Map design flaws in CoH2

Posted this in another thread originally, but I think the map flaws are big enough to deserve their own thread aside from specific faction concerns.

What do you guys think? keep in mind that this is primarily about team games, as they are made as an afterthought to the 1v1 maps and mode.

1) 1v1 maps are used as 2v2 maps which favors units/factions that both work best head-on and prefer to move front to back rather than around - this not only due to the design of certain maps (Rails and Metal, Road to Kharkov, etc.) but also simply because two players occupy the same map space instead of one. In the second case where the map itself is not badly designed but the problem is that the map is too small for two players, this could be alleviated if it weren't for the second problem.

The solution is to incorporate more community maps for the team game modes.

2) The base locations nearly always combine the players together which makes map movement linear and less strategically dynamic even on bigger maps (which again translates down to tactics in the form of unit/commander viability) and prevents the threat of cutting off both one player off from another and bases in general from territory. Ironically, one of the maps without this problem is Rails and Metal, but it's so linear that it doesn't make a difference. I think that winter map with the town in the center is called Lierneux, and this would have been a good map if it weren't for the fact that the bases are combined right in the center, which makes the map a contest of who can first take it and control the rest of the map from there. Same for Moscow Outskirts.

The solution is to redesign player base placement (which aside from the problems I mentioned would also fix the obnoxious 2 players on one side and 1 on the other in 4v4 maps that are played as 3v3)

3) In combination with the above problems there are too few points on many maps and of the points there are they tend to be placed both too safely outside of the bases and the VPs too close to each other. This is something which again really affects many 1v1 maps used for 2v2, but also the linear 2v2 maps. Just imagine if VPs were placed like that, with one right outside of each team's base and then a single one in the center, on a linear map. That should make you understand how bad this kind of placement is for resource points (with the additional problem of there being too few resource points).

The solution is to both swap around & create more points on the maps that need it.

4) Forward retreat points screw the game up. They make it too binary: you either completely destroy his position or you get flooded off the map because his units can spend way more time on it than yours, no matter if you generally win engagements or not. And if the first 3 problems were fixed they still would, because aside from letting you place your base more forward as they do now, they would also let you place your base closer to both the center and your teammate.

The solution is to both implement the fixes to the first 3 problems and then restrict how far away from your base sector you can place a forward retreat.

If you fix these problems then I believe the problems with how disproportionately effective caches are in team games would if not wholly (because they still give a 4x return on normal investment) then at least largely be fixed because they would be easier to deal with and a bit riskier to build.

5) Lastly, and I think this is the least likely change because people would regard it as too drastic so I'm just throwing this out there compared to the 4 first points that I'm convinced are problems and have solutions. The amount of Victory Points should scale UP with player amount, with a base of 3. So 1v1 maps have 3, 2v2 have 5, 3v3 have 7 and 4v4 have 9. Or it could be 2v2=5, 3v3=9 and 4v4=13 (has to be 13 instead of 4x3=12 to maintain them unevenly), it depends on which kind of mathematical pattern you want to have for them. This would prevent players' complaints of obnoxious strategies for VP camping and it would create the same kind of dynamism in team games which is intended by having 3 victory points in 1v1s in the first place. You wouldn't be able to have a single player on a team lock down the entire map's victory points or a team concentrating everything they have around some centerpoint knowing it's gg because they have a jagdtiger/emplacements/whatever and can go make tea, but he could still take his share of them so it would still be a viable strategy.

Thank you for taking your time to read all of this and I hope it was constructive.

Disagree with everything RN. May change my mind about forward retreat points.

imo the biggest issue with most maps is god damn garrisons

3) In combination with the above problems there are too few points on many maps and of the points there are they tend to be placed both too safely outside of the bases and the VPs too close to each other. This is something which again really affects many 1v1 maps used for 2v2, but also the linear 2v2 maps. Just imagine if VPs were placed like that, with one right outside of each team's base and then a single one in the center, on a linear map. That should make you understand how bad this kind of placement is for resource points (with the additional problem of there being too few resource points).

The solution is to both swap around & create more points on the maps that need it.

...

