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

Call me crazy but I actually miss steel pact the most ever since Coh. It was the double 2vs2 fast paced, constant action that made it great. Surely it might not be the balanced map at all for coh2 but I would gladly trade it for multiple of bad maps mentioned above, making room to vetos for those of you who don´t like it. I believe some of the less popular commanders like feuersturm or urban defense might even be seen were this map in the game.

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.

I wouldn't say there is no interraction now that we have mortar meta in the early game and rocket artillery meta in the late game. Mg lockdowns are out of question for just about same reason.

It's true though that map that has one additional horizontal lane of strategic points just to make retreat longer is stupid.

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.

There is actually a credible reason for doing this. A map that was very wide would have a tendency to turn into a long thin engagement which each player against their opposite number, and a player on one wing would struggle to help an ally on the other. Building the map with depth allows the battle to have a discernible forward and rear. It lets a rhythm develop where allies spell each other holding the front, and generally offers them more opportunity to synergise and interact; one might use a semi-defunct light vehicle in the late game to guard an ally's artillery, for example.

Redball is very similar to a 3v3 lane map that came with Dawn of War, and I think it was intended to be so. The laning is different there than in CoH and CoH2 because of the destructability of terrain, but it's still a particular style of play that not everyone likes. And seeing as it is aimed so specifically at 3v3, it might not be appropriate for 4v4 at all.

i like montargis...

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)



Yeppers.

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

Steel pact from Coh1 was my favourite map. Short enough, wider, it was funny to play on it.

Steel pact from Coh1 was my favourite map. Short enough, wider, it was funny to play on it.

I think that Steel Pact could work, if it's ported to CoH2, as long as the pathways become a bit wider. The reason is that in CoH2 we have the Walking Stuka barrage pattern, which requires the defender to sidestep to dodge it. If the Pathways remain as narrow as they are in the CoH1 version, we are going to get the "Trois Points" effect.

The reasons that CoH1 seem to be so barren of cover (especially yellow cover) are:
- CoH1 didn't have vaulting (thus, fences had to be use sparingly)
- CoH1 stealth units didn't require cover to function

While I was reminiscing about my brave storms in another thread, I mentioned the Vire River map. And seeing as I'm waffling, I thought I might as well mention here why some people like maps like Vire, and like Scheldt. Because people still shake their head in wonderment about Scheldt being popular.

The thing is that if you are not a high APM player, you approach the game in a very different way. It's valuable to you to have a few powerful chokes, because you're not going to win by micro-ing your units, you're going to win - or lose - by build choices, by timing, and by coordination with your team mates. If you win band selecting all your units and A-moving them, that is a perfect valid victory, because it means that you produced the right composition of units, you correctly predicted how the unit AI would path and target select, and you had chosen the right moment to commit to battle: either because you and your allies were confident and ready to go, or because something else happened on the battlefield that opened an opportunity.

That isn't how most of the people here play, but it is a fun and perfectly legitimate way to play, and for that reason, choke-point maps will probably always have sufficient popularity to justify keeping them in rotation.

i like montargis...

I know, it's good, right. I like all maps except Sittard Summer. I belive most of the complaints about the maps are invalid. It seems alot of complaints are about the map not supporting one's own preferred playstyle/tactic. Those are the same typ of complaints as when some think Brits shouldn't be allowed in the game.

i like montargis...

It can be a fun map yet I always seem to be on a team which cannot grasp the importance of taking and HOLDING the fuel. We'll grab it in the first few minutes then they all just wonder off and leave it.

Take the fuel win the map 99% of the time.

I think this thread could have benefited from a poll, with all the 4v4 maps in automatch listed. I could add one now, but it's probably too late, since most interested contributors will have moved on and won't vote.

i like montargis...

I guess everyone is allowed to have their opinions but this map, to my mind, is a mess. Fuel points are too close together they both frequently fall to the same team. The map encourages stupid gimmicks like partisan only armies or FHQs, or SimCity. Non-turretted vehicles have insane pathing issues, and flanking is impossible in all but the simplest of cases.

Hill 400 needs to lose the watchtowers, and then it would be great. Resource points are in contention entire game.

Steppes is ok, but definitely favors late game German heavies. Tank play is interesting and dynamic. Numerous strategies are possible.

Hill 331 does not work in COH2 at all. Differences in height only exasperate the problems with this map. Roads should at minimum not be trenches so that units can exit and enter them from anywhere along their length.

General mud is too large, and the mud is placed simply to make vehicles slow down as they approach combat. OKW FHQ has a profound impact on the way in which gameplay goes, and not a good one.

Vielsam makes no sense, and is a nightmare for non-turreted tanks because of elevation changes. Losing an ally to a drop ensures defeat as the computer continuously runs into the minefield giving CPs to a player on the other team, and giving that player extreme acceleration on their heavy tanks. Fuel is hard to contest and map is so large again that FHQs have huge impact.

Lienne Forest has a forest, we get it, but does it need to stop all light vehicle play? The city is interesting to fight for. Resource points need to be contestable, fuels outside a base partially covered by base MGs are stupid.

Lorch Assault is confusing and is boring to play. Games can end if one push is successful because a 5-cap goes into effect, which is almost 2 vps a second. That gives the other team <250 seconds to get back on the field, which sounds like a lot, but factoring in retreat times and movement that means you are looking at near certain loss if you lose your first encounter. Retreat paths are too long.

