The state of 3v3 map pool

In my opinion is rather bad. Honestly.

I belive 3v3 map pool is by far the worst in the game hands down. While some of the map are alright, 6 of them are honestly is out of place. Personally all my vetos are spent of them.

Lets make a list:

• Essen Steelworks - clearly 4v4 map
  
• General mud - clearly 4v4 map
  
• Steppes - clearly 4v4 map
  
• Lienne Forest - clearly 4v4 map
  
• La Glaize - the most acceptable of this list but still its more of a 4v4 map
  

And its honestly strange to see them in 3v3 list, since City 17 and Lanzerath Ambush were moved to 4v4 pool.

Just bad maps:

• Ettelbruch Station - nuff said
  
• Angermunde - map is good, but overall desing favorites Sov\ost\brits badly while OKW and USF suffers on them. All gameplay - rush to key buildings
  

Out of place map
1) Fields of Winnekendonk - this map feels like 3v3 is a bit too much for it, its playable but not enjoyable, at least for me.

Good 3v3 maps:

• Red Ball Express
  
• Across the Rhine
  
• Oka river
  
• Whiteball Express
  
• Port of Hamburg
  

Acceptable maps:

• Hill 400
  
• Rzhev Winter
  

Suggestions:

• Lierneux can be a decent 3v3 map
  
• Vaus Farmlands
  
• Gelsenkirchen Refinary (with small ajusments)
  
• Nordwind (dont get it, why its only 4v4)
  
• Road to arnhem (again for god knows why its only 4v4)
  
• Anklet & Archery (looks like a decent map, not worst then others in the map pool)
  

And its really sad that half of the 3v3 map pool is a 4v4 maps and other maps are questinable. I'm not sure if 3v3 is a popular gamemode, since its in a middle ground of meme 4v4 and competitive 2v2, but seeing how 4v4 got some love with new maps, while 3v3 was left with only one new map, which is 2v2 map in its core.

I disagree with a lot of your categorizations.
Steppes and General Mud are one of the few 3v3 maps were some kind of flanking is actually possible, and this is a good thing in my opinion.
Lienne and La Glaize are very decent maps regarding the variety of environments and size.

On Ettelbrück I agree, I'd rather have it in the 2v2 pool were it actually was two years ago or so. Angermünde is okay for me, too laney for my taste but alright.

Agree also on Winnekendonk.

For the good and acceptable list I personally do not like Rzhev and Oka River because these maps are small. Especially the Oka River map often turns into a 2v2 and a 1v1 on the same map due to the layout. The huge river is a bad design feature in my eyes and is the counterpart to red cover for infantry, only that vehicle handling becomes way more clunky on top.
Hamburg has just a couple of lanes. Every player already takes up one lane and there is no way to flank it. It is a rather small map if you look at the usable space.
Across the Rhine is also one that I am divided about. The whole waterside does not make sense to me. There is only one entrance from the middle of the map to allow flanking and it heavily helps only one team. The players that end up on that side of the map usually duell in a 1v1 for most of the time. In contrast to Oka, it is at least easier to transfer units to other parts of the battlefield and support your team mates.

Essen: Remove
General Mud: Keep
Steppes: Keep
Lienne: Remove
La Gleize: Keep
Ettelbruck: Remove
Angermuende: Keep
Red Ball: Keep
Across the Rhine: Keep
Oka River: Remove/Revamp
Whiteball: Keep
Hamburg: Keep
Hill 400: Keep
Rzhev: Keep

On Ettelbrück I agree, I'd rather have it in the 2v2 pool were it actually was two years ago or so. Angermünde is okay for me, too laney for my taste but alright.

We have enough garbage in that pool already, tyvm.

I can't believe there are actually people who like Rzhev, the map that has a grand total of 4 road size avenues to attack through or risk your tanks getting oneshot by god knows what on the ice. I tried playing it again some time ago, my Panther got sunk by a random howitzer shell because pathing decided to make it drive over the ice rather than the road, and I'm never playing on that map again.

I'd say the rest of the 3v3 map pool is actually very good. I don't like the no flanking / lane maps like Red Ball or Hamburg but there are enough vetoes to skip them and plenty of other good maps left to have a nice variety.

While flanking is a good thing, the raw sizes of the map provide very little to the enjoyable gameplay, because it favors FHQ rushes and in general, if you forced enemy to retreat it will take them around 20-30 seconds to just get back the front line.

On Steppes all action is happening between middle VP and and bottom VP, top VP is impossible to hold properly if you dont have controll over middle, because you will be flanked to death and holding middle and top VP means that you again can be flanked to death from the bottom not to mention that it would be very hard to hold fuel.

