Man there's some terrible 4v4 maps out there...

Been getting back into CoH2 for a while, just some 4v4 silliness that you don't have to take seriously.

But man... even when I'm not taking it seriously, there are some terrible, terrible 4v4 maps, from the tedious lane gameplay of Red Ball Express to the MG spam hell of Montargis region (where my team seems to be allergic to taking the fuel points, which you know, whether you're axis or allies, is how you win in the end), balance in 4v4 may not be intended, but the maps just make things worse.

Redball express is just terrible.

I won't disagree, but then again, how exactly can a 4v4 map not be terrible?

What features would a non-terrible 4v4 map exhibit?

Bad 4v4 maps include:
Lorch assault
Montargis region
General mud
Hill 331
Vielsalm

Those are the worst imo

As a rule of thumb, if the map in question existed in the map-pool of CoH1 (e.g., Montargis, Red Balls, Hill 331), just veto it. This is because these maps:
- Lack cover (which is needed for snipers, mgs, etc)
- Have a completely different resource allocation system
- Most of them are too crowded, even by 3v3 standards
- Were never designed with Forward-Retreat-Points or JT/Elefant in mind

Let those ghosts hang back in the closet. If you want to play these maps, just fire up CoH1 and experience them the way they were meant to be.

Good maps are:
- Wide enough to allow for flanks (and prevent MG lockdown)
- Short enough to make FRP rince-repeat cheese less powerful
- Allow the players to utilise almost the entire available territory (e.g,. Lienne forest is notorious for the often-neglected forest region)
- Have reasonably-well contestible resource points (Steppes - good. Lorch - baaaad)
- Don't have all resources clumped up together (Montargis, wtf?)
- Don't have mud everywhere, just for the express purpose of advertising the mud mechanic

e.g., Hill 400 would have been a perfect map, if not for the inclusion of the maphack watchtowers (and the prominence of mortar pits/Walking stuka)

Bad 4v4 maps include:
Lorch assault
Montargis region
General mud
Hill 331
Vielsalm

Those are the worst imo

Yeppers.

At first I read "best", my head tilted, and then I read your message properly.

They are all fine and 4v4 is a fun mode.

In my opinion, most of 4v4 balance issues have their roots in poor map design.
Map designers probably worked without much communication with faction/unit designers.

What can you really do in a game that doesn't have strat points for cutoffs?

I think 4v4 maps as a result have to utilize points like the repair/medic points, the maphax towers, and such or else the maps end up being big empty territory points with little to no strategic value. The only map that has really succeeded in avoided those points without sacrificing map playability is Steppes.

For instance, I think Steppes is pretty much the skeleton, the empty canvas, to what most 4v4s should be designed around. So the best we've got is something that looks like a placeholder for alpha testing. (Protip, that's what Steppes was.)

oh, oh, oh if you wanna see bs maps i encourage to play some 2v2. Dusseldorf, Gelsenkirchen Rafinery, Luvnest, Trois, Ettelburck Station, Moscow outskirts (if you are in north), and few others.

Soooo i wouldn't compain so much boiz, some people have worse

Steppes is and will be my favorite map of all times in coh2

Bad 4v4 maps include:
Lorch assault
Montargis region
General mud
Hill 331
Vielsalm

Those are the worst imo

Bingo, these maps are complete cancer for 4v4. Montagris region being the worst offender. It was a terrible map for coh1, not sure why it made it into coh2. Lorch assault is not far behind. I don't think general mud is that bad or probably the least worst offender.

Problems with 4v4 maps is they are designed to accommodate extra players and the map designers thought the best way was to increase map length over width. This does nothing for 4v4 except give even greater advantage to factions with FHQ. Hill 400 is a map that is designed to promote width over length for a positive gaming experience.

Some maps go overkill on buildings and structures - lorch assault is the perfect example of this. Some 4v4 maps that achieved a good balance of open space and structures would be Lienne Forest or City 17.

Steppes is good because its a blank canvas. Typically, axis should win on this map in 4v4 but have less of an advantage on this map when its 3v3.

RBE is a coh1 3v3 map. It works great for 3s but not so much 4s due to 'lane play' and few flank routes. Also tends to be axis favored, especially when played as a 4v4 map.

Does it seem to anyone else that since the brits dropped, brit maps come up like 3x as much as normal? I swear 50% of my matches end up on Port of Hamburg, and I hate that map so much now. Same with Redball, which came with the brits too, I think. Did they tweak the map selection to favor newer maps over old ones?

Cool, i'm not the only person who is paranoid about Port of Hamburg over-selection. I even got Vielsam out of my veto list, yet, all i play in 4on4 is Hamburg, Hamburg, Hamburg, Hamburg! Rush the buildings with MGs! Argh!

Does it seem to anyone else that since the brits dropped, brit maps come up like 3x as much as normal? I swear 50% of my matches end up on Port of Hamburg, and I hate that map so much now. Same with Redball, which came with the brits too, I think. Did they tweak the map selection to favor newer maps over old ones?

Only so many vetoes. After playing City 17 and Red Ball Express a billion times something newer can be preferable. Not to mention Montargis, Hill 331, and Vielsam.

Pretty much any new map gets the better chance on virtue of being new and bad instead of old and bad.

Only so many vetoes. After playing City 17 and Red Ball Express a billion times something newer can be preferable. Not to mention Montargis, Hill 331, and Vielsam.

Pretty much any new map gets the better chance on virtue of being new and bad instead of old and bad.

It's not that Port of Hamburg is the worst map, so I put the vetoes on something like Montargis. Then every game plays exactly the same on Hamburg with mg spam and brits putting mortars pits all over their side of the river. Boring as fuck. I guess other people do the same thing and it ends up being one of the least vetoed maps... shame.

Atleast city 17 is big enough to flank on and has different battle lines, I can't remember a single time port of Hamburg wasn't either split down the middle, or one team was pinned in their base.

Does it seem to anyone else that since the brits dropped, brit maps come up like 3x as much as normal? I swear 50% of my matches end up on Port of Hamburg, and I hate that map so much now. Same with Redball, which came with the brits too, I think. Did they tweak the map selection to favor newer maps over old ones?

Port of hamburg? Honestly I haven't rolled this map yet. And I usually play with no vetos in team games. For me red ball, steppes and ettelbruck are most common.

I honestly don't mind port of Hamburg. It can be frustrating late game with artillery and keeping infantry alive but the early game I find fun. If they rush the house you get mortars (rip Brits/OKW).

Artillery becomes pretty insane on that map though.

Yeah, Port is campy but there are worse maps. Port is somewhere in the middle.

Redball should be 3v3 only and they should chuck Vielsalm and Montargis Region in the bin.

As Gdot pointed out a lot of maps are too long and not wide enough giving MASSIVE advantages to factions with forward retreat points.

I don't understand why there aren't more narrow but wide maps in the pool. There's no tactical advantage or gameplay reason to keep scaling up both dimensions of the map, it just makes retreats take longer and waste time. And Redball is bad, breaking the map into narrow lanes with no interaction with one-another for flanking was just asking for MG lockdowns.