Bigger 4v4 Maps

This is to the mapmakers for CoH2.

This thread is a better post than this and much more in-depth. I pretty much agree with most of NinjaWJ's comments. So this post is more of a reminder and some ideas as a supplement to his post.

Can we get maps that scale according to how they behave like in 1v1s? I want a 4v4 map that feels like 4 or 3.5 1v1 maps.

Something as simple as this:


It's kind of kind of like Red Ball Express but horizontal instead of vertical.

The retreat times should not be a big problem here if you are retreating from within your side since it is equivalent to a 1v1 retreat time. It may take a lot longer when you're in a different side though, but that's a strategic sacrifice you'd be willing to make to help teammates.

I think this could be great because it takes all the benefits of 1v1 with it into 4v4.

Are there maps like this already made? I don't mean the troll maps, but actual candidates for automatch.

Something like Red Ball Express should not exist because although it is a fun map in terms of explosions and action, it is not a very strategic map. It favors front to front engagements, artillery, and ranged tank destroyers. It does not favor flanking, mobility, or cutting off.

I think an important change is also to quadruple the # of territories in the map. Although this may be a controversial change, I think it is what 4v4 needs. Every territory should be 1/4 effective though: game pacing should be minimally affected. I think VPs can remain 3 though.

Note: my title is bad. We need more strategic 4v4 maps, not necessarily bigger. But I think a horizontally large map can promote more strategic play

Please read NinjaJW's post: https://www.coh2.org/topic/27869/the-ultimate-4v4-thread-maps-and-map-design/page/1

Whole-heartedly agreed, hell even 2s should have more wide short maps, rather than long narrow tunnels

Whole-heartedly agreed, hell even 2s should have more wide short maps, rather than long narrow tunnels

Yes! They apply to 2v2s too. Imo 3v3 maps are better than 2v2 and 4v4 maps because they are in a weird spot where you play 3v3 on 4v4 maps.

I am a bad person to ask about 4v4 maps because I dont like playing on some of the maps we already have. But they are included for variety.

4v4 MAP OPTIONS
Since there are only two fuels per map, you will always have the 2v2 situation on each fuel.

In order to force the players away from a normal fuel layout:
- Put the fuels far away from the front line (Lienne Forest).
- Move the VP to be away from the fuel (Steppes).
- Have a good fuel cutoff(Road to Arnhem).

The fact that Lienne has safe fuels probably drives how dynamic the fights are on that map. It is probably the secret sauce that makes it fun that no one has thought about. The city fights are around the VP and the forest fights are around the MUNI in general. Neither point are win/lose game breakers.

Steppes rewards players for going north instead of focusing the fuels. You get a VP and possibly 2 MUNI points. And at some point players have to move North or lose on VPs.

When Road to Arnhem was being designed, Sander93 really wanted to focus on cutoffs. Arnhem has the VPs moved away and separated by movement blockers and has strong cutoffs in the center. This rewards having a mobile army composition and reduces camping/turtling. Since there is a lot of green cover around the fuel, players who like to camp can still employ that tactic to some degree. It tries to fit both styles of play.

CUTOFFS
I think this is what is missing on many maps. Meaningful cutoffs. The best 1v1+2v2 maps have good cutoff placement.

For 4v4 maps, we usually have no good cutoffs or cutoffs that are too strong. the west side of LaGleize is an example of cutoffs that are well designed. Both North and South have to defend the fuel and the cutoff to get resources.

One of the great mappers of all time, MonolithicBacon, has tried on several maps to make good cutoffs. Hill 400 is an example of that. All fights take place right on the cutoff. The fuel is almost ignored. To me this cutoff design is a little too strong. And on Hill 400 it only punishes one side of the map which creates issues with team balancing. My point is, Mono realized that the best map design uses good cutoffs.

WIDER MAPS
NorthWeapons main point was making wider maps. This would give us play styles closer to 3v3. Where the biggest blob wins. The maps closest to this size are Steppes, General Mud, and Road to Arnhem. So the short answer to the question is we already have 3 maps like this. City 17 and Vielsalm could almost be lumped into that category as well, bringing the count to 5. So the short answer is 4v4 should not play like 3v3 and we already have some maps close to that design.

