Eliminate Poltawa Gang

This map has existed in its state for long enough, either eliminate it or remodel it.

Is it really a bad thing that Poltawa has remained unchanged? Is the map ridiculously imba due do 4 houses in the middle or something? I never really found this map to be an issue.

it has simular energy as road to kharkov and rails and metal how narrow it is. not as narrow, but still

Use your words boys. Why is it bad? Just saying its bad is meaningless.

How can it be changed/updated/improved if no one can say what needs changed?

Is it really a bad thing that Poltawa has remained unchanged? Is the map ridiculously imba due do 4 houses in the middle or something? I never really found this map to be an issue.

Use your words boys. Why is it bad? Just saying its bad is meaningless.

How can it be changed/updated/improved if no one can say what needs changed?

The combination of 0-1 narrow flanking paths and a fuel + VP which are extremely hard to contest for the other side make it very hard to finish a poltawa match in under 45 minutes. And not only are the 2 flanking paths on the map narrow, you also have to retreat through your enemy if it fails.



It's a typical example for the map type "you cannot attack the 3rd VP & enemy fuel sector unless you wanna have an enemy blob on your retreat and lose everything"
---> every match is dragged out.



I think this map would already be 10x better if it's possible to make all 3 VPs and both fuel sectors way closer to the middle so either side can contest all of them.... or leave the fuels as they are, move the VPs to mid and introduce brutal fuel cutoff sectors. This is the only way I see this map becoming playable without laborious changes such as fiddling with the entire map size & terrain.

I think this map would already be 10x better if it's possible to make all 3 VPs and both fuel sectors way closer to the middle so either side can contest all of them.... or leave the fuels as they are, move the VPs to mid and introduce brutal fuel cutoff sectors. This is the only way I see this map becoming playable without laborious changes such as fiddling with the entire map size & terrain.

This. The VPs are too far in the corners. Really hard to contest them late-game without taking heavy losses on retreat

Im not sure if changing that solves everything, but it's a good place to start

This. The VPs are too far in the corners. Really hard to contest them late-game without taking heavy losses on retreat

Im not sure if changing that solves everything, but it's a good place to start

Is this similar to the issue that Minsk Pocket has for many players? Where each side has to travel the entirety of the long side of the map to reach the VPs?

Is this similar to the issue that Minsk Pocket has for many players? Where each side has to travel the entirety of the long side of the map to reach the VPs?

Yes exactly. Minsk is like Poltawa basically with the same issues, just the paths are longer.

Imo Minsk would be fixed so easily by swapping the locations of the far VPs and the ammo sectors Should be <5 minute job

Yes exactly. Minsk is like Poltawa basically with the same issues, just the paths are longer.

Imo Minsk would be fixed so easily by swapping the locations of the far VPs and the ammo sectors Should be <5 minute job

+1

Use your words boys. Why is it bad? Just saying its bad is meaningless.

How can it be changed/updated/improved if no one can say what needs changed?

What Airfield said, plus fix the base exits, so that the HQ owner has cover in their favour, and make them a bit wider

+1

Yeah but since with equally skilled players the map invariably results in a stalemate and RNG-led artyfest late game, the contestability of the ammo points can really turn the tide in one team's favor. A double ammo hold means the other team's late game will be substantially weaker, so this makes it different from most maps and somewhat interesting, even if the late game is not.

Yeah but since with equally skilled players the map invariably results in a stalemate and RNG-led artyfest late game, the contestability of the ammo points can really turn the tide in one team's favor. A double ammo hold means the other team's late game will be substantially weaker, so this makes it different from most maps and somewhat interesting, even if the late game is not.

But if the ammo sectors on Minsk will be where the far VPs are now, it will be hard to hold both of them. AND you can easily cut them off with the point that also connects the fuel sector.

The map wont be a stalemate anymore once you have all VPs kinda close to each other

But if the ammo sectors on Minsk will be where the far VPs are now, it will be hard to hold both of them. AND you can easily cut them off with the point that also connects the fuel sector.