General mud is simply huge map, its just too big. One side of the sides is usually got pushed by 2 players forcing battle into stalemate where all the players wait for armor\FHQ or arty.

Lienne again has most of the action happening on the left and middle, ppl usually focuse on right side if they pick early assault inf, but most of the action there are occasionally re-caps or complete lose due to colapse of the front line in the middle.

La Glaize, as I said the best out of bunch of 4v4 maps, its good, not by personal best but I dont mind it, at least all areas of the map are playable which cant be said about others in the list.

Map doesn't necessary has to be huge, I think winterball express is the best example of it in correct map pool, while having resonable size for 3v3 but also enouth space for potential flankings.

And yeah Angermünde is not only liniar but also very small, considering all the indestructible pathblocks.

I can't believe there are actually people who like Rzhev, the map that has a grand total of 4 road size avenues to attack through or risk your tanks getting oneshot by god knows what on the ice.

I would have had vetod it if I had them left

Oh yeah and, regarding suggestions:

• Lierneux can be a decent 3v3 map
  
• Vaus Farmlands (with flanking)
  
• Gelsenkirchen Refinary (with small ajusments)
  
• Nordwind (dont get it, why its only 4v4)
  
• Road to arnhem (again for god knows why its only 4v4)
  
• Anklet & Archery (looks like a decent map, not worst then others in the map pool)
  

Actually a few of 2v2 maps which were thrown away or never even added to 2v2 map pool can be made into decent 3v3 maps.

First list, agreed. Steppes can work as a 3v3 map especially since you can pull off sneaky flanks due to the wideness of the map. Same as Lienne and Mud. These can work as 3v3.

Fields of Winnekendonk is a great map. Much fun on it, especially since the heavies roll out and bushes get trimmed.

Port of Hamburg and Angermunde are horrible maps due to lots of corridors and good map for arty-fest. Angermunde is just a straight up bad map with all the buildings and narrow corridors (Sturms own early game).
Rest I agree with. 3v3 needs a look at.

EDIT: Hamburg due to few corridors that make arty OP in most situations.

I have a 2v2 map that is large enough for 3v3. The map is currently getting tested in 2v2. I will be making some tweaks to it once I am done with the 2v2 version.

To me it feels like a good 3v3 map size, but I do not play 3v3 so I would like peoples opinions.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1810918777

EDIT: I pretty much agree completely with the OPs first post. I like the size of Across the Rhine, Rhzev, Oka, etc

But many 3v3 players tend to actually like larger maps that are 4v4 sized. The game is slower paced and more about flanking than high intensity spearhead.

Rzhev is bae. My fav 3v3 map. Never had a bad game there in 2019/2020.

But many 3v3 players tend to actually like larger maps that are 4v4 sized. The game is slower paced and more about flanking than high intensity spearhead.

That's because you can play coh2 there instead of smashing your entire army into a single point for 40 mins.

But many 3v3 players tend to actually like larger maps that are 4v4 sized. The game is slower paced and more about flanking than high intensity spearhead.

Honestly I cant say that its more about flanking. Like you said game is slower paced and only La Glaize provide somewhat resonable gameplay, because all other maps are big yes, but in its core they are also narrow or provide you with really good devense in key locations.

Steppes aside from top is narrow, even maxims can lock middle and bottom effectively
Essen Steelworks - have few or more sight\path blocks and buildings to lock down key locations

General mud - all points are very spread out and far away from each other, its harder for attacking team to retake big parts of the map. Retreat punishes you badly on this map, since units usually would chose middle road as the retreat path if you pushed to far, meaning that they can be chased down by light armor.

Lienne Forest - all the left side has key buildings to lock down road and points and middle is only half open, also fuel is close to the base.

All of this makes gameplay much more forgiving and relaxed, because ones you forced enemy to retreat, you will have a lot of time to set up proper defenses and bring reinforcements.

Port of hamburg while being weakest of the 3v3 maps I consider good, still provides with non-stop action for at least 1 fuel and middle and cutoffs.

That's because you can play coh2 there instead of smashing your entire army into a single point for 40 mins.

If only it was the case. In reality its more of a 40 mins of bombarding each other (because MGs are everywhere since, bases are faraway), building an army behind the frontlines and then just run around.

Also I dont quite understand it, flanks are possible even at redball express, you just need to breach the front line somewhere and then flank. I consider this a flank, not just flank somewhere in the open field where there is nothing and noone because noone cares about it.

If only it was the case. In reality its more of a 40 mins of bombarding each other (because MGs are everywhere since, bases are faraway), building an army behind the frontlines and then just run around.