Some possible issues with a wide short map:
- Players will still gravitate to the fuel no matter what.
- If the map is too short, snipers and artillery become OP as hell.
- A larger map may hurt FPS.

The fuel placement is what drives the 2v2 feel of 4v4 maps. No matter how wide the map is it will always be a camp on the fuel situation. About the only thing you can do is try to layout the sight blocking around the fuel to allow better flanking attacks. This is where Red Ball falls apart. The long hedge walls stop flanks. This is why White Ball has blockers that let you push the flanks much better.

The distance between the bases needs to be pretty large in a 4v4 due to the large amount of artillery present. You also want a decent amount of distance between the base and front line because snipers can retreat and be back shooting too quickly. The only thing worse than BRIT emplacements is snipers.

Again, I think Mono's Hill 400 was trying to be this style of map. It has a shorter distance to the bases and is very wide in general. I think the layout of the grove movement blockers makes it play smaller than it is. But I think it is a good template for size. Nordwind to me was the next great evolution of this design. Good size and great cutoff play. But again the movement blockers force it to play a certain way. For example the trains in the north force play into the fuel buildings where MGs will be camped. The South plays much more open and flowing. So you can look at it like it has best of both worlds: North=campy, South=mobile.

If you make a map really wide, it may need to be pretty short or you may have FPS issues. Maps like General Mud and Steppes do not seem to have too many FPS issues in general. However maps like White Ball seem to degrade pretty fast as the game progresses. This may be due to how LONG and OPEN the map is. The pathing calcs may be getting overwhelmed.

Once again I think I wrote WAY TOO MUCH, but its good for future readers looking to make maps.

Snip

Random thought, but perhaps 3/4v3/4 maps simply shouldn't HAVE Fuel Points? (Perhaps Munitions points, too). There are already the VPs to fight over, and you've outlined some of the issues the current design causes.

There were experiments with the healing/repair points in the past, what made them abandon those? They're less "static" than Muni/fuel points, with your units having to actually visit them to gain a benefit... but they're similarly valuable, without contributing to the resource inflation of those modes.

Alternately; would it be out of the question to reduce the impact of each fuel (and/or munition point), while increasing the number on the map?

As far as maps I have made go, I think even more emphasis should have been placed on cutoffs. But the main focus was to make a map with some meaningful, but not overpowering, buildings.

So a map like Road to Arnhem has great cutoff design. But the buildings in the middle create an issue where Soviet Urban Defense can become way too strong. So the cutoffs had to be moved too far away from the center. They are still strong but are too close to the enemy base, so they cant be held for long. You may only pull one or two squads away from the fuel, but not the whole army.

So there is a balance between buildings and cutoffs.

But my advice to future mappers would be:
- focus on point layout and movement blocking.
- make balanced and accessible cutoffs.
- then try to make fun building placements.
- focus on how units will retreat when a flank fails. Again Red Ball makes you retreat thru the entire enemy army if your flank fails.

Alternately; would it be out of the question to reduce the impact of each fuel (and/or munition point), while increasing the number on the map?

This is a point I did not address. People like WhiteFlash and AE have complained for years about the Coh2 resource system. vCOH had low, medium, and high fuels for example. If we had those options, then NorthWeapons idea would be viable. You could have 4 sectors that each have a low fuel with a VP between them. Done.

This is a point I did not address. People like WhiteFlash and AE have complained for years about the Coh2 resource system. vCOH had low, medium, and high fuels for example. If we had those options, then NorthWeapons idea would be viable. You could have 4 sectors that each have a low fuel with a VP between them. Done.

I think there are some positives to the CoH2 system over the CoH1 one, a map is a lot more "Readable" thanks to there being only four types of rather specialised points, and ostensibly they should be "easier" to balance... though it does create some other issues, as you've stated.

I think it mostly breaks down in the larger modes, 1v1 (and 2v2, I think?) Arent hurt by the way points are designed in CoH2, right?

