2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 maps need to be proportional to 1v1 maps

As we all know, CoH 2 gets worse and worse in terms of balance/blobbing/spamming as we progress up the playlists from 1v1 to 2v2 to 3v3 to 4v4.

It isn't as if the game mechanics suddenly change as you switch playlists. So why is there less blobbing in the smaller playlists? I believe it has to do entirely with the maps. In 1v1s, we all have the choice to blob if we wanted to. However it is discouraged not only by anti-blob units like HMGs or Artillery, but by the map itself because of their large size in comparison to the amount of units on the field.

But the size of the map isn't the only factor. You have more sectors on the map in comparison to the amount of units on the field as well.

1v1 maps are around 325 x 325 meters (105,625 m^2), therefore its 52,812 m^2 of space per player. On the other hand you have 4v4 maps that are only 512 x 512 (262,144 m^2) with 32,768 m^2 of space per player. This clearly poses a problem for larger playlists especially when its snowball effected by the small amount of sectors.

So at the end in 1v1s you have two players battling over a proportionally large map with lots of sectors and in 4v4s you have eight players battling over a proportionally small map with few sectors... and we wonder why 4v4 is AIDS.

If 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 maps are ever to be made more interesting and less blob/spam fest, we will have to use the magic number of 52,812 m^2 amount of space per player. That way we have 700 x 600 maps for 4v4s instead of 512 x 512.

Note: I am using 1v1s and 4v4s as extremes. 2v2s and 3v3s suffer from the same disproportion issue and need to be fixed like so.

I am not exactly sure how the whole sector issue can be addressed as it will probably be complicated and will surely come with unforeseen issues, but 1v1s have around 10 sectors. And so do 4v4s. So I am suggesting 5 sectors per player for a total of 40 sectors in 4v4s (lmao that's insane). Then you divide the resource income per sector including fuel and munitions to 1v1 proportions.

Agree? Disagree?

maybe not 1:1 proportion but 700x600 would be way better than 516x516.

All game modes above 2v2 need to have a minimum of 5 VP. Increase VP counter to 600 or 700 to compensate. If people have to defend more points then they can't sit all their heavy shit on one or two points and win the game.

A larger map will help larger game modes especially in a game like CoH2 where flanking/positioning is an important aspect of the game. Larger maps mean more room to move around and less heavily defended area.

Increasing VP to 5 is understandable but an increase of VP counter above 500 would already extend a long game into a much longer one. Having 5 VP in a much larger map but with a 500 VP counter would help to shorten the game and make people more aggressive with their actions since flanking is much easier to do in a larger map and an increase of VPs would increase the urgency of capping them.

+1

bump bump bump. with so many useless threads recently, this can't be ignored.

Its a big issue, but lets be realistic: Relic probably would never fix it because it would take them too much time and effort to completely remake every 3v3/4v4 map.

i have a dream

Bigger maps can be cooler as well. Bigger maps do favor factions with FHQs/Forward Retreat Points, though...

larger maps more points to capture less resources to each point, it will let people use the map more instead of just a-move to this point that holds the everything, people will have to either capture even slower or promote them to spilt up the units more over.

I agree, and sectors must give less ammo/fuel to match 1v1-2v2 maps.

+1

larger maps more points to capture less resources to each point, it will let people use the map more instead of just a-move to this point that holds the everything, people will have to either capture even slower or promote them to spilt up the units more over.

EXACTLY what I was pointing at.

Relic has taken note of this issue however and they are making some adjustments, albeit minor ones. For example in the UKF Alpha there were maps with 5 victory points. This favors distributed map control gameplay instead of blob vs. blob combat.

There's a game with decently balanced, mostly symmetrical Huge 4v4 and 3v3 maps, in which spamming, blobbing and A-moving earns you a sound defeat. It's called Wargame Red Dragon.

Moreover, don't expect good map design from Relic, expect good art design. At least fancy world detail and visually stunning asymmetrical map layouts make up for all the raging induced by not being able to place a building in the North-east spawn of Lienne forest due to a couple of bushes.

Also CoH2 is meant for 1v1s, the other modes don't matter right? These team games scrubs are just a vocal minority inside an echo chamber!

Joy we are getting new maps with Brits, can we also get at least 4 more map vetoes? Otherwise a good DLC would be MAP VETO DLC, I would pay for that!

P.S: Good suggestion NW, but that's wishful thinking. Maybe they implement something similar for DoW 3.

All game modes above 2v2 need to have a minimum of 5 VP. Increase VP counter to 600 or 700 to compensate. If people have to defend more points then they can't sit all their heavy shit on one or two points and win the game.

I completely agree with this.

Especially those late game shit festivals that turn into nothing but blobbing and dying on VP's. Whoever has a heavy, wins!

R.I.P Ostheer and Soviets..

WFA factions with a FHQ will have a great advantage

I do think there should be some bigger 4v4 maps, but the problem is the bigger they are, the less time you spend actually fighting, which isn't fun for most players.
Retreating from the front lines, reinforcing, and getting your troops back to the front line already takes a long time on the bigger maps.

R.I.P Ostheer and Soviets..

WFA factions with a FHQ will have a great advantage

This is a huge problem. On lager maps it is a pain in the ass when you are playing Soviet or Ostheer and the OKW player and USA player only have to retreat back 10 feet, negating any kind of punishment for losing the battle. Its not so bad for Ostheer becuase USA get there FHQ later, but OKW can get theirs in the first five minutes. FHQ either need to go, or all of the factions need to have them, and be able to get them at the same time. Also getting ride of FHQ would Be a huge fixs for a lot of maps in 3v3+. I am looking at you Steps.

Just stop think about 4v4 as a super big 1v1 multiplied four-times mode.

There's a game with decently balanced, mostly symmetrical Huge 4v4 and 3v3 maps, in which spamming, blobbing and A-moving earns you a sound defeat. It's called Wargame Red Dragon.

Oh... Wargame Red Dragon is awesome. It's made for teamgames and its a fantastic game thanks to it.
The advantage that Wargame has over CoH2 in the area of blob control (there's no really comparison between the two ultimately, they're very different kinds of strategy game), is that Wargame has morale. CoH2 has suppression, granted, but that's not the same

OT
These suggestions are some of the best I've seen for giving 4v4s some semblance of balance. I've been looking for ways to balance 4v4s and these are some the most novel I've seen and they're so glaringly obvious and simple too.

The only possible issue is that you're walking a thin line between the game just devolving into 4 1v1s... which mightn't be such a bad thing... because suddenly a lost "1v1" doesn't mean a lost game.