Also I dont quite understand it, flanks are possible even at redball express, you just need to breach the front line somewhere and then flank. I consider this a flank, not just flank somewhere in the open field where there is nothing and noone because noone cares about it.

I mean, not having field presence somewhere and exposing yourself to a flank is your own fault, not the map's fault. Flanking from an open field because your opponent omitted putting units there is a valid tactic.

Having to move around areas and split your forces and decide where to go and what to do is a very useful skill in coh2. I don't get the whole fascination with lower skill players and lanes, it's neither interesting nor does it help you get better.

I mean, not having field presence somewhere and exposing yourself to a flank is your own fault, not the map's fault. Flanking from an open field because your opponent omitted putting units there is a valid tactic.

Having to move around areas and split your forces and decide where to go and what to do is a very useful skill in coh2. I don't get the whole fascination with lower skill players and lanes, it's neither interesting nor does it help you get better.

I wont agrue, I would just say that both 1v1 and 2v2, most of the time, has maps where even if you flank you can expect reaction from an enemy and he relocate his army around to close the breach. At least he has a resonable map size.

Also in 1v1 and 2v2 in a normal game, you cant sit ducks behind MG wall or arty wall, building your army (but in 2v2 there are maps like this).

All of this is present in this 4v4 maps. I dont get the fascination about this either. All other gamemodes be it 1v1\2v2 and 4v4 requre you to breach flank or find a weak spot in the front line. This is not the case for 3v3, because
1) You cant split your defences effectively across whole front line.
2) You cant close and sent reinforcements fast enouth to fight flanks.

Hell, even if it might be harder in 3v3 to flank on some maps, its much more noob friendly on bigger maps, due to the fact that you can play more relaxed and rely more on arty.

And I dont quite understand what do you mean by flanking, flanking with inf is possible even on Hamburg. If you are speaking about grand blitzcrieg flanks then alright.

Ice along with cold tech are game mechanics

If you don't want to lose tanks on risky ice flanks drive them in the road

This is not the case for 3v3, because
1) You cant split your defences effectively across whole front line.
2) You cant close and sent reinforcements fast enouth to fight flanks.

Huh? My experience with 3v3 does not show anything like that. It’s just harder to do because there’s more space, so it forces people to manage their army and positioning better.

Huh? My experience with 3v3 does not show anything like that. It’s just harder to do because there’s more space, so it forces people to manage their army and positioning better.

Being rank 16 OKW, 16 USF, 15 Soviet and 14 Ostheer, it usually ends up in this way.

Steppes - narrow mid narrow bottom
Lienne Forest - narrow forest, narrow city
La Glaize - good
General mud - good

For flanking.

But Its pointless argue, 3v3 still has not enouth maps and you can veto more narrow ones, I can veto 4v4 maps. Some of them are still shit and you agree with me on it.

I think its important to have large 4v4 maps in 3v3 pool so games dont turn into static support weapon spam games like in many 4v4 matches.

The 3v3 maps I hate the most by far are the lane camp maps like Across the Rhine, Rzhev and especially Ettelbruck Station (worst map in CoH2 in my book)

I think its important to have large 4v4 maps in 3v3 pool so games dont turn into static support weapon spam games like in many 4v4 matches

Exactly. For me that's also why I bothered grinding to rank 10 Ost in 3s instead of 4s. I can't be bothered with 4s, there's just units everywhere and there's 0 room to manuever, whereas in 3v3 and especially the open maps it's so nice to have room to move around and hit people from many directions. I like 3v3 so much more than 4v4 for this reason.

How do 3v3 players feel about fuel, cutoff, and VP locations?

4v4 = All fights are for the fuel, fuels are usually center line located.

2v2 = Usually have a safe fuel but maybe a strong fuel cutoff.

Having fuels in the center forces players to fight there immediately. Having a safe fuel lets players focus on combat and flanking.

Each mode seems to have its own style. Just trying to nail down what 3v3 players prefer.

How do 3v3 players feel about fuel, cutoff, and VP locations?

4v4 = All fights are for the fuel, fuels are usually center line located.

2v2 = Usually have a safe fuel but maybe a strong fuel cutoff.

Having fuels in the center forces players to fight there immediately. Having a safe fuel lets players focus on combat and flanking.

Each mode seems to have its own style. Just trying to nail down what 3v3 players prefer.

Well, it might be in rather safe location, but with unsafe cuttoff, Angermunde has good fuel placement on a meh map. But its a bit too safe. And in general having fuel somewhat safe can do good for player mentality, since a lot of ppl, if they see that both fuel are lost tend to leave.