How I Would Make 3v3 and 4v4 Competitive and Interesting

I was amusing myself playing random Soviet 4v4 and I thought, gee, I would really like team games if they were the least bit interesting. What makes 1v1 and 2v2 interesting? The fact that combat is taking place all over the place and there are a number of different ways for both sides to work the maps. Games never go exactly the same because the maps are large enough for multiple ways of playing and multiple types of units to work. Sometimes people go for fuel, sometimes they go for cutoffs, and what makes playing 1v1 hard and competitive is the amount of multitasking and micro and how you work the map when you can only have one small portion viewable at a time.

So how would you make team games interesting? Currently COH2 team games are all set-pieces because the maps are simply too small and too full of resources to ever have the same kind of combat you see in 1v1, and they simply don't require the same level of multitasking and micro. There are always going to be 3 MGs on the island on Steppes, people are always going to mortar spam the east side of City 17, because that's what the maps force.

My quick and dirty answer: every 3v3 and 4v4 map should be twice to three times as large as it is. Maps should have very few fuel and munitions points and strat points should provide half the income they currently do.

While with such maps most players would be blobbing units around with attack move, this kind of situation would allow teams with actual skill to really prove themselves - if you can work a map that size as a team and as individuals, you probably have a clue. What if teams had to play 4v4s the way 1v1 players play 1v1 and work a far larger map the same way, while also coordinating and multitasking all over the place?

Can you imagine the kind of competitive scene that might arise from that? It would be beautiful.

Atm 4v4 isn't interesting for competitiveness cause of the heavy tank issues. If these get patched the scene will emerge. For me, watching 7 ISU's fighting 9 tigers and an elefant isn't interesting at all.

Second, when running a tournament (1v1) with 32 players, it's a nightmare to get them all playing cause of noshows and forfeits.
Image what 16 x 4 players will be.
Many of the lads here sign up and don't show up, so I'm curious about an actual tournament for 64 people.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's a nightmare to organize.

Though that's my opinion.

People dont have the time to organize such a big match; its just too hard.

And the way you said it sounds like four 1v1 's are happening in one game. Compiling the matches, basically?...

This does sound like a good idea.
But I have a few questions I hope you can answer.

1) Super large map with strapped resources do mean players have to be more careful. But won't it be difficult to set up a defensive line?

2) This seems to be in favor of mobile troops, considering flanking would be much more easier. Would you think so?

3) Other than defensive tactics, won't artillery units be at a severe disadvantage because it can't cover as much ground as it usually can?

4) Strapped and limited resource means less units, which seems slightly in favour of German forces since they are much more hardier and can last longer without needing constant reinforcement (medpacks, front line outposts). What advantages would the Soviet players have?

I would in turn argue that the dominance of heavy tanks would be substantially lessened by much larger maps, as I said, it's all set-pieces...There's usually no really good way to get around an ISU or Elefant or set-up a pincer movement because the maps are just too small and cluttered.

Actually I think a great idea for the far future, if larger maps were ever introduced, would be to permanently separate random automatch team games from AT, and both have their own set of maps. Casual players who just want a fast fun game could stay in the small map automatch pool, arranged teams would have to play on new, larger ones to prove themselves.

Keep the same amount of resources as normal from normal maps - but make it bigger as you said. If you limit people's resources, theyll get stuck to their natural enemy and just 1v1, no one will have the resources or units to help anyone else out without losing their side. Normally with map sizes, there are buildups with units. Keep the resource amount, but making the maps bigger makes those buildups vulnerable to flanking, and even encirclement and being cut off from their supply lines.

They will have to spread out or stray, and here we will see the massive flanks and charges; the last resort rushes and amazingly epic maneuvers.

This does sound like a good idea.
But I have a few questions I hope you can answer.

1) Super large map with strapped resources do mean players have to be more careful. But won't it be difficult to set up a defensive line?

2) This seems to be in favor of mobile troops, considering flanking would be much more easier. Would you think so?

