The Ultimate 4v4 Thread: Maps and Map Design

Introduction

4v4 is one of the most popular, if not the most played game type in COH2. The battles are hectic, action-packed, and fun. Additionally, players can play with three other friends for a true strategic and social experience. Although fun, a myriad of issues plague the 4v4 game mode. The primarily issues impacting the enjoyment of the 4v4 (and also 3v3, but I will be focusing more) on 4v4) are imbalances between the Allies and Axis, map design, and problematic units and commanders.

Map Design

One of the main problems that impact the enjoyment of the 4v4 game mode is map design. Unlike the dynamic nature of 1v1 and 2v2 game types, 4v4 focuses mainly on holding a couple of strategic areas or points, usually where fuel points are located. Maps devolve into a battle of brute force, where players struggle for a control of some key areas. Maps will often devolve into two 2v2s on opposite ends of the map, rather than continuous ebb and flow of territories being capped/decapped.

Furthermore, these fuel or ammo points are often next to VPs, which contribute toward the map design issue. There is little incentive to go anywhere else on the map when fuel points are in close proximity to VPs. Once a player locks down these areas, he or she gets easy access to the VP and an important resource.

Thomasthetank, a fellow coh2.org forum member, describes the battle phases as attack, fortification, and harassment. Players rush to the fuel in every 4v4 map and attempt to establish a foothold in these areas. Once a team has established control over a point, the fortification phase begins. Bunkers, mortars, MGs, and AT guns are set into position. Once fortified, players generally have little reason to venture out, unless there is a rush to secure VPs, or to help a teammate. The late game has players either in a stalemate or one side attempting to “sweep” the other with tanks. This playstyle occurs due to the horrid map design that does not promote flanking or fluid gameplay.

The designs of the maps also contribute to Axis having the advantage in larger team games. They possess tremendous firepower in a mode where map control is not as vital as 1v1 or 2v2. Some factions have better tools to dislodge defenders or to dig-in. This usually means one faction will have a particular advantage in the 4v4 game mode.

Maps

I will now go over the 4v4 maps and talk a little about them

City 17
This map is a good example of the typical 4v4 match. Two players generally head to the left fuel and VP while the remaining two players will head to the fuel and VP on the right. The majority of the action is centered on these two areas.

The team spawning on the North has an advantage over the one spawning in the South. On the right side of the map, there is a large building overlooking the fuel point that is closer to the North spawn. It is a common tactic to place an MG in the building in the first several minutes of the game. This gives the Northern spawn a significant advantage in holding that area. The building can also be used as cover for mortar teams and other vehicles. The Southern team has to cross a forked passage in order to reach the fuel on the left side. This predictable point of entry makes the area ripe for artillery strikes, particularly the Walking Stuka. The Northern team has a wide open field to act as a staging area for units. It is also easier to spread units out.

Faceoff at Rostov
this the worst map in the 4v4 automatch rotation and quite possibly the worst map in COH2. Needless to say, the creator of this map needs to be sent to the Gulag for crimes against the COH2 state.

This map is horrendously designed. The island on the left side of the map has little importance, except for a lone VP. It is best used as a springboard to back cap enemy points, although the ice makes it difficult to move vehicles. Most players will head to the city due to the density of resource points in that area. The map becomes a battle of blobs, densely packed into the narrow streets of Rostov.

Another major issue with Rostov is the discrepancies between the Northern and Southern spawns. The Southern team has easy access to the city while the Northern team needs to cross water and bridges, which significantly delay access to the city. The rally point to the north of the middle VP is also in a precarious position. The area is small and ripe for artillery strikes. The entry into the city from this area is also uphill, which blocks bullets and delays units.

Rostov is highly imbalanced, especially for an Allied team spawning at the North. An OKW player that spawns a kubelwagen can easily race to the bridges and significantly delay any entry into the city. Once the Allied team is pushed off the city, it is almost impossible to retake due to the Axis ability to build bunkers and emplacements. The OKW also have a significant advantage at Rostov due to the ability to set up forward retreat points and flak trucks.

Hill 331
This map is poorly designed. Heavy mud covers the approaches to the fuel which make it a pain to get to. The action is also heavily concentrated to the extreme sides of the map. It is pointless to control the hill area because it is vast and slow to get to. The map is also extremely big which means retreat distances are often very long.

Lanzerath Ambush
This is a fairly well-designed map that can have dynamic gameplay, especially for players who like to assault their opponent’s fuel points. However, there are a few design quirks that exist. Both sides have rather narrow paths that lead to the right VP. This is a bigger issue for the southern team because they have an obvious jump-off point that is a big target for artillery. There is also heavy cover next to the territory point that is more accessible to the northern team. The middle VP favors the northern team because it has unmolested access to the area. The southern team has to either go through a very narrow path or through awkwardly positioned side routes.

