RELIC LOOKING FOR MAP FEEDBACK!

I hate the fences in the new WFA maps, unless i zoom in they are almost not even displayed which makes micro confusing when my units take the long way around when it looks like nothing is there.

You have to make the game display them at max zoom.

Yes thse new wire fences are hard to see, especially on my low resolution

I want to like Hill 331, but the mud tech slows down everything way too much. It's been on my perma-veto list since the first week it came out. Like others have said here, either less muddy areas overall or speed up movement a little bit.

Or maybe introduce a rain mechanic that turns certain areas into mud, but when the rain stops, the mud "hardens" and it's back to regular ground. Kind of like the blizzard mechanic in relation to freezing ice.

I think it would be a bit better if we can focus on a group of maps or have a list on which maps have "high" priority on fixing/improving.
There are maps which are "fine" but theres always place for improvement (change some houses, trees, etc) and there are others which needs a heavy revamp.


For example i´m sure everyone who plays the game have some opinions regarding Stalingrad.
In 2v2, Trois Point (i want to try and like this map but it get as simple as barbwire the right island) or Hurtgen Forest (TOO much chokepoint, instaveto)

My comments aren't so much about the current maps which most here have identified the problems in a comprehensive way. Good job community!

Instead, I would like to suggest adding a feature that in addition to letting me "veto" maps also allows me to specify 1 or 2 "favorite" maps so that we might see them more often in automatch.

Also, a question. Will any more community maps be brought in to automatch rotation? I understand the difficulty in finding "balanced" maps that would work. I assure you I would appreciate thorough vetting of any maps added. Nonetheless, the current map variety will continue to become more and more stale without newness added.

Any comment on this Relic?

Just a question for Relic: Many times the question has been asked as to why you dont make new skins for infantry and you always say its because of too many camouflage types would hurt readability.

But then again you have added blizzards, fog, and a cartoonish artstyle on the maps which makes units almost melt into the background which SEVERLY hurts the readability much much more than different camo on infantry ever could. Some comments on this?

The new WFA maps is much more readable than the eastern front maps, semoisky summer is the worst, the stupid fog is everywhere and it only hurt the gameplay.

1 fuelpoint maps will just be battle for 1 fuel point.

I meant removing 1 unit of fuel production per strategic points producing it. Not removing 1 strategic point producing fuel or a map with only 1 fuel point.

All maps don't have the same number of strategic points :

Steppes = 11 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 15 points (13 producing fuel)
City 17 = 9 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 13 points (11 producing fuel)

Effect on removing 1 unit of fuel production applied on all points with a fuel income :

Normal point produce = 3 fuel/minute
Fuel point produce = 7 fuel/minute
Mun. point produce = 0 fuel/minute

Fuel production normal rate:
Steppes = 11 normal x 3 + 2 x 7 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 47/minute.
City 17= 9 normal x 3 + 2 x 7 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 41/minute.

For a 25 minutes game this equal : 25 min. x 47 = 1175 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 25 min. x 41 = 1075 total fuel.(City 17)

For a 50 minutes game this equal : 50 min. x 47 = 2350 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 50 min. x 41 = 2150 total fuel.(City 17)


Fuel production reduced rate (-1 fuel/strat. point):
Steppes = 11 normal x 2 + 2 x 6 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 34/minute.
City 17= 9 normal x 2 + 2 x 6 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 30/minute.

For a 25 minutes game this equal : 25 min.x 34 = 850 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 25 min.x 30 = 750 total fuel.(City 17)

For a 50 minutes game this equal : 50 min.x 34 = 1700 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 50 min.x 30 = 1500 total fuel.(City 17)

Steppes : (Absolute fuel reduction)
25 min game : 1175 fuel - 850 fuel = 325 fuel
50 min game : 2350 fuel - 1700 fuel = 650 fuel

City 17 : (Absolute fuel reduction)
25 min game : 1075 fuel - 750 fuel = 325 fuel
50 min game : 2150 fuel - 1500 fuel = 650 fuel

Result it mean only 1 or 2 less tank... is it enough to make a difference ? maybe not.

Now let's compare both of those tanks destroyer :
M-36 Jackson :
Su-85 :

As we can see the Su-85 is (with the exception of being slower) is better at surviving panzershreks and is a lot better overall.

Maybe reducing all fuel producing points by 1 point on the largest 6-8 maps are not enough (see above. So Relic will have to see. But it think it worth a test.

Thanks for your comments.

I'm with Voltardark on the reduction of fuelpoints.
Not real fuelpoints, but the fuel gained by points.

In larger teamgames the amount of fuel you get is just ridiculous.
With the new KT and JagdT, it's just nearly impossible to counter them when they hit the field in conjunction with other tanks.

I'm with Voltardark on the reduction of fuelpoints.
Not real fuelpoints, but the fuel gained by points.

dont want to derail matt's thread here, but you can see my response to voltardark's suggestion here:

http://www.coh2.org/topic/21575/faction-imbalance/post/200898

TL;DR you cant just reduce fuel income like that. its not that simple.

Easiest way to fix the fuel stacking in teamgames is simply making fuel caches only give bonus to the player who built them, a big part of the problem would be solved that way.

sorry, was hoping this wouldnt happen here.

please post about fuel in team games in the faction imbalance thread and lets keep this discussion specifically on maps.

I just had another idea:

Why not implementing an option to make the income of strategic points variable (random with a min and a max)that would be cast at the beginning of a game ?

As an example : (more thoughts would be needed for the min/max for sure)

A normal strategic point producing 3 fuel and 5 mun., could produce between 1 and 4 fuel and 2 to 6 mun.

A dedicated fuel point (7) could produce between 3 and 9 fuel income.

A dedicated munition point (11) could produce between 5 and 13 munition income.

We would have to look at the strategic map before making our planing....

I would also make the point's income value more random the farther they are from the starting front line.

As an option it could be disable for tournaments and events.( but would be on for all casual random matches)

Its would add to the replayability of the gameat the cost of some random. (but random balance on the long run)

Cookie cutter strategy would have to be more flexible too.

It's my wild suggestion, but it think i would like it.

What do you think ?

COMMUNITY LOOKING FOR MAP CONTEST WINNING MAP FEEDBACK #part-timeheroes

On the southern side of La Gleize (1v1) there is a salvagable ATG wreck next to the fuel cut-off point at the southern base.

Face-off at Rostov

The side with 2 bridges is really bad. Your team can be cut off easily. I like the map but it always favors one side.

Hill 331

Large map : ok.
Map with mud : ok.
Large map with lots of mud : EXTREMELY NOT OK.

While we're at it:

Some armies able to change retreat points : fair, cool flavour.
Meta based around forcing the enemy to retreat (maxims / snipers / sturmpio ambushes) : fair, unit preservation and all that.

Large map, with mud, with only some armies able to change retreat points, in a meta based around forcing the enemy to retreat : EXTREMELY NOT FUN AND EXTREMELY NOT FAIR.

Hill 331

Large map : ok.
Map with mud : ok.
Large map with lots of mud : EXTREMELY NOT OK.

While we're at it:

Some armies able to change retreat points : fair, cool flavour.
Meta based around forcing the enemy to retreat (maxims / snipers / sturmpio ambushes) : fair, unit preservation and all that.

Large map, with mud, with only some armies able to change retreat points, in a meta based around forcing the enemy to retreat : EXTREMELY NOT FUN AND EXTREMELY NOT FAIR.

Mud and deep snow should be placed always in flanking routes. Never in VPs or fuel/ammo points.

In Moscow outkirts winter I HATE the fuel point that is placed in deep snow between 2 houses. It's a pain to reach it and hold it.
The other fuel point, more close to the enemy base, has not deep snow and it is in the open, much more easy to defend with a single HMG.

This is a bit of a non specific rant, but it's very important none the less.

The huge balance problem we have in team games is the maps. Conceptually, Axis are two very defensive factions where as Allies are very mobile and very aggressive. In 1v1's or on some 2v2 maps such as Moscow Outskirts Allies are able to make use of their aggressive and mobile units. However due to all of the chokepoint, cluttered and blobby maps that occupy 3v3, 4v4 and the majority of 2v2 maps, it means that flanking and outmanoeuvring your opponent is impossible so it's all about blobs vs blobs, support weapons verse support weapons, tanks vs tanks over the exact same points.

Axis by design have better defensive infantry (LMG Grens, Obers) better blob control with MG teams, better mortars and artillery, better AT guns and stronger tanks. The strengths of Soviets and Americans can be used in a 1v1 to flank, outmanoeuvre and outplay your opponent, but in the awful blob/camp/chokepoint maps of team games there just simply isn't any potential or possibility for that to happen. There isn't enough skill differentiators in team games, and especially just the unit design is so much easier and forgiving for axis especially in the late game.

For example looking in a non doctrinal call in sense, you've got the SU-85's which are super finesse because of their lack of rotatable turret and with no infantry damage. Jacksons are incredibly fragile and die very easily and also with no infantry damage. One small minor mis-plays and you can lose these dedicated tank destroyers incredibly easily. Especially when you factor in Panzerfausts/AT Grenades penetrate SU-85's and Jacksons essentially 100% of the time, compared to AT Grenades penetrating P4's and Panthers basically 50% of the time.

Axis tanks however you've got Panzer IV's, Panthers. Both are very mobile, very strong, very powerful, have great infantry damage and have Blitzkrieg to keep them alive. Where as what do Jacksons and SU-85's have going for them? Range. That's it, range. Except Blitzkrieg negates the range and speed entirely because then Blitzkrieg allows the stronger Axis tanks to out speed and chase down the weak squishy SU-85's and Jacksons.

Regardless of Blitzkreig, it's very hard to make use of the range against tanks supported by Shreks or Paks. And because it's team games with so many more people there's always going to be blobs of Shreks or Paks supporting tanks.

It's also impossible for Soviets to support their tanks with AT infantry because it just doesn't exist, and Americans have bazookas which work okay against medium tanks, but as soon as any heavy tanks come in such as a Tiger/Elefant Bazookas are pretty worthless. Not only do they have less damage/penetration than Shreks, but also Axis armour have so much more health and armour. Then there's the AT guns which fire slower than Paks and Raketenwerfers, but also the armour on Axis tanks means Allied AT guns don't penetrate as often where as Axis AT guns will essentially always penetrate against anything other than IS-2 or ISU.

To allow Allies to be more aggressive and outplay the maps need to be more open, bigger and wider. Maps can't too big though, otherwise retreat timers are too punishing. Maps for team games should be rectangular with bases spawning on the long edges so distance to and from bases isn't that high, but the map is wide enough so there's lots of room to prevent choke point and clutter. The example to look at is Moscow Outskirts and Vaux Farmlands, they're great 2v2 map.

TL;DR Allies are balanced in 1v1 because of the map design allows for outplays and use of aggressive play style. Due to the choke points, clutter and so many more units in team games, the awful map design of the majority of team game maps needs to be fixed and opened up to stop rewarding camping and blobbing so much, which conceptually favours axis play style compared to Allies. Some of the current maps really need reworks to open them up and declutter them, allowing my room for flanks and aggressive plays.

The only reason why Allies are currently able to win team games without relying on the Axis making mistakes is because of how ludicrously overpowered the ISU-152 is.

^^ +1000

Couldn't have said better. Would name these maps to make sure Relic won't miss any of it?