Westwall

Problems with Westwall are:

The buildings on the cutoffs, making them 1hp didnt help to fix the problems, they need to be moved to other place.
The elevation makes shots collide with the terrain, needs to be flatten
The cover in the middle is a mess, needs to be reworked
Red cover outside the bases and cutoff garrisons, need to be removed
Dragon theet and the road gates mess with the vehicle pathing, probably removing them would be the best but some could be left to keep the map spirit
The forests outside the base limits the pathing
1 hp buildings are noob traps, buildings should be 25% or 50% hp

Problems with Westwall are:

The buildings on the cutoffs, making them 1hp didnt help to fix the problems, they need to be moved to other place.
The elevation makes shots collide with the terrain, needs to be flatten
The cover in the middle is a mess, needs to be reworked
Red cover outside the bases and cutoff garrisons, need to be removed
Dragon theet and the road gates mess with the vehicle pathing, probably removing them would be the best but some could be left to keep the map spirit
The forests outside the base limits the pathing
1 hp buildings are noob traps, buildings should be 25% or 50% hp

Yes i was thinking as well about
a) remove the buildings from the cutoff complete
b) give it 20 % health or something, so 1 nade will not kill it.

c) if it goes for option a, ofc for the vp houses 20% health then.

I have no problem to have some redcover in each map tbh.

I agree the middle vp things are bad for paks and tank shoots.

"Dragon theet and the road gates mess with the vehicle pathing, probably removing them would be the best but some could be left to keep the map spirit
The forests outside the base limits the pathing" I have sadly no idea what you mean, screenshot?

By dragonteeth I mean this, the tank traps, there are only a few paths for vehicles to pass and they are very narrow, if you are chasing or getting chased and you want to scape, its disaster.











Probably the north and South gate should be wider and the dragonteeth some be removed and some spaced to make light/mediums pass trough them.

The south base exit to the north is wider than the northern base to south, so I think it should be wider

This is the south one



This is the north one



About the houses, instead of deleting them could be moved to the position of the middle, across the red cover road, because I remember when the map was released, losing that garrison ment instantly losing the game, specially because there was a red cover road and you couldnt get to it.





About the red cover roads, I wasnt talking about all the roads in the map, only the ones that are outside tha base, If enemy takes houses (specially the cutoff ones, wich happened when the map was released), its really hard to get out of your base





Paths for infantry in the forests next to munition could be opened so they can be used for more flanking and change a little bit how the map is played





The middle heavy cover rocks are a mess



And finally the elevations that make shots collide with terrain

Pls explain it more why you disagree to westwall. I want to understand it. And maybe read the thread here as well pls

The big ones:
1. awkward houses (lowering hp doesn't fix the problem because there's only small arms during the early game)
2. extreme cutoffs
3. it's a clusterfuck, too many objects all over the place vehicle pathing is a nightmare, maps have to give room to maneuver

honestly I can't think of a single redeeming feature. It's trash and should be removed asap.

Also Tric's (very vague) statements about players demanding maps that allow meta strategies are false. The most hated maps are actually the ones narrowing possible strategies down. (eg. house heavy maps that force flamethrowers and mortars-stalingrad, la gleize 1v1, lost glider, ettelbrück, trois ponts or extremely open maps like Halbe that force snipers)

At the same time the majority of "beloved" 1v1 maps allow for a big variety of approaches. Even if Trics assumptions were true (which they are not) he would still be overstating the importance of strategy/macromanagement in coh2. The game is mostly about tactical positioning and that's what maps should be made for.

It's not a mapmapkers job to force exotic strategies. He should try to create a well balanced playground with as few restrictive aspects as possible. I think a good map is actually defined to a large extent by the absence of certain elements including:

key positions that have to be rushed (northern base cut off house/southern fuel house semois), groupings of buildings (Poltawa mid, la gleize middle area), elevation (Minsk ammo points), groupings of obstacles disrupting pathing (tank traps on westwall, trees on minsk), deep snow/mud (luckily nowhere to be found in the current 1v1/2v2 map pool), overly exposed cut offs (old langres north, current kholodny east), practically indestructible stone houses (middle building on Düsseldorf), non standard amount of ressource points (Crossroads-this one is debatable, I think 8 regular ress points could lead to interesting gameplay with slower teching but I suppose most people disagree), any kind of bridge (Trois Ponts-you only have to read the name to know the map is shit), other "exotic" objects that lead to confusing pathing and LoS (castle on eindhoven)and lots of other stuff...

Keep in mind I picked the most glaring examples I could think of disregarding whether the maps are currently in the pool.

On other maps the cutoffs are even more strong! On westwall you don't lose your muni and fuel with 1 single cutoff.
But yes i like many called changes.
I hope after LordRommel is ready to work back(atm ill) he probably will show up here.

Changes:
- Remove some redcover from the bases
- Remove alot of dragonteeth, I mean this, the tank traps
- Bunker north still not in playable area, and the Interactivity Stage Editor has holes in it in the south that eat the camera.
- Open for the muni 1 more flank in the wood/hedges
- Reduce the elevations around the middle map.
- Increase the HP from the both Vp houses to 20-25% health, so not a single riflende kills it.
- Maybe remove the houses on the cutoff, but replace it with green cover?( or another good solution)

I disagree to swich the houses to the fuel points. I don't like to have a house direct at your fuel tbh.

--> Yellow

Pls VOTE

Hey motherlickas my names A_E and I'm here to save Westwall.



Do this to make it less bad:



Before and after:

Show Spoiler

Changes:

• Rotate the map slightly anti-clockwise so you can do point 2. and make it a west vs. east map.
  
• Cut the current victory point positions from the map to reduce around 10% of the playable area making the map more streamlined and better suited to 1v1 automatch.
  
• This also nerfs the usefulness of those two story garrisons which formally overlooked victory points (ew) and now overlook roads. As they're now not overlooking a point you can give them more health again now.
  
• Make the current high muni points the new victory point - these are better suited as victory point locations, nerf some of the green cover a little also.
  
• I moved the fuel points into the centre of their new designated area.
  
• I changed how the cutoffs work - to make muni's easier to cutoff and fuels harder.

Joking aside, just give the above a go, I absolutely guarantee you it would be a better map that way.

- Reduce the elevations around the middle map.

There is a map in rotation now that the files are named 8p_WestWall (Vielsalm). Maybe use the ditch configuration as opposed to the hill config in the 1v1 version?

- Increase the HP from the both Vp houses to 20-25% health, so not a single riflende kills it.
- Maybe remove the houses on the cutoff, but replace it with green cover?( or another good solution)

My goto response to buildings these days, add shot blockers on the base side to aid in attacking an enemy garrisoned building. Could increase building HP since it will be easier to attack. YELLOW are sight blockers. GREEN is green cover. RED flanks.

Regarding the cutoff houses - I think adding some health (20% ish as you suggested is probably a good amount) is the way to go. Currently they are nothing more than bait to use against less experienced players to get a cheeky wipe but 20% is enough to reward you for taking them but easy to enough to demolish with a single mortar - even moreso after their garrison damage got buffed.

Houses need to go from the cutoffs, no matter if they have 1 or 100 hp, I would move them to other side like I pointed in the pictures but if that cant be done removed them and replace them with some green cover, not that much, since its a cutoff and there is a red cover road to cross to get to it.

Hey motherlickas my names A_E and I'm here to save Westwall.



Do this to make it less bad:



Before and after:

Show Spoiler

Changes:

• Rotate the map slightly anti-clockwise so you can do point 2. and make it a west vs. east map.
  
• Cut the current victory point positions from the map to reduce around 10% of the playable area making the map more streamlined and better suited to 1v1 automatch.
  
• This also nerfs the usefulness of those two story garrisons which formally overlooked victory points (ew) and now overlook roads. As they're now not overlooking a point you can give them more health again now.
  
• Make the current high muni points the new victory point - these are better suited as victory point locations, nerf some of the green cover a little also.
  
• I moved the fuel points into the centre of their new designated area.
  
• I changed how the cutoffs work - to make muni's easier to cutoff and fuels harder.

Joking aside, just give the above a go, I absolutely guarantee you it would be a better map that way.

I demand my genius is recognised!

I demand my genius is recognised!

In old version each side has 5 normal points. On your new version each side has only 4 strategy points.
On the screens both fuels are looking stronger for the east/south side.
And the vp change just make it now even more that each side has 1 save vp ;so longer games.
But thank you for your input nevertheless.