3) Other than defensive tactics, won't artillery units be at a severe disadvantage because it can't cover as much ground as it usually can?

4) Strapped and limited resource means less units, which seems slightly in favour of German forces since they are much more hardier and can last longer without needing constant reinforcement (medpacks, front line outposts). What advantages would the Soviet players have?

1)Yes, it's supposed to be hard to have a good defensive line. Think about Semoisky, there are two ways to get to the middle, actually three if you drive through the opponent's base (which has been done plenty).
2) True, but mixed teams would be a must. Soviet, Wehr, and US all have great forward reinforcement mechanisms. Even OKW does, but it's not as strong.
3) Yes, this would probably be the key reason Relic could never do it. Artillery is almost totally useless already, they can't buff the ranges for larger-scale games without wrecking 1v1 and 2v2 balance.
4) Slightly more mobility, and again, mixed teams. US has forward healing, and there's the Soviet FHQ too.

But another big problem: infantry. Theyll have to run ALL the way back to base, and then march back to the front which will take 5 minutes and your infantry is forever delayed. Unless tank riders for all factions are allowed, or there are natural forward retreat points to fall back on so infantry wont have to walk as far.

Another thought. I've seen a few custom maps where there are some points you can capture so that new units will show up there instead of all the way from the base. Would you think that is a good thing to add to super large maps? Reinforcing would be easier and it can easily be a decent point that both sides would try to fight for. However, it might mean whichever side gets it first would win in a landslide because of much faster reinforcement.

There are also outpost points that act as providing a huge vision of the map. Do you think that could also be implemented? This would make tracking and planning strategies much easier.

interesting. what about double the resoure points but reduce the resource income by half on those points etc etc. also 5 vp points could be interesting.

although it is still possible to execute a coordinated flank on steppes due to space it has.

i think the the biggest problems are current maps. rostov is a joke. angermuende is too crowded even for 3v3. city 17 is one sided etc etc..

Another thought. I've seen a few custom maps where there are some points you can capture so that new units will show up there instead of all the way from the base. Would you think that is a good thing to add to super large maps? Reinforcing would be easier and it can easily be a decent point that both sides would try to fight for. However, it might mean whichever side gets it first would win in a landslide because of much faster reinforcement.

There are also outpost points that act as providing a huge vision of the map. Do you think that could also be implemented? This would make tracking and planning strategies much easier.

Good for new units: not so helpful for infantry that need to walk all the way back. How about each faction is able to make a cheap truck 10 minutes into the game (only for these maps) German factions covered opels, USF duece and a half, Soviets ZiS-5, all which CANT reinforce (meant for ferrying) and can hold two squads (campaign covered opel carries 5 squads for spawning event purposes).

Obviously they are very fragile (sneaky mines will cause migraines as squads inside get killed), so in a sense, you actually have to keep units back to guard a supply line and watch your back.

Good for new units: not so helpful for infantry that need to walk all the way back. How about each faction is able to make a cheap truck 10 minutes into the game (only for these maps) German factions covered opels, USF duece and a half, Soviets ZiS-5, all which CANT reinforce (meant for ferrying) and can hold two squads (campaign covered opel carries 5 squads for spawning event purposes).

Obviously they are very fragile (sneaky mines will cause migraines as squads inside get killed), so in a sense, you actually have to keep units back to guard a supply line and watch your back.

The trucks are great and I feel they would work quite well. However will they be affected by deep snow and mud?


