What is good map design and what are examples?

From 1v1 to 4v4. Here's a reference list from CoH1 to help you.

Here's my list as far as I can think right now:

1# - Cutoffs exist and are placed in a way that is not where you optimally want to concentrate your forces and at a location that is not close to your base, so that being cut off both from your base, allies and resources is a constant, real danger.

2# - No one location contains most of the resources (including victory points). It is not a given where you want to send your troops and stay for the rest of the game. The entire map has to be fought over. The most easily defended, strategically valuable locations are not also the ones with the most resources.

3# - Resources are not placed in a way that makes it a given which side will control them.

4# - All positions can be attacked from the flanks and rear. Approaches are not linear.

5# - The enemy cannot be funneled into approaching the map at a predictable and easily defended spot, the holding of which coincides with what you want to hold for winning the game anyway. Looking at you Semois Summer.

6# - The map is not small enough for there to be no strategic depth.



What would you say are examples of good and bad maps?

Oh thank you. I had no idea that guide existed, that's cool. Just wanted to get some discussion going.

1# low spec on map. High spec = dead map. Not everyone can handle CoH2 performance right now, and high spec just adds salt to the wound.

2# base has to be small with enough space to build. Spreading base like City 17 or Mortheme are terrible maps.

3# map MUST have building or infiltrate units are dead, but not TOO MANY building unless it's only on one side. Dusseldorf is terrible because of this.

4# map MUST have all types of cover. heavy, light and negative. Putting heavy cover near building is a plus. Rail & Metal do this perfectly.

5# map have to be mirror on both side. No advantage on one side. Port of Hamburg favor the south, thanks to the left bridge block off three strategic points.

6# if there is choke point, it must be wide enough for at least three tanks can move through. Bridge should not be included in map unless really needed. Lazur Factory make a good example of what should choke point be.

7# Strategic point is placed professionally. Putting one building covering three points is terrible map. Cut off point is a plus, but should cut only half side at max. No point is undecappable because in base turret range. Crossing in the wood has one point like that.

8# Blocker can be used, but keep at minimum. Place a blocker can ruins the map completely (Like the right side of Red Ball Express).

9# Map should be small. If player retreat a unit, then it should comeback in one minute at most. Steppes, General Mud, Hill 331 are victim to this category.

10# No third enemy lurking around. Vielsam has the minefield at center, and no decent player like it at all. Or Rzhev Winter which sunk any tank when go through ice.

Yeah good topic. I think next step to get coh2 to a higher level is more competitive maps. Maps that are somewhat mirrored, have cutoffs and flanking possibilities.

Best map in 1v1 pool by far is Arnhem checkpoint imo (wich has all of these points). In teamgames there is not one map that has this as for as i know (maybe la gleize/ steppes?).

Yeah good topic. I think next step to get coh2 to a higher level is more competitive maps. Maps that are somewhat mirrored, have cutoffs and flanking possibilities.

Best map in 1v1 pool by far is Arnhem checkpoint imo (wich has all of these points). In teamgames there is not one map that has this as for as i know (maybe la gleize/ steppes?).

Red Ball Express is quite good, only if maker decide to restore it to near the same as coh1. Right now it resemblance only a half.

But the best map so far is Lierneux, where both side has same chance of winning. Except the train station at the middle. (Not because unit can enter building, but because it serve as a permanent view blocker)

Yeah good topic. I think next step to get coh2 to a higher level is more competitive maps. Maps that are somewhat mirrored, have cutoffs and flanking possibilities.

Best map in 1v1 pool by far is Arnhem checkpoint imo (wich has all of these points). In teamgames there is not one map that has this as for as i know (maybe la gleize/ steppes?).

Let's talk about the worse maps too.

TL;DR: The worst 1v1 map in rotation right now is Semois.

Whoever has the better generalist infantry and indirect fire basically wins the map. This is because the middle is strategically broken and if you hold it you control most of the map's resources, two VPs, and the enemy's main base route. It favours player east because player west has to cross very narrow approaches that are far from his base to reach VP east and are easily defensible with the building and green cover around that VP. That in addition to the shelling of east's artillery on those approaches which can remain safely positioned and still protect both VPs, and the easy mine potential. Even if west's forces take VP east, he has zero sustainability from that position, he still has to attack through narrow, predictable approaches to get to the middle from there and when he retreats his units they might retreat through player east's middle forces which can wipe them out.

Player east by contrast basically has a bunch of open ground and multiple approaches he can take against the VP closest to player west, but he doesn't even need to attack it because he wins by just camping the middle. But it is something that player west has to think about, since one quick and/or cheap unit can decap that area while he is trying to attack the enemy in the middle and east. The middle requires generalist infantry with building clearing and indirect fire to take and can be held by those same units, with machine guns being a nice bonus if you have better indirect fire which you need in the first place anyway.

