RELIC LOOKING FOR MAP FEEDBACK!

Very nice read PwnageMachine.
Agree 100 % and very well said.

Anyway let's not try to derail and lets stay on topic:

Whats wrong with the maps?

Biggest problem with maps is the sizing for the number of players on the map.
Semois is a prime example, the map is just too small for 2v2 play.

As a 1v1 player:

La Gleize Breakout: Map is kind of dull due to the overwhelming prevalence of buildings/green cover. This is partially a balance issue, since Allies (especially Soviets) are generally agreed to be better at this than Axis, but I think it makes the map a bit boring as well. I would like to see the areas around the eastern/western VPs opened up to encourage different styles of play.

Stalingrad: I actually quite like this map, even though many don't. My main complaint is the placement of munitions points. Given that this is a heavily urban map, use of grenades/artillery/infantry upgrades is often more decisive than vehicle play. In particular, Ostheer struggle for munitions due to expensive grenades/need to buy weapon upgrades. I think this means that Stalingrad favours players who can take an early advantage, since whoever holds the centre can easily control both Muni points, and strangle the resources of their opponents.

Crossing in the Woods: Good map, see my later comment on 1v1/2v2 maps.

Langreskaya: Pretty good map, but I would like to see the positions of the northern and southern VPs changed a bit. At the moment, it is almost impossible to control all 3 VPs. IMO, this should be possible in order to reward players who can really do well in the early/mid game. At the moment, Langreskaya games tend to be long for this reason, which favours late-game commanders and factions (OKW).

Kholodny Ferma Winter: Needs to have another muni point, for a similar reason to Stalingrad.

Semoskiy: Similar issue to La Gleize. See my later comment on 1v1/2v2 maps. (Also applies to Winter version)

Minsk Pocket: See my later comment on 1v1/2v2 maps.

Kharkov: Southern player is a little too vulnerable to cutoff harassment. Moving the cutoff point further down would address this.

On 1v1/2v2 maps: I think the issue with a lot of these maps is that in intending to create hybrid maps, Relic has made maps that are a bit too large for 1v1, but a bit too small for 2v2 (judging from other comments). Crossing in the Woods is mostly ok, but Minsk Pocket suffers from this very badly. The map is almost exclusively about harassment-style play at the moment, since attempting to concentrate your forces allows the opponent to cap pretty much the whole map. This means that large, interesting confrontations simply don't happen. I find Minsk Pocket very un-fun to play on for this reason.
Semoskiy is somewhere in between - in a close game its fine but the long distances can make this a little too punishing for a player who loses some early skirmishes. Also, the OKW and US can have trouble in my experience, since whilst mortars are needed to attack garrisoned units, the size of the map means they have to move across the bridges and place themselves in harms way in order to get in range. This is problematic for US and OKW, since the ISG and Pack Howitzer cannot retreat. I think Relic should seriously consider making seperate versions of these maps for 1v1 and 2v2.

Winter Maps: I think cold-tech needs to be looked at. At the moment, Blizzards are too much of a pause button, which inherently favours whichever player happened to win the last engagement, since they can just sit back and let the resources roll in, knowing that a counterattack by their opponent will be crippled by the weather.

Minsk pocket is really a terrible map, too big for 1v1 yet too small for 2v2. It doesnt help that the map is simply boring with not one exciting feature or anything that looks good. It simply a big bland forest area where trying to make a frontline is simply asking to get flanked from everywhere.

The tall trees also block vision on your units, again why are relic refusing to create new skins on infantry for readability issues yet have no problem putting tall trees everywhere so you cant see your units?

Ettelbruck worst map..too crowded mg spam and artyfest.Difficult to even use tanks.

City 17-north spawn on the right has 3-4 large buildings on overlooking fuel and vp..whereas south spawn has 1.Vs soviet maximspam its impossible once they stick it in multiple mgs.Ur mg 42 in buildings can't match..its auto fuel and vp for soviet on right side in north spawn.

blizzard fires plz just token mp cost-10mp.larger radius.Very laggy.

ROSTOV map-southspawn advantage.2 buildings overlooking crossing points into the city from the north..early maxim or sometimes even mg 42 and nortn side is blocked off.Northspawn is suicide vs good team.The north side's fuel shouldn't be on the otehr side of the crossing..they take fuel and its done.Applies for all factions.

Trois point - Mid VP shouldn't be on island.Should make a smaller seperate island in the middle instead.Very easy northspawn.Especially 1 mg can lock down cemetary in north spawn..due to stone entrance.This combined with both vps on this side makes north superior.

Haven't played team games for a long time, so I can only comment on the 1v1 map pool (roughly sorted from good to bad):


- Langreskaya: A great map! Maybe most people will disagree, but I even prefer the north starting point.

- Crossing in the woods: A cool map, but maybe 1 point at each side of the "bridge" should be added where the river is easier to cross (without penalties), so it is less of a barrier.

- Semosky Winter: Also one of my favorites.

- Kholodny: Adding the additional path in the north was a good idea, but this map has a little too much CQC (e.g. OH has only 1 doc with CQC units, and you have to buy it) and places for mines. Also, the east side is still too easy to cut off I'd say, but still a good map.

- Kholodny Winter: Similar to summer, but the blizzards favor CQC armies even more. Still, there seems to be something about this map that I still like it more than I dislike it. ^^

- Faymonville: Mixed feelings about this map, but I'm not quite sure why.

- Semosky: Having only 1 good access to the center makes this map too chokey, and the battle for the center favors CQC units. If you're driven out of the middle, a comeback is hard, as the only other 2 paths are long.

- Kharkov: Narrow maps are not a good idea to begin with (see also Minsk), but at least this one is somewhat better than Minsk. edit: The south cutoff is too far from the base, and somehow the VPs are closer to the north... strange design...

