Login

russian armor

Best 3v3/4v4 Map?

15 Oct 2017, 09:43 AM
#1
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

Hi there,

I'd like to make some large-scale team game maps, so I'd like to ask: what map, designed for either 3v3 or 4v4 game mode, is the best designed? Also, what are the reasons behind your choice?
15 Oct 2017, 15:54 PM
#2
avatar of Rosbone

Posts: 2098 | Subs: 2

15 Oct 2017, 17:31 PM
#3
avatar of Rosbone

Posts: 2098 | Subs: 2

15 Oct 2017, 17:39 PM
#4
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2017, 17:31 PMRosbone


There are three types of play style in COH2:
1. Playing against the all knowing cheating AI. You want a lot of choke points so the cheaters cant sneak around behind you. People tend to use bridges a lot in comp stomp maps. Bots get confused by cutoff points.
2. Low Skill players. Similar to 1, you want choke points and strong places to put MGs and mortars. Many low skill players want to make a line of defense and mortar away at each other until tanks and artillery hit the field. These players dont care about cutoffs.
3. High skill players. These players hate choke points and strongholds that can house an MG and stop any attacks. These players prefer more open maps with more sight blocker objects that allow people to move freely and flank easily. These people play automatch only so they will never see your map. Cutoff placement is crucial.



:thumb:
16 Oct 2017, 11:07 AM
#5
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

I do believe I made a mistake when I did not clarify that my definition of "best" implies "well-balanced" and "competitive". :P

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2017, 17:31 PMRosbone

This poll will tell you which maps are liked/hated the most.
Kick Out 4v4 Maps


I would say that thread is much more "which 4v4 map do you dislike" than "which 4v4 map is well designed". I do, however, have a small request: could you get me a picture of the tactical map of your map (6-8) Arnhem?

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2017, 17:31 PMRosbone

There are three types of play style in COH2:
1. Playing against the all knowing cheating AI. You want a lot of choke points so the cheaters cant sneak around behind you. People tend to use bridges a lot in comp stomp maps. Bots get confused by cutoff points.
2. Low Skill players. Similar to 1, you want choke points and strong places to put MGs and mortars. Many low skill players want to make a line of defense and mortar away at each other until tanks and artillery hit the field. These players dont care about cutoffs.
3. High skill players. These players hate choke points and strongholds that can house an MG and stop any attacks. These players prefer more open maps with more sight blocker objects that allow people to move freely and flank easily. These people play automatch only so they will never see your map. Cutoff placement is crucial.

Personally, Redball has the best of all three play styles. The placement of fuel and VPs on the left and right sides pulls all initial fights to those points. There are a few sight blockers around those points so you can try to get around your opponent (Hay, trees, etc). If you are getting overwhelmed you can move to the middle and try to fortify that area. Which is nice because you get both munition points in the mid. Which is important for teching and late game arty. If you can push hard enough in mid you can get behind and flank your opponent as well. Almost the entire game happens very close to the middle of the map and usually ends with a massive arty tank battle in the mid to get the last VP. There are two domination buildings but they only cover the VPs, not important points like cutoffs or fuel. Redball also leaves nice open areas away from midline to allow massive armies to place units, tanks, etc. Some high level players hate this map because it can stall out late game and you end up having a TYPE 2 battle. MGs, ATs, and Artillery. But to me this map forces you to use every unit type you have available to you. You cant just blob OP infantry and win.


Well said, thank you for your input on map design.

If I understood your point correctly, you would say that a well-designed, competitive map has:
- several "lanes" of combat separated by sight blockers or sheer space
- well-designed cut-offs
- few buildings
- open areas to flank
16 Oct 2017, 11:14 AM
#6
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35

I do believe I made a mistake when I did not clarify that my definition of "best" implies "well-balanced" and "competitive". :P



I would say that thread is much more "which 4v4 map do you dislike" than "which 4v4 map is well designed". I do, however, have a small request: could you get me a picture of the tactical map of your map (6-8) Arnhem?



Well said, thank you for your input on map design.

