2v2 maps too small? Too many chokepoints?

Does anyone feel that gameplay is cramped in 2v2?

The meta-game issue where every game ends with an ISU-Elefant + ATG slugfest might partly be because flanking is next to impossible on maps like Crossing in the Woods, Semois.

The maps are narrow and full of pathing-killers. Maneuverability is massively reduced. This means for example that the t34s speed can't really be utilised. Why trade in armour for speed when speed has so little effect on gameplay? It should be a flank-tank but flanking is too risky.

If the maps were wider + less choked with obstacles, it would be more feasible to make a two-pronged attack from 2 different directions to make the elefant or ISU turn and expose its rear armour. But currently they only need to turn a few degrees. access to the flanks is always through a choke-point full of mines and panzerfausts/AT grenades.

So our option is always full-frontal attack, which means elefant/ISU. Weaker but faster units don't cut it.


If there were wider maps, there would be more options for macro and micro for both armies and less reliance on big units that can sit in one spot and dominate. It would also make both those super tanks more difficult to use because of their movement speed. They could be countered by clever macro/micro and strategic positioning.

Anyone agree?

I agree, also, bulga!?

Tänan väga Spanks

Yes, most of the maps could be more open.

Tänan väga Spanks

you welcome! how come i dont have you on my steam ?

Does anyone feel that gameplay is cramped in 2v2?

The meta-game issue where every game ends with an ISU-Elefant + ATG slugfest might partly be because flanking is next to impossible on maps like Crossing in the Woods, Semois.

The maps are narrow and full of pathing-killers. Maneuverability is massively reduced. This means for example that the t34s speed can't really be utilised. Why trade in armour for speed when speed has so little effect on gameplay? It should be a flank-tank but flanking is too risky.

If the maps were wider + less choked with obstacles, it would be more feasible to make a two-pronged attack from 2 different directions to make the elefant or ISU turn and expose its rear armour. But currently they only need to turn a few degrees. access to the flanks is always through a choke-point full of mines and panzerfausts/AT grenades.

So our option is always full-frontal attack, which means elefant/ISU. Weaker but faster units don't cut it.


If there were wider maps, there would be more options for macro and micro for both armies and less reliance on big units that can sit in one spot and dominate. It would also make both those super tanks more difficult to use because of their movement speed. They could be countered by clever macro/micro and strategic positioning.

Anyone agree?

Completely agree. I made a post about this very issue, specifically regarding the isu and the elefant. 100 range units break the game on small maps with 4 players.

isu/elephent can have their range reduced a little and more maps are needed, but if they are made too large they become annoying for infantry battles.

Yes. I think map design is one of the issues with balance in this game.