Reply to "relic looking for map feedback"

Introduction and General Comment on the Map Balance

My standards for a good map is embed in maps like Rails and Metal, Moscow Outskirts, Vaux Farmland for 2v2, Oka River and Rzhev Winter for 3v3, Lazenrath Ambush and Steppes for 4v4. These maps do not have many choke points and impassable areas without being dull and one toned. This piece will talk about a lot of maps from 2v2+ that are flawed, therefore not very competitive.

New OKW units, Light Jaeger Infantry and Fallschrimjaeger which spawns in ambient buildings plus having more than normal survivability creates a lot of balance issue on maps where there are many buildings such as Angermuende, Faceoff at Rostov and Ettelbruck Station.

Maps that are also 3v3 and 4v4 hybrid with two separate spawn points for each team is also problematic. It could cause 3v3 match to devolve into 1v2 and 2v1 without an easy way to support,

Diagrams and Other Info
A. Colour info on the diagram:
- Red is for choke points
- Yellow is for impasse
- Green is for something army/battle related
- Blue is for etcetera that will be explained in the description
B. The number in the bracket indicates at which game mode the map is flawed.
C. The diagram does not show all impassable areas and choke points.

Comment on “a few” Maps

(4) Minsk Pocket – Design Issue

First of all, this map’s core width (core area width a.k.a the width of the map where you can command units) is 256 unit. To put that into perspective, normal 1v1 map’s core area is 256 by 256. Now, (4) Rails and Metals has the same core width; but it does not have as many impassable areas like Minsk Pocket. As you can see in the diagram, there are lots of impassable areas thus creating many choke points. The whole map is like a big and small choke points put together. All in all, this map is too small for 2v2 and choke points kill maps which this map specializes in.

(4) Road to Kharkov – Design Issue

This map is simply way too small for 2v2. Its core area is 320 by 224. The normal core area for 1v1 map is 256 by 256 and the normal core are for 2v2 map is 352 by 352. So yeah… this map is really REALLY small for 2v2. Not to mention it got a healthy amount of choke points. Also, north cutoff point is much easier to get and hold due to north team not having a lot of area where they can effectively defend the cutoff as seen in the diagram with green marker.

(4) Semoisky - Design Issue

This map’s core size is not that small compared to the normal 2v2 map’s core area. But this map feels small for 2v2 because it has lots of choke points and water covers a lot of the map. Also, the choke point in front of each team’s base are way too significant and can be shut down totally if pushed back. It could be considered as Semoisky’s own little flavor but going around and using the alternate route is also problematic especially for the western team, because their alternate route is a labyrinth of choke points. The eastern team also have this problem but their alternate choke point route is wider.

(4) Hurtgen Forest – Design/Balance Issue

Ok, let’s see the diagram. The full yellow indicates impassable areas and the sparkles of yellow represents forest (riddled with vision problem and impassable to near impassable path for tanks) and other areas where tanks have hard time maneuvering due to excessive trenches, craters, other small blocking objects. Forest is objectionable. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. But it devolves combat into cluster fest with annoying field of vision problem and choke points. It is also a pain to cross over from northwest corner of the map from the southeastern corner. This is a huge problem because each corners have one fuel and victory point. The river that cuts across the map also favours southwestern team because they do not have to cross it ever to get to a fuel point, or a victory point. It is a complete vice versa for the northeastern team.

(4) Trois Point – Design Issue

Umm… can there be more choke points?

(4-8) Ettelbruck Station – Design Issue

Oh yeah there can be. Umm… the map definitely looked nice in the WFA trailer where like five King Tigers storm American defense position in this map with a night atmosphere setting. But can you please go easy on choke points on auto-match maps?

(6) Rzhev Winter – Balance Issue

The diagram is generally how the frontline forms. This is due to the middle VP, and the ninth/last normal resource point marked by blue X marks. The southwestern team has more landmass, less ice mass, no choke points, a useful building for defense, and a fuel cutoff point closer to the main battle (less susceptible to harassment).

(6-8) Angermuende - Design Issue

There are lots of choke points. But its choke points are better than the ones in Trois Point and Ettelbruck Station because the choke points in Angermuende are wider. Another little saving grace is that many centres of actions occur in relatively open area (good) marked by the green marks.

(6-8) Faceoff at Rostov – Design/Balance Issue

The main action, most resources, and most flaws in this map centres on the city. A typical and safe strategy is to go for the city while guarding their flank (marked with blue colour) with a skeleton crew because the city is the most resource intensive part of the map. The entrance to the map is all choke points. This makes getting back into the city after being pushed off a hell. But it is significantly harder for the northern team to do it because there is significantly less landmass where the team can set up an insertion force, indicated by the green marks. This in turn makes the north team clump up for a nice juicy artillery barrage. They also have to cross choke points and ice to start preparing to get into the city while the bottom team has a wide field to cross instead.