I demand my genius is recognised!

The fuel points need to be equally accessable otherwise the map will always play the same.
Consider maps like crossing and crossroads where there is a choice of fuels and compare them to maps where the fuel choice is locked in.

Westwall has a lot of issues but one of its biggist faults is it is boring as shit and entirely predictable.

Sry for the later answer.
I was ill the last days. I have started with the rework today. For the moment i'm working in the list of the post here:

Changes:
- Remove some redcover from the bases
- Remove alot of dragonteeth, I mean this, the tank traps
- Bunker north still not in playable area, and the Interactivity Stage Editor has holes in it in the south that eat the camera.
- Open for the muni 1 more flank in the wood/hedges
- Reduce the elevations around the middle map.
- Increase the HP from the both Vp houses to 20-25% health, so not a single riflende kills it.
- Maybe remove the houses on the cutoff, but replace it with green cover?( or another good solution)

Green stuff is already done. For the last point i cant see any solutions here. On one side it seems to me - basing on the comments - that the are more or less a problem of individual players. On the other side i cant see any benefit in removing the buildings. Sure. They protect one cutoff. Back in the old days people complain that the map cutoffs were a problem. Now you can fight for two different cutoffs and anyone is happy?

...

No but it is our job to make sure that all strategies are viable in a capacity. The more we just make giant open maps, you run into a multitude or problems. The more you make it flank heavy, means there are more LoS blockers which means CQC units are better. The flanks are also able to be destroyed, houses, or groves, which are another whole list of problems.

It is not our problem, that the game doesn't have native garrison clears for all factions, it is not our problem that not all factions have snares, it is not our problem that snipers exist (and not for all factions), it is not our problem indirect fire is not readily available for all factions, it is not our problem when counters to units do not function correctly. These are balance problems.

This map has LESS problems then langreskya, and why is it more favored then? Old vcoh map and the fact its been around for ages, so all the issues people play around, and just except them as is.

Once again you talk about your feelings, about what you want, yet ignore all the things wrong with faymonville, langres, kholodny, crossroads, ect;

All of these maps had/have issues that were already discussed. Your complaints mean nothing as you know nothing about what the editor is/isn't capable of. It is just a fact, you couldn't even begin to tell me the issues on any of the 4 maps I mentioned because you just except their design flaws as what they are and move on.

Hell you didn't even mention arnhem, and again, all the things you complain about, are balance issues. Not map issues. The buildings wouldn't be an issue in the maps you describe if all factions actually had clears for them native to their builds and not entirely stuck into commander choice. If anyone complains about pathing on westwall thats your fault, you overextended, you got caught out, thats you, not the map. (can it be better? sure. but saying its trash and should be removed ASAP, well this map has far less issues than langres, so maybe that should go too then?) You know that the things VERY CLEARLY block pathing, yet you complain when you go to far and die? :thinking: Maybe you should take your tactical positioning point and think on it, cause it seems you tactically mis-positioned and got punished.

And the other point "maps are disliked cause they force 1 playstyle" is again balance. When you play a garrison heavy map with UKF your choices are severely limited. How is that maps fault again? You want all maps to be the same because of variety, yet all I see is mobile defense every single game because nothing punishes over extension of vehicles, currently westwall does that. Can you still play mobile defense? Sure, is it arguably a different playstyle because of map design? yes. Isn't that the entire point of your post? You are exactly the person that I vaguely call out. "I want different things!!!11!! But not too different cause then I'll lose and its all the maps fault111!!1!"

Things that are the maps fault? Timings on points to be far for all players, harass-able high priority targets (cutoffs, vps, munitions/fuels), LoS mimicking, cover to be the same at all engagement zones and mirrored for fairness on the opposing side, height manipulation not blocking shot projection and room for all units to path everywhere on the map with visual clarity.

The only thing that westwall does not do well is the visual clarity and shot projection, can I path through those trees? Can I fire a pak shot past these dragons teeth? However everything else is fair, and is the same for both players. If it doesn't feel that way, maybe it is a balance issue.

Honestly, I really don't know why I waste my time on people like you. You would rather blame the map than the balance, it isn't our problem, and these maps were voted in by the community (infact when this one was in automatch, it was top 6 for almost 4 months IIRC), this one specifically judged by top 10 players before implementation. Were already tested and updated once and everyone was like "looks good" including players far above and beyond your skill level. The problem with maps in rotation is until all factions have access to the same standard tools, every time a balance patch hits this will happen (and this has been the case for the last 2 years at least). The only maps that are immune to this are the ones from the beginning of the games introduction.