Oh! You gave me another idea. Why not add much larger transportation like the trains? There are a few maps where there are train tracks but the trains are stationary. Trains played a role in transporting troops before, so why not in the game as well?

what about having a large scale "competitive RANKED" skirmish?

it would be the reason people buy COH2, the OFFICAL gamemode. think of it like dota's 5v5, or CSGO's 5v5.

historical western and eastern front maps, as well as WHAT IF scenarios including both the new factions together in

it would require balancing specifically for the game mode, and it would require a lot of teamwork to master. specific roles like offensive, defensive, support, logistics. it would be complicated and include stuff like supply lines.

set up defensive lines, and it would turn into a pushing/shoving phase, kinda like the laning phase in MOBAS. then as people get stronger they can help out team mate's lanes, and make breakthroughs. the objective would be to capture and hold a larger percentage of the map than the opponent, which would snowball you into better units, etc.

it would take multiple hours to finish a game

i have a lot of ideas about something like this floating around in my head, but sadly they'll never come true, and i'm not smart enough to be a modder or a programmer

haha i guess that's the case for everyone, though.

Main problem of 4v4 is small/bad designed maps. Only decent map from all 4v4 pool is Steppes.

Reduced resource income just bad idea and leads nowhere but into industry/luftwaffe/assault support abuse. Smart cutoffs/contested fuel in middle of bigger maps - thats what actually can improve 4v4.

The trucks are great and I feel they would work quite well. However will they be affected by deep snow and mud?


Oh! You gave me another idea. Why not add much larger transportation like the trains? There are a few maps where there are train tracks but the trains are stationary. Trains played a role in transporting troops before, so why not in the game as well?

Except with trains, their paths are extremely obvious. Railroads will have to become immune to mines, and anyways will be much easier to camp than roads. Soviets and USF can put explosives on the railroad tracks and detonate bridges or a passing train, and Ostheer and OKW (as far as im aware) cant do the same. Trucks in deep snow - at least soldiers wont freeze, blizzards and cold elements slow your infantry on long treks. Mud - lets face it - in real life, that is an obstacle to both trucks and infantry alike; there is no faster way to bypass it.

I don't think the size is so much the problem as more the form and layout. Currently already discussing this with a few other people in order to afterwards talk to Relic. Let me elaborate a bit more by using three 4v4 maps - Steppes, Angermünde and City 17.



Red is the base, blue the 'distance' between bases and green is a rough 50/50 where usually the frontline emerges.

What you want is a distance between bases that is similar to 1v1 to keep retreat times from becoming too big. Besides that the frontline should be as big as possible in order to allow flanks and less static gameplay.

As can be seen Angermünde is the worst map in that regard. It has a huge distance between bases which means retreat times are incredibly long. Besides that it has a really small frontline, making flanking extremely hard. Frontline size and retreat path mean even if you manage to pull a flank off and it fails, you risk losing all your units as you'd retreat for quite a while through *hostile* territory.
City 17 and Steppes on the other hand are a lot better, but in a different way. While Steppes puts all players per team close together and due to it's quadratic form with the bases in the edges causes the layout to have a as big front as possible and a comparably short retreat path. City 17 on the other hand is more like 2 * 2v2 next to each other. Taking that approach to the maximum one would get something like this:



Literally - four 1v1s next to each other. You can still help your teammates, but overall the gameplay is more dependent on one player taking care of a certain part of the map.

Both of these designs offer a in my opinion good ratio of the values and a far better (less static / chokepoint) gameplay. I'd love to see more 4v4 maps in those looks rather than ones like Angermünde.

I think the most promising and viewer attractive game mode in CoH is 2v2.

these game modes have another problem
resources are plentiful


making the "better but more expensive armor" kind of pointless

Maybe the leet and wannabe leet 1v1 players who forget they are the minority could quit condescending to the rest of us, acknowledge that we play 4v4 because we enjoy it for what it is and go back to their perfectly manicured 1v1 BOs?

Whenever there is a balance discussion we get dismissively told we don't matter.


Now we have to listen to being told how bad our mode of choice is and how no one could possibly enjoy it

I think it's a good idea to have bigger maps. And to address the long walks back to the front line, people will have to adapt and actually use 251 and M5's as troop carriers like they were originally intended for.

Artilleries are still viable IF they put a "destroy" button so that they can build another one further up when they have cleared an area.