Fields of Winnekendonk

A few things I would change.

In general, I think this map favors allies, especially Ostheer has a hard time on it. Not many long range encounters and MGs and Paks are hard to use. More so from the north than from the south. This is partly because the fuel cutoff is very hard to take back if lost. Enemies can hide in green cover(green area) and surprise you and force you to fight in close range without MG support. Moving the cutoff slightly back so would soften this problem.



The two cutoffs for one side are unnecessary. You basically have to hold too many points to get to the fuel. (Once again difficult for Ostheer) Also, one cutoff per side is more than enough. If you want only one safe point shift the cutoffs a bit (blue).



Left and right sides are a pathing nightmare. If you want to use your tanks other than on the main road it's terrible. Cleaning these areas up a bit would help (left-right ammunition and victory point).

A few things I would change.

Thanks for the feedback

Funny that, when starting with the map, I was actually concerned that it would turn out too OH favored due to the long lines of sight. But then again, the final map did undergo a lot of changes, so...

I actually updated the map already from the feedback I gathered from streams (see below).

Just to make discussion easier, I'll use these tags for the points:



Regarding your points:

Cut-off A': So, the problem are units hiding in the green circle? I don't see a problem with moving the capping circle, but I'm not sure that helps much, really. Btw., wouldn't attacking from the Eastern gap (with the trough) be a good idea then?

In the new version, I replaced the bushes between your black arrows with something non-sightblocking (see below), so the Northern team has a better visibility towards that point. I could move the trees NW of the green circle a bit further W to make hiding harder and less efficient.

Cut-offs B/B': Ok, I don't feel strongly about those, so if the consensus is that they should loose their cut-off-ishness, that's ok. That said, I checked a lot of games on stream and while it happens that the opposing team attacks that point, it is almost always taken back rather quickly due to the proximity to the base (ok, unless there is a huge skill gap).

What the idea about this point is, that it gives some more incentive to not ignore the center of the map really, so...

Regarding your last point: I decluttered the edges of the map somewhat (in particular in the W); I can check if I can move stuff a little around in the East as well (well, I guess that would be mostly the flags...)

I'd be happy if you check out the new version in workshop.

To summarize the changes:


Most fundamental changes are around Brönkshof, which several players said is a bit cluttered in the current version:



This way the northern team actually has a longer line of sight towards the fuel point (somewhat more similar for the southern team towards the eastern fuel point).

Further changes:







You'd think this helps?

Just keep in mind that removing too many sight blockers will open the map too much making snipers more dominate in teams games as well as long range heavy tanks more dominate which in most cases spoils most games.

You'd think this helps?

Just looked over the new map and it looks good so far.
I just checked the cutoffs A and A` again and while it helps to remove the sight blockers I still think there is a unbalance between south and north. I compared the with of the entrance and if I am not mistaken the southern one is wider. (Especially when the cover gets crushed) I think you can test this better in the worldbuilder, and if its the case slightly move the trees/bushes.




Regarding the West and East, West looks much better now. I would still like the East to have a bit more room for a wide flank with a tank.
Eastside has a much wider area to go along the edge of the map. I think a viable tactic should be to send the medium tanks on the flanks once TDs and Paks dominate the more open areas around C and A. Its possible right now, but pathing is restricting. A medium tank flanking along the edge to secure/cap the VPs is a good tactic that should be a bit easier. So I suggest this (move map edge, clear up the red area a bit):



Regarding the cutoffs, as you said they are retaken almost every time so whats the point of keeping them? The incentive to go mid would be still there because that's the only place were teamplay is possible. So every coordinated attack most likely goes throw mid. Also, the layout would be more intuitive because it follows a more standard map design. But overall this is just a minor thing you can leave it as is.

Just looked over the new map and it looks good so far.
I just checked the cutoffs A and A` again and while it helps to remove the sight blockers I still think there is a unbalance between south and north. I compared the with of the entrance and if I am not mistaken the southern one is wider. (Especially when the cover gets crushed) I think you can test this better in the worldbuilder, and if its the case slightly move the trees/bushes.

Thanks for checking this out. Yes, I think the entrance indeed is wider in the south, I'll check if I can easily make this more similar in the North.

Regarding the West and East, West looks much better now. I would still like the East to have a bit more room for a wide flank with a tank.

Ok, I think I understand a little bit better what you mean there. Regarding the area you hatched in red: I guess the easiest solution there would be to replace the birch trees with stuff that is suceptible to medium crush, so medium tanks an up would just plow through there.

Not quite sure about the southern map edge; erm, I mean, not sure what the problem there should be for pathing. I think the tree there is actually medium crush, and anything that isn't should be far enough away from the edge. I'm traveling this week, I'll check this out soon (TM).

Regarding the cutoffs, as you said they are retaken almost every time so whats the point of keeping them?

Well, I mean they are rarely held for an extended period of time. Like, surely it will interrupt the flow of resources briefly and the opponents need to divert resources to capture it back, but they rarely seem to be held for extended periods of time.