What it really boils down to is that you think that the maps are the issues, when its over and over again balance. I bet you were one of the people that blamed map design when you got demo'd cause you know, thats a maps fault, or when mines were capable of one shotting squads... cause once again, the maps fault, or when stuarts religiously one shot squads... or when kubels surpressed, or isgs supressed... or the fact snipers may be strong on a map.

Houses need to go from the cutoffs, no matter if they have 1 or 100 hp, I would move them to other side like I pointed in the pictures but if that cant be done removed them and replace them with some green cover, not that much, since its a cutoff and there is a red cover road to cross to get to it.

Putting green cover there means, if you lose your cutoff, you will never get it back. If anything just damage out the houses entirely and use them as a LoS blocker, this way you can put green cover near it (rubble/debris) but not worry about blocking entrance to the house. This will give you options to flank and push into your own cutoff (cause of the LoS blocking of the house) and still have green cover to play around and contest/defend off of.

Putting green cover there means, if you lose your cutoff, you will never get it back. If anything just damage out the houses entirely and use them as a LoS blocker, this way you can put green cover near it (rubble/debris) but not worry about blocking entrance to the house. This will give you options to flank and push into your own cutoff (cause of the LoS blocking of the house) and still have green cover to play around and contest/defend off of.

I didnt propose it, it was one of the poll options for the map

https://www.coh2.org/topic/81126/westwall-poll-cutoffhouses/page/1#post_id687606

If it were for me I would move the houses to other place and add line of sight blockers near it, if the cut off stays there, and delete the red cover road ofc

...

Honestly, I really don't know why I waste my time on people like you. You would rather blame the map than the balance, it isn't our problem, and these maps were voted in by the community (infact when this one was in automatch, it was top 6 for almost 4 months IIRC), this one specifically judged by top 10 players before implementation. Were already tested and updated once and everyone was like "looks good" including players far above and beyond your skill level. The problem with maps in rotation is until all factions have access to the same standard tools, every time a balance patch hits this will happen (and this has been the case for the last 2 years at least). The only maps that are immune to this are the ones from the beginning of the games introduction.

So I just wanna emphasize to you that this is not about ego (for the most part). I actually genuinely care about the issue and I'm sure the same goes for you. I respect your work a lot. Btw I was rude towards you in twitch chat once and I apologize for that.

1. The current stats/polls prove that this is one of if not the most disliked 1v1 maps in the pool. The fact that it was voted in really only leads to the conclusion that none of the maps offered were an improvement to the pool. (granted we take popularity among players as the main indicator of quality) Please don't take this the wrong way the artistic effort and overall dedication of creating a map alone demand lots of skills.

2. You keep claiming top 10 players' authority on this issue. As if there's some kind of broad established consensus among them on the issue of maps. That's not the case. So appealing to their authority (without quoting them btw) is fallacious.

3. It's also questionable that you keep bringing up my skill level when you yourself haven't given any indication about your own experience in the game. I may be a scrub but your line of argument of "I know the big guys so go home pleb" doesn't relly have anything to do with the discussion. I'm 100% certain that even the people you test with (eg Dave) wouldn't dismiss an opinion like that. It'd be a different story if I was a forum warrior who doesn't play the game.

4. The first impressions you get from testing can be misleading. When playing Brits during the early closed alpha people in the testing group (top 10 players) were super optimistic at first that brits would become the most well designed faction in coh2...it didn't come true obviously.

All of these maps had/have issues that were already discussed. Your complaints mean nothing as you know nothing about what the editor is/isn't capable of. It is just a fact, you couldn't even begin to tell me the issues on any of the 4 maps I mentioned because you just except their design flaws as what they are and move on.

5. So which one of the problematic things I listed can't be fixed due to the editor ? This is not a rethorical question I actually wanna know. I mean for example: The editor doesn't prevent you from not putting houses next to each other or not having elevated terrain or not implementing an unusual amount of ressources ?