- La Gleize (1v1): The part where the fighting takes place is too urban, again favoring CQC armies too much. Not that good.

- Minsk: Horrible narrow design with the 3 "tubes". Long range units rule supreme, and your don't need many MGs / mines / bunkers to shut enemy movement down. #2 veto

- Stalingrad: Horrible, how could you design a map with only CQC when you have factions that are far better at CQC than others? There is nothing that can be changed to make this map acceptable in any way I guess. #1 veto


Another edit: I would like to compliment you for Steppes. Have played it 3v3 in the past (although it's been a while), and the wide design is just great for movement & flanking! Also, you have areas with closer and wider terrain. We need more maps like this!

I agree about Road to Kharkov, bämbabäm. I actually forgot to mention in my earlier critique how far the south cutoff is vs the north. The map just completely favors the north. Closer cutoff and way easier middle VP defense. It's otherwise a fun map, though.

I do want to come to Minsk Pocket's defense, though. I quite like that map and don't think there is anything wrong with its design. I think most of the people complaining about the map just don't like narrow maps, so they instantly dislike Minsk. I don't many people changing their minds on it, on either side.

I would also like to add that a lot of the Western Front maps are too chokepointy in general, especially Trois Ponts, Ettelbruck Station, and Huertgen Forest. Personally I'd like to see more open field maps in the future like Langreskaya. I'd love to see a Kursk map as well.

I would also like to add that a lot of the Western Front maps are too chokepointy in general, especially Trois Ponts, Ettelbruck Station, and Huertgen Forest. Personally I'd like to see more open field maps in the future like Langreskaya. I'd love to see a Kursk map as well.

Absolutely, open maps are great and provide many tactical plays.

I'd love to see a maps that are way larger in size that allow us to engage in deep operations and flanks, as well as setting up properly fortified positions inside enemy lines which aren't just this one building that gets barraged to oblivion.

In short. Make maps bigger!

I'd love to see a maps that are way larger in size that allow us to engage in deep operations and flanks, as well as setting up properly fortified positions inside enemy lines which aren't just this one building that gets barraged to oblivion.

In short. Make maps bigger!

Yes! And make retreats take twice as much time! So i can enjoy seeing them either walking ages to the frontline or getting murdered on retreat!

Personally I'd like to see more open field maps in the future like Langreskaya. I'd love to see a Kursk map as well.

+1

Openess is better, but it should be tempered by good design.

For instance making an open field that attacks into a trench for one side makes infantry combat very difficult because you are constantly having to avoid that avenue. Or placing one side on an incline so that attackers must come uphill is also still poor design. For me anyway, water should be used sparingly since it acts so effectively to increase defensive strength. Bridges should be indestructible or extremely numerous in maps designed to be competitive.

@Marco, large maps are not something I want to see more of. Even in 4v4 Steppes is primarily centered around the two fuel points leaving almost a third of the map underused. In Hill, once a team takes the center hill battles tend to disperse to the flanks. Keep in mind as well that OKW retreats do not have to go as far with their med truck set up and you have a real recipe for some poor games.

Even for 4v4 I would seriously consider reducing map size. Players should need to fight very quickly to control critical points, but if they lose they should have a chance to pick up their forces and return to combat quickly.

Angermuende has consistent pathing issues for infantry on the southern side of the middle VP. Even weapon teams placed near the green cover often start running around the ledge there.

Here's a video of the exact spot


It's a bit on the long side but towards the end the blue guards squad will demonstrate the issue

Steppes is probably one of the best large teammode maps..yeah..it has elements to support both static defense/camping and mobile fluid aggression.Its also least laggy.

One great map i would like to see return is montargis region from coh 1.

I like vaux farmlands and crossing in the woods as well.
Oka river winter is ugly due to blizzards and too campy in the town.

Lazearth ambush - The two buildings near the south-west fuel are too fragile. In my experience, these full health buildings collapse with the first tank/mortar shot.

Oka - narrow map with long retreat times. Too much of the map is a frozen river which equates to wasted space not an area where exciting game play occurs. I feel that the ice needs to be made "thicker" such that less stuff falls thru the ice. I think there is too many buildings within the town. The buildings make dislodging an enemy early game difficult. I find that there is too much deep snow on the east side of the map. This snow turns an area that should be open into another narrow corridor near the river.


Hill 331 - Huge map + mud at base entrances = too long for units to get into and out of battle. The combination of narrow corridors, mud clogged roads, and cluttered/narrow pathways make it difficult to use vehicles on flanking maneuvers.

Oh yeah, on a side note: many team maps are too small for team games / bigger team games. Minsk 2v2 is even worse than 1v1, same goes for Kharkov, Rzev 3v3 and some others I can't remember now.

Faceoff at Rostov: Stupidly imbalanced towards the team that starts on the main (bottom) part. Why are there both fuels and 2 VPs on the same side as where one team starts? Ridiculous. If you get in early game and wire off a couple of the bridges (with OKW) you can force the other team into coming from like 2 directions.

Lanzerath Ambush: Middle and right VP are very bad for the team that starts on the bottom. Mid VP there is one narrow entrance inbetween some forest areas, while the top team gets a whole field and building cover over the area. The right VP is full of heavy cover bunkers for the top team with at least 4-5 viable entrances into the VP area, while the bottom team has 3 at best. The bottom team has no bunkers to defend with and very bad entrances closer to the VP area than the top team meaning they can be shut off easier.

Would be nice to bring back more CoH1 maps like Angoville, Seine River Docks, Duclair, Villers Bocage etc

My reply in a new thread

or just in this spoiler tab


Show Spoiler