I think there are some positives to the CoH2 system over the CoH1 one, a map is a lot more "Readable"

I agree. When I spectate games I constantly see people who have no idea a cutoff even exists so they cap half the map but have ZERO resource income

Coh2 players tend to just "play". vCoh required some map review to fully understand a strategy. So it could be deeper but just punishes new players. And I think we really need to cater more to new players or we will always be stuck with no player base.

Alternately; would it be out of the question to reduce the impact of each fuel (and/or munition point), while increasing the number on the map?

I personally think that would be worth a try. Since each territory point produces a small amount of fuel and munition maybe we should just trash the fuel points at least to slow down the fast tech in 4vs4 a little bit and bring it more inline with commander CP timing in smaller game modes (which is totally screwed up because of ressource inflation, light tank call-ins are way too late for example).

You could add other strategic interests. Cutoffs as Rosbone suggested for example. Or/And maybe add a 4th and 5th VP if the map is big enough. I personally like the 5 VPs at Lorch Assault, it gives you something to fight about while the fuel is save there.


Edit: Couldn't we give it a try? Just take an existing map with both fuel points close to the middle line of the map and exchange them for two additional VPs = longer early and midgame, still a lot to fight about... and finally it is not predetermined where you heading with your first units. That would be great.

Once again I think I wrote WAY TOO MUCH, but its good for future readers looking to make maps.

+1 and appreciated!

Edit: Couldn't we give it a try? Just take an existing map with both fuel points close to the middle line of the map and exchange them for two additional VPs = longer early and midgame, still a lot to fight about... and finally it is not predetermined where you heading with your first units. That would be great.

There's literally nothing stopping someone from doing this, It would just need that you get eight decent players together to test it out, and see if it actually positively impacts the gameplay.

I personally like the 5 VPs at Lorch Assault, it gives you something to fight about while the fuel is save there.


Edit: Couldn't we give it a try? Just take an existing map with both fuel points close to the middle line of the map and exchange them for two additional VPs = longer early and midgame, still a lot to fight about... and finally it is not predetermined where you heading with your first units. That would be great.

The idea of having more points to fight for is good in theory. But in practice, the game moves too fast and one bad engagement means you lose the whole game. You lose on VPs before you can recover and attack.

Three VPs is the magic number.

The idea of having more points to fight for is good in theory. But in practice, the game moves too fast and one bad engagement means you lose the whole game. You lose on VPs before you can recover and attack.

Three VPs is the magic number.

Is it impossible to make each individual VP less impactful? I.E, having all five VPs drains tickets only as fast as having all three would currently?

Is it impossible to make each individual VP less impactful? I.E, having all five VPs drains tickets only as fast as having all three would currently?

Not that I am aware of. But I am noob.

Not that I am aware of. But I am noob.

It might be a gamemode variable rather than something a map maker can edit, I can't say I know either. If it is possible to change this value, more VPs being added to larger maps might actually improve gameplay without the unfortunate side effect you've mentioned, might be worth looking into?

The idea of having more points to fight for is good in theory. But in practice, the game moves too fast and one bad engagement means you lose the whole game. You lose on VPs before you can recover and attack.

Three VPs is the magic number.

Since i'm a noob too I'll only give my two cents I feel it is a lot more punishing to have a bad engagement early on and loose both fuel points when they are at the middle of the map. After that the opponent is always a step ahead with his tech.
I played Lorch Assualt quite a few times and there were only rare occasions where one side had all five VPs (and i saw turnarounds even in such situations). Mostly it is about 2 to 3, sometimes 4 to 1. I do like that you can always attack elsewhere if you get stuck at some point. Your opponnt can't be everywhere so this maps rewards a flexible play style.
I is one of my favourite maps but as I said it is only my two cents.

Is it impossible to make each individual VP less impactful? I.E, having all five VPs drains tickets only as fast as having all three would currently?

VP's count every 3 seconds (roughly). You could make slow it down to 5 seconds, but in close games, that could cause the game length to go to as much as 1:40, which is way too long. Lorch often goes 40-60 minutes already.

Also, the newer maps are already really wide. Vielsalm is wide enough to be 4 1v1's and nobody likes it.