Where I think this point helps is the situation where e.g. the southern team digs in with a forward base around point X, significantly increasing the pressure it can put on the western fuel and cut-off A. In this case the northern team still can attack B (in conjunction to the fuel and A)...

Hey thank you for your time and feedback!

As i saw you are already working on it. I know from PM, that you reworked kind of this all already, but I could not include it in the latest patch.

Pls when this map is reworked, give me a fulllist of all made changes, so that Relic and Me can overlook it. Thank you.

Updated the version in the workshop now. Changes to the previous workshop version:

Made the gap at the northern cut-off whider (now matches the gap on the other side reasonably well):


Also, decluttered West and East further (specifically by replacing several hedgerows with stuff that can be crushed by medium vehicles; turns out there are not that many bushes that block sight but are medium crush...). The top-views below show the "precise maps" for medium pathfinding:

Live version (West):


New version (West):


Live version (East):


New version (East):

Updated the version in the workshop now. Changes to the previous workshop version:

Made the gap at the northern cut-off whider (now matches the gap on the other side reasonably well):


Also, decluttered West and East further (specifically by replacing several hedgerows with stuff that can be crushed by medium vehicles; turns out there are not that many bushes that block sight but are medium crush...). The top-views below show the "precise maps" for medium pathfinding:

Live version (West):


New version (West):


Live version (East):


New version (East):

I need a steamworkshop link This is not working:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387385473

I need a steamworkshop link This is not working:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387385473

Ok, will check this evening...

I need a steamworkshop link This is not working:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1387385473

Check again, I think it should work now (apparently I had to accept STEAMs changed terms of usage for the upload to complete).

Btw, any idea if the map would work as 3v3 map? I added the additional starting points here (the area around the starting points is not cleaned up and doesn't look nice yet and I also have to redo the minimap...

Check again, I think it should work now (apparently I had to accept STEAMs changed terms of usage for the upload to complete).

Btw, any idea if the map would work as 3v3 map? I added the additional starting points here (the area around the starting points is not cleaned up and doesn't look nice yet and I also have to redo the minimap...

Hmmm

Updated again, I made the two trees in front of the northern base less tall to less obstruct the view to the base of the western player of the north team:

Hmmm

I guess the fence you were talking about in your PM is the part west of the western fuel?

Updated and added a break here:

I guess the fence you were talking about in your PM is the part west of the western fuel?

Updated and added a break here:

I was talking about this here:
http://prntscr.com/k83rws

That a pak can move through it as well. In livegame it was not possible at all.
I had no time yet to check the new version.
But i will

That a pak can move through it as well. In livegame it was not possible at all.
I had no time yet to check the new version.
But i will

Ugh, in the new version the Pak40 and Zis-3 fit, the QF6 did not (who would have guessed that that's the whidest...) Updated now so all of them will go through that gap.

Ugh, in the new version the Pak40 and Zis-3 fit, the QF6 did not (who would have guessed that that's the widest...) Updated now so all of them will go through that gap.

Is there a list somewhere of how big a path needs to be for units to pass thru?

Quick testing showed these crazy results:

EDIT (7/24):
HOLE SIZE NEEDED TO PASS THRU
1 METER
OST Pak40
SOV ZiS-3
OKW Rak 43

3 METER
SOVIET M42
USF M1 57mm
BRIT QF6

Thats right, the tiny M42 needs a bigger hole than a ZiS or Pak40

I saw from the map size, that acutally its a very big map, right?
I could think about making a rework 3vs3 from it tbh.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1442694612

In case we go for it, don't forget to make all changes on the 3vs3 version as well.

I saw from the map size, that acutally its a very big map, right?
I could think about making a rework 3vs3 from it tbh.

I went as far as to say it could be a 4v4 map in a post a month or so ago. But I like small maps and the frenzied action

I saw from the map size, that acutally its a very big map, right?
I could think about making a rework 3vs3 from it tbh.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1442694612



In case we go for it, don't forget to make all changes on the 3vs3 version as well.

Well, the "map size" is deceiving as that includes everything, in particular the non-playable area. Due to the landscape being pretty open in the lower Rhineland I added more outside area to the map to achieve the typical long viewlines (if a player decides to tilt his camera, that is...).

The playable area itself is roughly the same as that of the larger maps in the 2v2 pool (similar to e.g. Moscow).

That said, the frontline could be somewhat longer as the bases are in corners rather than along the sides, which I think might make it suitable for 3v3.

Yes, of course I would update the map with the same updates the 2v2 received. However, in order to reduce the work on my end, it would be great if we can sort of somewhat settle for the changes there first. I made the 3v3 version mostly as a mock-up so you could try out how the battles work out with 6 players.

3 METERS
SOVIET M42
USF M1 57mm
BRIT QF6

Thats right, the tiny M42 needs a bigger hole than a ZiS or Pak40

Everyone knows that when it comes to penetrating holes it´s not the size that matters.