies with Back to attack ON doesn't keep up with production.

Iwo uses the same (6 move limit?) constraint to control play, but the board is much smaller so it doesn't feel as much like the above described work-around (even though it is), which makes me wonder if Iwo would translate well to SG.  Certainly, ALL of these boards would benefit greatly from a feature that restricts movement on a per unit basis so ALL could move, but in limited fashion.  Nonetheless, the number and size of forces as well as the game-play mechanism in Iwo comes closest to feeling 'authentic'.  While BoB is a war of production, Iwo is a war of attrition, and the result is that games are not protracted.

Frustrating on both Iwo and BoB is that Abandon is ON. It's frustrating because best tactics on both of these board all but require players to constantly leave 1 behind.  I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten/misclicked, etc.  It ruins these boards for me on a personal playing level. a (T-1) button would make a huge difference.

Edit: I've already voted - so don't double count based on this post.

I tallied the results.  I'm going to put all vote tallies on separate sheets in the same document for convenience, so you'll have to click on "2014 Theme", if you want to check my work:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18vUv0JygDYz4bHpTUI7QjJVE5FFPzvKcljsPQjhciSs/edit?usp=sharing

1. Iwo Jima

2. Battle of Bladensburg

3. 1776

Congratulations to the winners.  PM Tom to collect your winnings.  And thanks to M57 & Cramchackle for the insightful comments.  If there's anything I enjoy as much as making boards, it is talking about boards and the thought behind them.