Once again you talk about your feelings, about what you want, yet ignore all the things wrong with faymonville, langres, kholodny, crossroads, ect;

6. I used crossroads as an example for one of my main issues with the current coh2 map pool even though it's my favorite map. I also mentioned Langres and Kholodny as examples. How do I "ignore all the things wrong with them" ?

This map has LESS problems then langreskya, and why is it more favored then? Old vcoh map and the fact its been around for ages, so all the issues people play around, and just except them as is.

7. I think it's more likely that Langres while flawed has been around for ages because it creates long and exciting games (exciting as in close).

It is not our problem, that the game doesn't have native garrison clears for all factions, it is not our problem that not all factions have snares, it is not our problem that snipers exist (and not for all factions), it is not our problem indirect fire is not readily available for all factions, it is not our problem when counters to units do not function correctly. These are balance problems.

8. Maps and balance can't be separated. You bring up the valid question of which one has to adapt. I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge that some of the balance issues won't be fixed (like snipers). On the other stuff I agree with you that balancing has to adapt to maps and not the other way around. But tbh I don't see how balance could fix any of the problems I mentioned.

I'll explain what I mean:

OH vs Sov is a fairly balanced matchup where everyone has the tools necessary to deal with every environment but bad maps are still bad maps in that matchup. Let's say you have an "urban" map. Basically any map with a high number of houses and lots of windows that are located within mg range to each other. The problem with these isn't just that you're forced to build mortars and flamethrowers. It's that especially during the early game pretty much every time a unit isn't in a house it will be in a bad spot. So everyone just sits in their respective houses. That's just not interesting gameplay wise. You can't outmaneuver a unit in a house mainly because structures still give protection below 10 range unlike normal cover. If you get in one of your opponents key houses early on you've automatically gained a massive advantage that is completely disproportionate. The flamethrower is the other extreme. It forces units out of the building immediately and allows you to take the hugely advantageous position. It's just dull when the entire gameplay is based around this.

Now if there are a couple of houses spread over the map that are "combatable" (because they have limited windows, doors or a blind spot example:faymonville) or are placed in a spot that isn't too important (example:Langres) it's actually a good thing because it gives flamers and mortars value and adds another layer to the gameplay without being too dominant.

I think that's one of the main reasons why most people hate CQC maps. Do you want close range infantry to be used more often ? Make areas with lots of green cover and los limited by hedgerows/ruins etc. Leave space to maneuver so infantry can avoid mgs. Most alleged CQC maps do the opposite and limit space as much as possible. I think Stadtschutt actually does this really well. I'm not sure if it's your map but it's definitely very good in that regard. The southern area of Lierneaux and Kholodny also comes to mind. By the way it's still possible to make close range infantry work reasonably well on open maps if you play it right. It just demands a lot more micro effort than attack moving lmgs.

I could apply this to the other points from my previous posts but you put a lot of emphasis on the matter of CQC/urban maps so I thought I'd pick up on that.

About limiting vehicle mobility and making vehicle overextension more risky by doing so: In theory you aren't wrong that this could be a method of influencing gameplay in an interesting way. However just take a look at how players react when their vehicles get stuck or slowed down by map environment. How often have you heard someone shout "PATHING!?!?!" in a stream ? It pisses people off because it's incredibly frustrating and really hard to influence as a player due to its unpredictability.

What it really boils down to is that you think that the maps are the issues, when its over and over again balance. I bet you were one of the people that blamed map design when you got demo'd cause you know, thats a maps fault, or when mines were capable of one shotting squads... cause once again, the maps fault, or when stuarts religiously one shot squads... or when kubels surpressed, or isgs supressed... or the fact snipers may be strong on a map.

I said none of this. Textbook straw man.

Could we stay on Westwall here? I cant work on the map when we start the old discussions again (map and game balance, pvp skill, ect ect).
Thx.

For anyone who is interested in the current version: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=794967218

I'll respond in PM further, and the reason is as you said clearly an concisely it wasn't about ego and do genuinely have valid points/agree on some. Your original post seemed like an off-handed remark at best.

The reason for PM is back to topic.

Appreciate the time to bring a constructive argument without emotions from either side.

Mind a lot of the response is targeted at what, is very much so, the same points i always see for the last two years.

"this map is shit"
"nobody is right but me"

so you get the same kinda generic responses without any really concise point outside of past arguments that I've had. Just a FYI. I'll reply late tonight.