5) Lastly, and I think this is the least likely change because people would regard it as too drastic so I'm just throwing this out there compared to the 4 first points that I'm convinced are problems and have solutions. The amount of Victory Points should scale UP with player amount, with a base of 3. So 1v1 maps have 3, 2v2 have 5, 3v3 have 7 and 4v4 have 9. Or it could be 2v2=5, 3v3=9 and 4v4=13 (has to be 13 instead of 4x3=12 to maintain them unevenly), it depends on which kind of mathematical pattern you want to have for them. This would prevent players' complaints of obnoxious strategies for VP camping and it would create the same kind of dynamism in team games which is intended by having 3 victory points in 1v1s in the first place. You wouldn't be able to have a single player on a team lock down the entire map's victory points or a team concentrating everything they have around some centerpoint knowing it's gg because they have a jagdtiger/emplacements/whatever and can go make tea, but he could still take his share of them so it would still be a viable strategy.

One of the major issues with team games is that you have roughly the same number of capturable points as in 1v1 but twice, thrice or four times the units fighting over them. Either you reduce resource income (including manpower and pop cap) by dividing 1v1 income among all the players or you multiply the number of all points by the number of players and divide their resource output (and VP drain) accordingly. Since the latter is more likely to have larger armies, it's probably the best option.

Cache income should also be divided among all players in team games.

4) Forward retreat points screw the game up. They make it too binary: you either completely destroy his position or you get flooded off the map because his units can spend way more time on it than yours, no matter if you generally win engagements or not. And if the first 3 problems were fixed they still would, because aside from letting you place your base more forward as they do now, they would also let you place your base closer to both the center and your teammate.

The solution is to both implement the fixes to the first 3 problems and then restrict how far away from your base sector you can place a forward retreat.

I don't think forward retreat points would work well with a straight distance restriction. I'd prefer to have either a munitions/manpower payment to activate them temporarily or a munitions/manpower income drain while they're active.

Adding FRPs to the Soviets and Ostheer would also be good.

Thank you for taking your time to read all of this and I hope it was constructive.

Thank you for writing it.

1: Kind of, yeah. Some maps don't really translate well.
2: Not really.
3: Sorta. There's not a whole lot of variation in capture strategies in most maps.
4: I dunno. I do think players should be able to use allies' FRPs in some way though. (Which might resolve your issue in #2)
5: Maybe. It can be made to work, but the thing is, the more VPs, the quicker the drain. Extending the VP drain to possible 4 or 5 a tick shortens the game a great deal, especially on large maps designed to accommodate five VP points. Being pushed off the field once can be an insurmountable loss of time. It further amplifies your concerns with issue #4 as well, incidentally as a result.

I've been wishing that Relic would at least implement a real strat point and varied fuel/munitions points. The three options we have currently, not counting VPs, really cripples map design from the get go.

I mean, to enjoy the CoH1 maps as they were meant to be played I have to first make a tuning pack, and then rip and modify the maps themselves in worldbuilder. Then I sit and badger my friends to play me in custom matches.

I agree and would like to emphasise the point of map linearity. A 4v4 resembles MOBA lanes... also bearing in mind ZombiFrancis' point, the translation in how resources and upkeep is managed has changed the essence of how the game works and in turn hamstrings the map design. In CoH1 sustaining or even slightly harassing a cutoff could generate a substantial resource advantage, in turn spurring on monumental comebacks, emphasizing the importance of ones resource chain. That isn't the case any longer.

Map pool for 2v2 is ass but mainly for other reasons. #1 is a problem though.

imo the biggest issue with most maps is god damn garrisons

+1

If the south player on Lost Glider manages to get an MG into the building of the north cutoff point it's gg for the north player. Not 100% gg but for USF, OKW and UKF which can't build an early mortar or sniper.

I won 3 of my first 10 games as UKF in less than 5 minutes each because of this bullshit.

1. yep. this crowds the map and i think most maps in coh2 are just too small. i think all maps should be designed so that there are downtimes when armies maneuver. now, bigger the gamemode becomes, just more jam packed and clusterfucked it gets.

2. i see your point but as long as bases arent as far away from each other like those in SC, i do not see this strat happening.

3.no resource points should be given for free. and many maps can have better point arrangements.

4. i abhor FRP.

5. the amount that you suggest is way too much but if maps were as big as i want them to be,(a minimum size for 4v4 map would be general mud), i can see bigger game modes having more points and each points giving lesser income accordingly.

The biggest thorn in the eye for me is control points and pathing, the amount of times my jackson had to do a 180 degree turn to drive away is rather high.

This isnt a problem on every map but it still IS a problem

Problems with the maps are the "key" houses, for example Rails & Metal bottom vp house and moscow outskirts' church, the time it takes to get to these houses favours one of the spawns and once you get the house you get that flank with no real effort. Some of these houses also have more windows on a certain side which makes them even worse

Stuff like these are the problem