Introduce a FHQ for the player who has better units to win this map and it just turns into a joke. Every attempt to attack either VP will be rebuffed, especially if the defender is the map-favoured player east, and when it is rebuffed the defender's units will be back to fighting strength and ready to place more mines, wire, tank traps and what have you right away because they retreated to a FHQ. It also helps to have a unit which detects units in fog of war on this map, because there are only a few ways your opponent can attack and if you know where he's coming from you just reposition all your stuff to that chokepoint, which is again easier if you're player east. Slow, powerful tanks are favoured over tanks that are faster and cheaper but need a tactical advantage, since there is no room for maneuver on the areas of this map that matter.

The only change with the winter map is that you can now risk getting your units instawiped while they are crossing the ice. Wiping units out that way becomes much easier with a FoW detector unit. You can also place barbed wire on the "beach" against the ice, you will need a vehicle to clear it since engineers get sunk by indirect fire while removing it, and that vehicle will drive straight into the enemy's concentration of forces, get snared or just blown up immediately. And if the enemy player sees your vehicle driving there he can start shelling the ice that your infantry follows up on if he suspects (or knows, if he has a FoW detector) that they are coming. You are no longer blocked by water, but the same units still win in combat.

Let's see which factions do best on this map, without considering doctrines:

Soviets:
✓ Generalist infantry with building clearing
✓ Indirect fire

Ostheer:
✓ Indirect fire
✓ Powerful tanks

USF:
✓ Indirect fire
✓ (late) FHQ

UKF:
✓ (very late) Powerful tanks

OKW:
✓ Generalist infantry with building clearing
✓ Indirect fire
✓ FHQ
✓ Cheap, fast capping unit
✓ Fog of war detector unit
✓ Powerful tanks

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions of who should be vetoing it down from that...

OKW is fine, they have crappy vehicles and no lategame infantry.

OKW is fine, they have crappy vehicles and no lategame infantry.

I think you're playing some other OKW then the rest of the community.

The OKW I play with have fuel free capping, durable vehicle, cost effective lights, mediums and stock heavy, together with doctrinal self spotting panther and unit eraser that relic for whatever reason thought was a good idea to increase its range while keeping its pinpoint accuracy, but somehow the same was bit no-no for allied counterpart and B4.

OKW meds and heavies just got a cost increase without performance changes, because of how powerful they are and how early they arrive.

So, where are these crappy vehicle you're playing with? I might try that custom mod to see your POV.

OKW is fine, they have crappy vehicles and no lategame infantry.

size size size for many 2v2 maps and overwhelming majority of 3v3 maps.

and ideally, no hybrid maps.

So what did you guys actually think about my Semois analysis...?

It might have seemed like I was raving on OKW because they are the most favoured on that map, but really I think it's a garbage map in the first place and since CoH1 always have thought so.

I think you're playing some other OKW then the rest of the community.

The OKW I play with have fuel free capping, durable vehicle, cost effective lights, mediums and stock heavy, together with doctrinal self spotting panther and unit eraser that relic for whatever reason thought was a good idea to increase its range while keeping its pinpoint accuracy, but somehow the same was bit no-no for allied counterpart and B4.

OKW meds and heavies just got a cost increase without performance changes, because of how powerful they are and how early they arrive.

So, where are these crappy vehicle you're playing with? I might try that custom mod to see your POV.

I'm using sarcasm to demonstrate that OKW has the advantage at all stages on Semoisky, you can send all your troops to middle while calling with Kubel, and segway into WS or Luchs, into a free flak HQ and the best nondoc medium armor ingame. Normally in CoH2 logic you sacrifice lategame potency with such an effective early game.

The faction itself vs Soviet and UKF isn't OP because of HMGs and snipers, but on Semoisky winning as OKW is literally mindless, as OP suggests.

The only thing that I would like to see more is better strategic point placement, specifically cutoffs. I think it's ok for each player to have a 'natural' fuel that they hAve easy access to, but is also able to be cutoff. A good example would be arnhem, old kharkov. This way it's easy to deny the fuel, but it's much harder to hold double fuels and shut down your opponent. It's one of the reasons why I don't like maps that have fuels as the main contesting point, such as rails or trois pont.

All 2 vs 2 and up also big maps are in favore for OKW.

Reason Battle group and Shwerer.

Until the moment where all factions after retreat have to go back from their base sectors.

Building placement is crucial, like that awful house that was on the cut off in Faymonville. Relic needs to put more thought into window and door placement in relation to the surroundings, like on Semois where all the windows face the cutoffs. In vCoH they didn't have windows on those sides so it wouldn't be such a bitch to deal with. Playing with an army that doesn't have quick access to flames is a pain in the ass on that map.

with semois winter, i think removing tthe church and shortening the hedgerow to the right will open up the middle much more and make battles less turtle-ly.