The map wont be a stalemate anymore once you have all VPs kinda close to each other

That's true. But it could turn into early-game indirect fire spam faster, kinda the way rails games usually go. The lanes on Minsk make it more likely for this to happen, Rails you can have some back & forth. It would be a similar feel though. I dunno, generally I dislike rectangular maps for this reason. If the MG lockdown fails, the team who loses an MG is usually screwed, otherwise you get a stalemate.

Is this similar to the issue that Minsk Pocket has for many players? Where each side has to travel the entirety of the long side of the map to reach the VPs?

Yeah pretty much ditto on what Aerafield said again. Minsk has a very similar issue

Yeah pretty much ditto on what Aerafield said again. Minsk has a very similar issue

Not really minsk has much higher playability on the flanks than poltava IMO

Paks are not that great on the flanks of minsk and as long as you capture the ammo you can contest the VP easily without getting cut off, making VP bleed a valif strategy.
You also have more flanking routes (since one route on poltava goes through the enemy base)

Minsk on the other hand suffers from north being at a absolute disadvantage when compared to south

Not really minsk has much higher playability on the flanks than poltava IMO

I disagree, its very easy to lock down those flanks imo. I do agree the north spawn is disadvantaged but I find that it's pretty easy to cover the flanks because of how small the map is

Use your words boys. Why is it bad? Just saying its bad is meaningless.

How can it be changed/updated/improved if no one can say what needs changed?

My issues with Poltawa:
- 4 garrisons in the middle make the early game tedious and hard for factions without stock flamethrowers;
- fuels are too far on the flanks without any cut offs making them virtually incontestable;
- VPs hidden away in the far corners means contesting them is very dangerous because of bad and long retreat paths;
- the impassable terrains next to the munitions on either side make the middle too narrow and leave this weird small road at the map edge that's rarely used because it's too much of a chokepoint

How to improve drastically:
- remove one garrison from either side (replace with a destroyed building) and leave the defensive garrison (red crosses)
- switch the fuel and VP sectors (orange) in combination with
- extend the map a little bit east-west (red) to relieve some pressure from the middle to make fuel sectors more contestable and in order to introduce viable cut offs (use and adjust the yellow sectors), and adjust main bases accordingly. Most of the terrain for the expansion is already there (at least in the north west)
- remove the impassable areas on the sides to open the map up for flanking manoeuvres (blue)

Use your words boys. Why is it bad? Just saying its bad is meaningless.

How can it be changed/updated/improved if no one can say what needs changed?

I agree on much that Sanders said.
Additionally, I feel that the southern fuel is more contestable than the northern one and that the four buildings are not really ewual, although I might be wrong in this. Especially I USF, I got the feeling that you either win with superior Riflemen or get locked out with the buildings for long times.


In general, the map is way too narrow. Flanking is next to impossible, casemates lose all their weaknesses and Elefant and Jagdtiger as well as ISU are too strong. The match is a complete arty slugfest due to the narrowness and predictable infantry paths and concentrations. Also, you will always reach the endgame since the corner VPs are hard to reach so it is always a 2v1 VP bleed out. Most of the fighting is done around the middle VP, although the middle does not offer much else beside that VP. The important resource points are fairly secure. Cut offs are almost impossible.

And most of all:
I have never ever had as much of this sudden-reverse glitches (where the vehicle bumps the air and bounces back) than in Poltawa. Many maps have this issue, but I might not even notice it in some matches. Poltawa however is on a whole other level, causing a lot of frustration with vehicle play.

I like the infantry and ambush focus around many important points, but it just does not make up for the huge issues.

.

Totally agree with everything you said BUT reworking Poltawa like that will take too much time and is just not worth the effort. Better to just make some new maps instead and delete Poltawa. I would agree that it's worth to rework Poltawa if the map had some sort of interesting theme to it but as it is it's just another boring brown eastern front map.

Totally agree with everything you said BUT reworking Poltawa like that will take too much time and is just not worth the effort. Better to just make some new maps instead and delete Poltawa. I would agree that it's worth to rework Poltawa if the map had some sort of interesting theme to it but as it is it's just another boring brown eastern front map.

+1

It's far too narrow and congested IMO to be easily reworkable into something bearable anyway, might as well replace it.