(6-8) City 17 – Small Design/Balance Issue

This map devolves action into two 2v2s. The action that occurs on the south side of the map is heavily favoured towards the eastern team. They are closer to the fuel and the victory point, got a perfect building to oversee the fuel point. Also, the grain elevator marked by yellow marker is annoying because it does not have a clear indication of which part of it blocks movement/sight.

(6-8) Hill 331 – Design Issue

This map is the only official relic map that has mud tech. Although mud tech is interesting and can be fun, this map just goes overboard with it. Instead of having a few mud areas in some paths, there is mud, marked with yellow, everywhere between the action areas, marked with green, and the base, marked with blue. This makes retreating and getting back on the field such a pain in the ass. Before I forger, look at that base area!!! It is humongous! Another great factor that makes retreating and getting back on the field even more pain in the ass.

(6-8) Lazenrath Ambush – Balance Issue

This map is skewed toward the eastern team. The eastern team has a trench system, marked by deep green space bar symbol, which helps them hold the forest area easily. Then the eastern team can harass and flank from the forest as seen with deep green arrows. To stop the harassment and flanks of the western team, one member of the team has to set up a defense position at the location marked with light green space bar symbol. The location is tactically unimportant and a completely reactionary position that holds no initiative. Also why is it that the western team has to go through tight choke point or go all the way around to access the middle VP?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just post this in the thread? EDIT: Okay, apparently you did. My bad. Haha. With that said, though, I do agree with your angst directed at chokepoints. I, too, am no fan of the abundance of them, especially in the newer maps.

I´m just here to congratulate you for the effort of this post.
+1

I don't really understand. Having more "choke points" is a good thing, not a bad thing.

When there are only three dividing a map in half (Vire River Valley) the game is a nightmare. But if the whole map is comprised of different possible routes, there's no way to lock it down completely.

I've never felt pinned behind a defensive wall on Trois Pont or Ettelbruck (in 2v2 at least)

I've never felt pinned behind a defensive wall on Trois Pont or Ettelbruck (in 2v2 at least)

No min0 incomplete reinforced barbwire on the cementery ?

Very good post, i agree with it wholeheartedly.

I don't really understand. Having more "choke points" is a good thing, not a bad thing.

When there are only three dividing a map in half (Vire River Valley) the game is a nightmare. But if the whole map is comprised of different possible routes, there's no way to lock it down completely.

I've never felt pinned behind a defensive wall on Trois Pont or Ettelbruck (in 2v2 at least)

i literally heard this "more choke points is good" for the first time.

relic seems to have a delusion idea of many choke points creates just as much tactical depth of a wide open space (flanking, maneuvering, unit positioning etc etc). but no it does not and i'm not saying there shouldnt be any choke points but i feel quite a few of relic's maps have too many choke points.

a good read thank you for taking the time to post this large piece of feedback.

Eagleheart21

I support the OP. Would you be willing to do these same things for the 1v1 maps in the rotation?

I support the OP. Would you be willing to do these same things for the 1v1 maps in the rotation?

i have like 10 1v1 games so i don't really have opinions on 1v1 maps

all map is ok. This is east front not west russia land have forest and mud not farm and city !!! stop spamming. you have forest build infantry at not light tank

I don't really understand. Having more "choke points" is a good thing, not a bad thing.

When there are only three dividing a map in half (Vire River Valley) the game is a nightmare. But if the whole map is comprised of different possible routes, there's no way to lock it down completely.

I've never felt pinned behind a defensive wall on Trois Pont or Ettelbruck (in 2v2 at least)

What he means is not to get rid of chokepoints , if a map however is heavily domiated by chokepoints it maked maneuvering units very hard , therfor the maps very campy.

With few chokepoints he means to get rid of some completly in order to create a more open field
and not to create fewer chokepoints as in getting rid of some by closing them etc.

I hope i got that right

Wow, good effort,big +1!

Choke points and narrow maps are possibly a reason why Maxims and ISUs and Jagds are such a problem.

Lol at the yellow on Hurtgen)

+1 great job

I think youre being too critical of choke points. Depending on their location they can almost break the map. But some maps should be more condensed than others. They dont all need to be uniformly open. Different tactics should work with different amounts of success on different maps, thats what keeps it interesting.

I think youre being too critical of choke points. Depending on their location they can almost break the map. But some maps should be more condensed than others. They dont all need to be uniformly open. Different tactics should work with different amounts of success on different maps, thats what keeps it interesting.

you are right about not all chokepoints being bad. i don't mind all of them. that is why i didnt point out chokes in city 17, lazur factory and even the city part of rostov, the ultimate chokepoint cluster-f city.