Le Gleize
This is a well-designed map for 4v4. Although most players generally go for the sides in the beginning and mid-game, there are enough points in the middle as an incentive to attack it. My only criticism for this map is it that it is too big (tall). Retreats are often punishing due to the distance back to base. This gives the opposition ample time to fortify the area. It also seems much easier to cut off the southern team.

Lienne Forest
Lienne Forest is a solid map that has a good mix of infantry and armor combat. The forest area could be better designed though. The forest has pathfinding issues and has extremely narrow paths. It would be nice if the southern team didn’t have to cross the river to get to the munitions point though.

Steppes
This is basically a symmetrical map. The bottom VP and fuel is a great example of “attack, fortify, and harass”. The importance of the bottom island virtually requires two players from each side to head there. Although the map is big with points spread around, having all players heading to the fuel seems like a better investment for the late game.

Vielsalm
This map is like Hill 331 but with snow. The center of the map is worthless until the late game. The map becomes two 2v2s just like most 4v4 maps. The design of the right side of the map needs some work; The factory housing the VP is awkwardly placed. The corridors are long and narrow, leading to blobbing. It also seems easier to harass the left fuel point. Additionally, the map is really big, which make retreats very punishing.


Suggestions for Improvement
Some of the 4v4 maps need to be more dynamic and promote larger strategic play. Although defending and attacking strongpoints is fun, this happens in nearly every 4v4 map. The playstyle is very stale and boring.

Strategic points need to be spread out more across the maps. Oftentimes, there is a tight cluster of resource pints, and VPs on a particular area of the map, leading to all players to rush to that position. Maps like La Gleize have points that are fairly well spread out, making any point in the map a good place to attack. Maps such as Rostov and Vielsam force players into certain areas which lead to blobbing and stale gameplay. There needs to be more room to maneuver, especially light vehicles and medium tanks. These maps really need to be looked at and reconfigured.

Some maps can also be cleaned up, such as removing excess debris, and objects that block sight, and fixing some pathing issues. This will make the game more balanced for both Allies and Axis, as no side will have a particular advantage. The recent changes to Ettelbruck are a good example. Much of the clutter was removed, leading to more fluid gameplay that involved less chokepoints (although there still are). City 17 is another candidate; buildings are placed in odd places, such as the grain elevator building.

Something they could do with rostov is to make the island more appealing to the northern spawn.Maybe adding a few cap points on the ice or on small islands would make flanking easier and more rewards rather than just cramming into the city.

Hill311 simply just needs reduced mud, I love the concept and it makes for interesting engagements but they should put it where the fuel is fought over.

Lien forest has a few sight line issues on the right hand side but for the most part is balanced. The southern spawn could use a building or two to the right of the middle vp tho.

City 17's left side needs more clutter as cover, often times the allies loose hard to the lack of cover because axis units are better at long range. The hill on the left bottle necks the southern spawn leading to the north getting an easy advantage.

Stepps needs to be looked at. The island is easy for the axis side to lock down due to, could use more cover.

vieslam (or however it's spelled) needs the right and left flank to be looked at. The heavy snow on the left makes moving anything such as an su-85 or even a jagpnzr impossible to rotate. The right side features a right flank that is very easy to exploit for the northern spawn. The hill makes it hard to counter/flank the repair point leading to impossible to counter flanks and horrible sight lines.

I can keep going but these are just a few issues I see. Let me know how you guys feel

Thanks Ninja a well-thought out and cogent summary. I agree. Except Vielsam, which I hate.

agree on most points, the biggest problem with 4v4 is maps right now imo

A good perspective! I have to say, I completely agree with you too. In fact, this is the main reason why I create mostly 3vs3 and 4vs4 maps - it gives me something fresh to play. However, you have to do it without automatch.

Cheers Ninja!

4v4 is well balanced. Good job Relic!

bump

+1

i think map fixes are the easiest way to balance big team games at the moment. i think the balance between Axis v. Allies in 3v3+ hasn't been closer and although not perfect, if the maps were more balanced and well designed, it will feel even more balanced and fun.

One of the main reasons why USF struggles in 4v4, at least in my opinion, is the map design. Discounting obvious map imbalances based on starting positions (i.e. an advantage when you spawn to the north of Lanzerath or south of Rostov), most maps tend to be heavily cluttered with narrow pathways and a plethora of pathfinding issues. The end result is that most maps heavily favour tanks with heavy frontal armour that can sit in a corridor and be virtually unflankable. Meanwhile, tanks like the M36 and Sherman have no room to move, kite or flank and when they attempt to do so they inevitably get stuck on an obstacle and end up being schreked. It's also why Easy-8s tend to be the best choice in 4v4s.

The other side of it is that lots of rifles aren't always going to help you when the enemy can easily cover narrow corridors with weapon teams and artillery.

bump. I also made a supplement post to bring up this discussion again:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/107736/bigger-4v4-maps/page/1#post_id854169

+1111