That harbor map is a camp fest, and numerous points are completely incontestable further encouraging minute 1 turtling. Narrow choke points cannot be used in 4v4 maps that are already small and funnel combat. Possible elimination of many resource points would help to slow tech speed and encourage more effective infantry play, but the ability to deny whole areas with single MGs still means light artillery would be the go to.

Essen steel works is ok, retreats are a little long without a retreat point. Why are bases so far back? Map itself allows points to remain in contention for almost entire game.

Red ball is too linear but its not that bad. Hedgerows should be removed to allow more interesting play, as it is single MGs actually contest a fuel and a VP point. Brit simcity works wonders on this map (never a good thing).

Essen steel works is ok, retreats are a little long without a retreat point. Why are bases so far back? Map itself allows points to remain in contention for almost entire game.

Essen has, just like La Gleize, Lanzerath, Hamburg etc. bad teamspots where the southern team is always in a great advantage. It's impossible to get a fuel point against OKW who play from bottom on Essen.

people misunderstood me.

montargis is a horrible map. it is uncompetitive to the max. i used to think all maps in automatch should be competitve. i used to unload on relic and horrible community maps in the pool.

but not all maps can or should be 100% competitive even possible. we need competitve maps. but there are moments in montargis, red ball and vielsalm that you cant find in competitive maps. and i like tgem for the moments.

and ppl think mapping a competitve map is simple. it never is but this is not an excuse for horrible relic maps.

i made (4)hamlet with three main open areas to encourage swings. but the shear openess of middle part and accessible cutoffs made middle dominate. to fix this, i think a solution might be closing up middle a bit so whoever owns middle cant swing so easily so they dominate sides too. but how much do i close up the middle? and how far back? because cloggig up the dead centre wont really help with the "swing" issue.

then the question is 'how much clogging would be balanced for all factions? hamlet was made for sov and ost. not for FRPs.

its a fine tuning work and when this idea of ideal balance is ephemeral, no maps can be balanced, too. (Addition) so people have to realise how much of personal preference is clouding their judgement. which i had to do recently.

I think this thread could have benefited from a poll, with all the 4v4 maps in automatch listed. I could add one now, but it's probably too late, since most interested contributors will have moved on and won't vote.

I'd disagree, my intention was simply a grumble about some of the 4v4s I've been having. I really doubt they'll ever be fixed, or many more interesting maps added.

My top list

Montargis - for reasons that have been well discussed.

Steppes - because time and again I'm placed to fight on that fricking island.

City 17 - I dunno why, but with bases a long way away and not much opportunity for interesting gameplay, I just find my games become a slug fest.

Hamburg - Seems to be decided in the first 5 minutes in my experience. Never seen a comeback, usually has a lot of drops.

Hills maps - Never had a very good game on either.

Maps that I actually like.

Lienne Forest - I know... I know... but I usually (when my team aren't completely stupid) have a good time on this map.

Lorch Assault - Likewise, the city fighting and broad front is pretty enjoyable.

General Mud - I dunno why, but I also generally have a good time on this map too.

Steppes - When I'm not fighting on that damn island.

All of the 4v4 maps are garbage, but it doesnt have to be that way. All of the 3v3 maps are garbage, it doesnt have to be that way. More than half of the 2v2 maps are garbage, it doesnt have to be that way. A lot of the 1v1 maps are garbage, it doesnt have to be that way.

Making maps is hard but no effort directly from relic has been seriously focused on maps. This is the most map dependent RTS ever made and they dont understand how important the maps are. Ive been raging about this for 8 years...

Rage over.

We have two map making tournaments coming up in the near future. Hopefully, some of these maps can be entered into the match making pool as it has become stale.

Its not enough to add more maps. Relic has to have the foresight to REMOVE maps that are garbage from a flow, fun and tactical perspective. Rotating maps out that are good (community maps) just because they want to rotate maps makes no sense. (talking ladder only)

They have to be smart enough and technically literate enough to recognize maps that suck and REMOVE them from ladder permanently if no changes are made.

They dont do this in any serious way. An entire aggressive campaign from Relic to OVERHAUL not just add maps to the ladder must be undertaken to fix the issues with the map pool. Until that, a map contest will only marginally help. The effort will not be worth the gains. And it hurts me the most to say that.

I dont want to destroy the will for people to map and hold contests but ive been doing this since day 1, and this has been reality, unless Relic changes their approach to the COH franchise, these hard facts will not change.

I'd disagree, my intention was simply a grumble about some of the 4v4s I've been having. I really doubt they'll ever be fixed, or many more interesting maps added....

You're hopefully wrong on that one, since our mapmaking team are in touch with Relic.

In Summer 2015, our mapmakers did a lot of work with Relic on revising 1v1 maps, prior to OCF.

Its not enough to add more maps. Relic has to have the foresight to REMOVE maps that are garbage from a flow, fun and tactical perspective. Rotating maps out that are good (community maps) just because they want to rotate maps makes no sense. (talking ladder only)

They have to be smart enough and technically literate enough to recognize maps that suck and REMOVE them from ladder permanently if no changes are made.

They dont do this in any serious way. An entire aggressive campaign from Relic to OVERHAUL not just add maps to the ladder must be undertaken to fix the issues with the map pool. Until that, a map contest will only marginally help. The effort will not be worth the gains. And it hurts me the most to say that.

I dont want to destroy the will for people to map and hold contests but ive been doing this since day 1, and this has been reality, unless Relic changes their approach to the COH franchise, these hard facts will not change.

Actually I think the map contests are just the proof of how much of a farce the whole thing is.