If I understood your point correctly, you would say that a well-designed, competitive map has:
- several "lanes" of combat separated by sight blockers or sheer space
- well-designed cut-offs
- few buildings
- open areas to flank


You are right. This poll is to kick out maps.
Tbh one of the most favoured maps is liene Forest. You have one side with buildings, on the other side forest fights. That makes this map so good. If you don't like to fight with houses go middle and right side etc.

Yes we need space to flank and LoS blockers. Or Ele/ JT, Jp4 killing every allies tank...
( For example Redball, both hills are heaven for this TDs)

But tbh i'm not sure if you should invest/ waste your time to make a competitive 4vs4 map.
There is no plan to add new 4vs4 maps to the automatch pool
.

We have atm 14 4vs4 maps and only 4 vetos.

I heared it takes like 30-60 hours to make a map.

To create a ONLY 3vs3 map would be way better, because there are only 3 maps, who are only for 3vs3( not 2vs2 or 4vs4 as well)
Its Angermunde, Oka River Winter and Lazur Factory.
But on the other side 3vs3 is the less played modus in coh2. Alot of 3 premade people search for 4vs4 as well, because better maps( it sucks to play on a 4vs4 map as 3 players...) and faster games^^
16 Oct 2017, 14:58 PM
#7
avatar of Rosbone

Posts: 2098 | Subs: 2

16 Oct 2017, 15:16 PM
#8
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Oct 2017, 14:58 PMRosbone
REDBALL EXPRESS ENGAGEMENT AREA
Here is Redball as an example:

The RED area is the main engagement area. YELLOW is open area where armies will build up mid/late game. Notice how the yellow areas are mostly open (small fences will be crushed by light vehicles by mid game). The GREEN arrows indicate cover objects. The BLUE arrows are sight blockers (Hay Stack, Scrub Bush, Tall Fence). The RED area is also encircled by fences providing cover for infantry as well.

EARLY RUSH
1. In an initial engagement you can rush the house using the fences, wall, and small hay for cover.
2. You can hide your inf behind the haystack or scrub bush to move them into the best distance from your opponent. Or use the sight blocker to try and get behind your opponent (flank).
3. You can just line up MGs around the perimeter fences and then start mortar barrages from hell.

All of the basic play styles will work well here. The RED area perimeter really could use a few more sight blockers and also be more balanced from top to bottom. Notice there are NO large sight blockers on the southern perimeter.

MID GAME SIGHT BLOCKERS / COVER
All of the small fences are easily destroyed by light vehicles. Many of the haystacks may also get destroyed by mid game. This is a problem. Since mid game and on, the map will favor long range units. Try to design your cover or sight blockers to last until a certain time of the game. Use fences if they should be destroyed early, use walls if you want the cover to last for a while, etc. Use Scrub bushes if you want your sight blockers to last until late game etc.

LATE GAME
Most of the objects in the large YELLOW areas will be crushed by late game. This will give your tanks, infantry, AT guns, forward HQ areas a place to exist and function smoothly without blocking each other. There is nothing worse than trying to retreat a tank into a giant mess of garbage and losing the tank.

Just behind the yellow areas should be more large sight blocker areas in case you need to retreat, you can move a small distance and hide behind the sight blocker as you move away.

ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
This is just an example of what is good about Redball. It is not perfect. And if all maps looked like Redball it would be very boring.


The problem is that faction balance comes in as well. a sturmpio will win on this fuel always. There is no way. You can put your IS in greencover and you will still lose vs a sturmpio^^

And well lategame you can't flank the heavy Tanks. Also pakplay is great and light vehicle is hard to use on this map. With 1 pak you can cover almost fuel and vp^^
16 Oct 2017, 16:14 PM
#9
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 465

i dont think you should be asking about map design. when most of the time its faction match ups that make a good map look broken.

forward retreat points are the main culprit. planing your attacks with recon means nothing nowdays.

16 Oct 2017, 19:55 PM
#10
avatar of Rosbone

Posts: 2098 | Subs: 2

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

413 users are online: 2 members and 411 guests
Crecer13, NorthWeapon
15 posts in the last 24h
41 posts in the last week
95 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44643
Welcome our newest member, Leiliqu96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM