Login

russian armor

Langreskaya

What do you think?
Option Distribution Votes
50%
50%
0%
0%
Total votes: 10
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
22 Jun 2018, 02:06 AM
#1
avatar of Luciano

Posts: 712

Welp, I'm going to try to contribute something to fix the maps.

Langreskaya, after the competitive tourney maps, I think it is probably one of the most balanced, so I think tweaking some things would make it better. Here are some examples.

Some people uploaded replays of how easily is to get the northern base pinned down because you can get units behind the stone walls that provide heavy cover, the bunkers dont fill a gap between the middle of them and also the red cover road makes it more difficult to get out of the base. I think making the bush walls longer and adding new ones where its marked with green, removing the stone walls, making the gap on the left base exit wider and moving the bunkers to fill all the gaps should fix this.



Removing the red cover roads outside the base exits should help to improve gameplay for northern player when its cornered into the base



Quoting @Whiteflash, I couldnt say it better.

"After much testing in the COH2 maps, I have reached the conclusion that there is no benefit to adding any elevation changes in any map created in COH2. Reason being is that the disruption of expected and reasonable gameplay under conditions where one unit fires up at another unit does not work. Rounds rarely connect and it is only a frustrating experience. COH1 did a fair job at allowing rounds to connect up hills and units to engage each other at different elevations (at times looking funky). Unless all competitive maps are going to be made perfectly flat this element of gameplay will need to be considered to flesh out the possibilities of combat and map design in COH3."

I recommend to flat these elevations to improve gameplay and avoid shots colliding with the terrain.

Northern cutoff is easier to capture than the southern one, and its always a pain for the northern player to get it back, I think moving the point a little bit to the north and removing the green cover marked with red, will help to fix this.



Same as the previous one, fix elevation to improve gameplay



Sometimes when the northern player gets to this point and makes use of these 2 heavy cover entities there, its really difficult for the southern player to make plays around that zone, plus there is a red cover between the base and the green cover so its even more difficult to get there, so making some gaps in the bush walls will create new flanking paths and will help to break the northern defense.



Removing the red cover from this area outside the base will improve gameplay for the southern player, also it will prevent chasing vehicles from getting squad wipes because they were on the red cover road.



Since there are no heavy cover sources on the other fuel point, I would like to this one to be removed, since it makes more difficult for the northern player to recover the fuel



Adding paths here will create more flanking routes, I think that will help to break that stalemate that langres always had.



So, I think all of those were the most easy ways to improve the game, I will add some others that Im not really sure how to fix/improve them or dont know at all and I will like to hear ideas

This one, I think its the most difficult one, because its really unfair for the southern player having to cross a red cover road to get to the middle vp but not for the northern player. However, the south side is the dominant one in this map most of the times.



That point almost never gets contested because its too far for the southern player and really close to the enemy base. I dont really know how to fix this but here are some proposals: move the point more to the south, move the bush walls closer to the base and move the wooden planks to the left to improve pathing.



These points get contested more often, but I feel like they could be closer to the battlefield, the area marked with green never gets to see action, I dont know how to change that but something could be done.



Happens the same with the area marked in black, that point could be moved a little bit to the left so maybe it gets to see more action



I dont know why but that area feels really messy when you start capping it at the start of the game



Well, I think thats all with Langreskaya, I will add more if I think of something else

22 Jun 2018, 02:16 AM
#2
avatar of RedxWings
Donator 11

Posts: 203 | Subs: 2

Just a small thing, should also probably make mid vp's territory shorter to avoid vet 3 major retreat point cheese.

22 Jun 2018, 02:18 AM
#3
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3692 | Subs: 1

I like all the changes except for the right fuel moving closer to the garrisons. I think it would be too easy for the northern player to hold the southern most garrison, cover the munitions, fuel, VP and a large portion of the right side of the map because of it.

For the last point on why the southern points feel messy is due to the requirement of connecting territory is non linear. Most players go for the cutoff immediatly, but that doesn't connect to the base sector.

EDIT: Furthermore on the deep north right strategic point shot, the territory to the right of there does not see a lot of play correct. For the northern player there is a fence near the vehicle entrance on that side which inhibits infantry movements (without micro because of vaulting). Removing that could potentially open that deep territory a bit more. For the southern player, there is simply no reason to go there. There is no cover to sit behind, and you're only protecting 1 strategic point and with the fence currently there your opponet will most likely not push from that deep right.
22 Jun 2018, 02:19 AM
#4
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742 | Subs: 1

Langres worked because of the triangle of +10 fuels and it struck a balance by using a +16 munitions point.

Langreskaya does not have these critical features. The cutoffs also give resources, which complicates matters further. The sooner its design abandons its predecessor, likely the better.

But a +1 about the elevation changes. It is the unfortunate reality of CoH2.
22 Jun 2018, 02:25 AM
#5
avatar of Luciano

Posts: 712

I like all the changes except for the right fuel moving closer to the garrisons. I think it would be too easy for the northern player to hold the southern most garrison, cover the munitions, fuel, VP and a large portion of the right side of the map because of it.

For the last point on why the southern points feel messy is due to the requirement of connecting territory is non linear. Most players go for the cutoff immediatly, but that doesn't connect to the base sector.


Whoops, I didnt mean to move the fuel point, only the strategic point :oops:
22 Jun 2018, 02:50 AM
#6
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1191 | Subs: 15

Reducing the elevation and the removal of the heavy cover next to the northern cut-off are changes I think everyone can get behind.

Is that north eastern standard territory point still in bunker range? That should change. Putting gaps in the northern hedge would make the cut-off harder to defend though right? Given the current balance I would be hesitant to add those.

I don't think we need to worry about moving points to unused areas of the map if it doesn't improve game play.
22 Jun 2018, 03:20 AM
#7
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1151 | Subs: 1

I generally agree w all changes except be careful not to remove too much green cover, and dont worry about removing unused areas of the map.

Agreed 100% W zombiefrancis, the COH1 resource system made langres work well. That fact wasnt considered when just remaking it in COH2 without analyzing the map.

Having said all that a focus group should be created after all these changes are made. The group would test the map thoroughly and the ladder mapper will filter bias and focus on quality, balance and flow. Based on the changes shown Luciano should be able to handle that.
22 Jun 2018, 05:31 AM
#8
avatar of Rosbone
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 1104 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 02:06 AMLuciano
Some people uploaded replays of how easily is to get the northern base pinned down because you can get units behind the stone walls that provide heavy cover, the bunkers dont fill a gap between the middle of them and also the red cover road makes it more difficult to get out of the base. I think making the bush walls longer and adding new ones where its marked with green, removing the stone walls, making the gap on the left base exit wider and moving the bunkers to fill all the gaps should fix this.


One option is to put yellow cover objects in front of the walls. So you have GREEN in the base and YELLOW outside the base. I am a fan of having objects help you fight OUT of your base.

From your base it should be:
BASE -> Green ->Yellow.

Same with garrisons by your base. Should be:
BASE -> Sight blocker -> Garrison.
22 Jun 2018, 07:14 AM
#9
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
"Thanks" for balance Luciano, but pls, dont touch maps, dont make from game, guy of Frankenshtein.
22 Jun 2018, 08:13 AM
#10
avatar of SneakEye
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 604 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 02:06 AMLuciano
Removing the red cover roads outside the base exits should help to improve gameplay for northern player when its cornered into the base
---
Removing the red cover from this area outside the base will improve gameplay for the southern player, also it will prevent chasing vehicles from getting squad wipes because they were on the red cover road.
---
This one, I think its the most difficult one, because its really unfair for the southern player having to cross a red cover road to get to the middle vp but not for the northern player. However, the south side is the dominant one in this map most of the times.


I'm concerned about removing red cover from the roads. I agree that the red cover at these places realy effects the gameplay, but I also think that roads should have consistently red cover. Maybe change the texture aswell to avoid confusion?

Keep in mind that this will effect the speed of vehicles aswell since that is linked to the type of textures. I'm cannot tell how much impact that will have at these places.
22 Jun 2018, 12:45 PM
#11
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5063 | Subs: 19

Oh dear, Langreskaya is a barrle without a ground.
I was thinking to remake it for gcs2, but after I realised how much is wrong (thx tric) on this map i stopped. Lucky that the players anyway wanted to play on KFS :)

If we go for langres, alot of more is needed on this map. Kind of the whole ress points would needed changed.

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 02:06 AMLuciano



I had no time yet to read all made changes or looking game in your version.
22 Jun 2018, 17:13 PM
#12
avatar of Luciano

Posts: 712

Oh dear, Langreskaya is a barrle without a ground.
I was thinking to remake it for gcs2, but after I realised how much is wrong (thx tric) on this map i stopped. Lucky that the players anyway wanted to play on KFS :)

If we go for langres, alot of more is needed on this map. Kind of the whole ress points would needed changed.



I had no time yet to read all made changes or looking game in your version.


We dont need to make super big changes, only the most obvious and simple like the elevation, removing the green cover from the cutoff and adding some yellow cover to the stone walls on the north spawn to improve the gameplay of all of us who play on a daily basis these maps



I'm concerned about removing red cover from the roads. I agree that the red cover at these places realy effects the gameplay, but I also think that roads should have consistently red cover. Maybe change the texture aswell to avoid confusion?

Keep in mind that this will effect the speed of vehicles aswell since that is linked to the type of textures. I'm cannot tell how much impact that will have at these places.


Those roads are almost never used by vehicles in my experience, only the road in the middle, that will stay, only the roads outside the base to prevent lockdowns
25 Jun 2018, 05:18 AM
#13
avatar of Diogenes5

Posts: 269

Can we just get rid of this map. It's fairly "balanced" but every game on this map is horrible because of the complete lack of flanking. It's a camp-fest and horrible to watch. North can cover 2 VP's from central location with most ranged units, bottom cannot because of trees and house. Every single game is just watching the north abuse COH2 mechanics while South smashes head against wall.

This map is one of THE worst in the pool.
25 Jun 2018, 10:09 AM
#14
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5063 | Subs: 19

Can we just get rid of this map. It's fairly "balanced" but every game on this map is horrible because of the complete lack of flanking. It's a camp-fest and horrible to watch. North can cover 2 VP's from central location with most ranged units, bottom cannot because of trees and house. Every single game is just watching the north abuse COH2 mechanics while South smashes head against wall.

This map is one of THE worst in the pool.


Hm, in SB you always complain how bad coh2 is at all. No idea if you really playing coh2 often.
Anhd about north side holding 2 vps? I thought after the changes south side can more easy hold 2 Vps.

And funny so for you north side is the op side?
25 Jun 2018, 21:59 PM
#15
avatar of Diogenes5

Posts: 269



Hm, in SB you always complain how bad coh2 is at all. No idea if you really playing coh2 often.
Anhd about north side holding 2 vps? I thought after the changes south side can more easy hold 2 Vps.

And funny so for you north side is the op side?


I am level 16 across all factions so yes, I know a bit about the game though I confess not as much as maybe the best players but they will probably agree as well. The north is weaker early game because how much easier it is to cut off resources because of issues already addressed. It is stronger mid and late game because of how easy it is to cover both vp's. Travel distance also favors the north in holding 2 VP's while, because of hedges, south has trouble.

Langres and Angloville are simply both horrible with the way mechanics work in COH2. They should be removed from the map pool.
26 Jun 2018, 05:06 AM
#16
avatar of Rosbone
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 1104 | Subs: 2

As an exercise and because I have years of modifying map experience:
RosboneSkaya

Completely relaid out with a long list of changes. I have a feeling it will play closer to Kholodny Ferma now? More Yin/Yang with skirmishes over center cutoffs.

- Moved VPs to normal locations.
- Moved buildings slightly.
- Added sight blockers around buildings to limit their effectiveness and allow flanking. My thought was an MG should suppress you once. You retreat. You return and flank/grenade/mortar. So the buildings still have decent vision of the map, but do not have vision at their closest base.
- Moved a shed to the north side of map to mirror south.
- Removed base GREEN cover.
- Removed all RED cover.
- Increased south base size.
- Fixed base rotations for USF.
- Optimized tile chunks, some exceeded 8 tiles/chunk. Changed to 4 or 5 with no visible quality change. :loco:
- Flattened the major hills/elevations a lot.
- Many points have sight blockers located so you can approach and take the point without being seen by buildings.




As stated above, I like to make MGs in garrisons useful but not OP. I also like the idea of limiting them a lot if close to a base. Here is an example of how I tried to implement that:

RED lines are sight blockers to allow approach to the garrison.
GREEN lines are green cover.
BLUE lines show approach paths for the blue MG garrison.
PINK lines show approach paths for the pink MG garrison.

Other options are putting sight blockers right on the building or using buildings with no windows. Both of those have their place, but just feel wrong to me in some instances. Like I said, the MG should suppress you once then move out of the garrison because it will get flanked/grenaded/mortared the next time. Thoughts?

26 Jun 2018, 09:23 AM
#17
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5063 | Subs: 19

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jun 2018, 05:06 AMRosbone
As an exercise and because I have years of modifying map experience:
RosboneSkaya

Completely relaid out with a long list of changes. I have a feeling it will play closer to Kholodny Ferma now? More Yin/Yang with skirmishes over center cutoffs.

- Moved VPs to normal locations.
- Moved buildings slightly.
- Added sight blockers around buildings to limit their effectiveness and allow flanking. My thought was an MG should suppress you once. You retreat. You return and flank/grenade/mortar. So the buildings still have decent vision of the map, but do not have vision at their closest base.
- Moved a shed to the north side of map to mirror south.
- Removed base GREEN cover.
- Removed all RED cover.
- Increased south base size.
- Fixed base rotations for USF.
- Optimized tile chunks, some exceeded 8 tiles/chunk. Changed to 4 or 5 with no visible quality change. :loco:
- Flattened the major hills/elevations a lot.
- Many points have sight blockers located so you can approach and take the point without being seen by buildings.




As stated above, I like to make MGs in garrisons useful but not OP. I also like the idea of limiting them a lot if close to a base. Here is an example of how I tried to implement that:

RED lines are sight blockers to allow approach to the garrison.
GREEN lines are green cover.
BLUE lines show approach paths for the blue MG garrison.
PINK lines show approach paths for the pink MG garrison.

Other options are putting sight blockers right on the building or using buildings with no windows. Both of those have their place, but just feel wrong to me in some instances. Like I said, the MG should suppress you once then move out of the garrison because it will get flanked/grenaded/mortared the next time. Thoughts?


Did you had a talk about this map with tric? He could give you a videolink for this map.

And i did not saw the map ingame yet, but removing the WHOLE redcover i disagree!
For base yes ok, but whole? There is a reason, why red cover is in coh.
And yes usa had problems from the base, thats why i had in worst case a solution to use sightblockers in their base xD. But maybe your change works too.
26 Jun 2018, 09:26 AM
#18
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5063 | Subs: 19



I am level 16 across all factions so yes,

Langres and Angloville are simply both horrible with the way mechanics work in COH2. They should be removed from the map pool.


1. I can / could not know it, because you have no steamid or playercard here. Sorry.

2. Langres and Angovill will stay in coh2. No matter what! (From relic)

And i could imagine, in the case coh3 will come whenever, there will be maps from coh1 and coh2 too.

But yes i agree both maps have to get reworked.
26 Jun 2018, 15:09 PM
#19
avatar of Rosbone
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 1104 | Subs: 2

Did you had a talk about this map with tric?

I did not. This was an exercise for me. I learn by doing. Everyone wrote this map off but I know a couple hours and it could be highly playable. Last time I talked to Tric about this map the point layout was the main issue. Having two VPs next to each other is a bad idea(Angoville). And moving the VPs means ALL of the other points need to be changed. So that is the first thing I did was move ALL of the points. I think Angoville needs a point layout change as well and saw this as an opportunity to try it out and maybe learn something.


There is a reason, why red cover is in coh.

1. Vehicle speed boost.
2. Insta-pinning of squads.
3. Creating impassable lines to slow approaching enemies.

It seems like in 1v1 maps you would only want red cover in a few places:
1. Either straight from base to base to kill/chase down retreating enemies.(RED)
2. Or across the center of the map(YELLOW) ie Crossing in the Woods.
3. Or just some random areas to punish movement thru them.



Langreskaya has RED cover all around your base exits. Seems bad. And it just feels wrong to make some of the road red cover and some not. Then it becomes ambiguous and works opposite of the deep snow mechanic.

As all of my posts, 75% I speak from experience and what I see everyday. 25% is to either raise awareness for other readers or to ask questions I do not know the answers too.
26 Jun 2018, 15:18 PM
#20
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5063 | Subs: 19

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jun 2018, 15:09 PMRosbone

I did not. This was an exercise for me. I learn by doing. Everyone wrote this map off but I know a couple hours and it could be highly playable. Last time I talked to Tric about this map the point layout was the main issue. Having two VPs next to each other is a bad idea(Angoville). And moving the VPs means ALL of the other points need to be changed. So that is the first thing I did was move ALL of the points. I think Angoville needs a point layout change as well and saw this as an opportunity to try it out and maybe learn something.



1. Vehicle speed boost.
2. Insta-pinning of squads.
3. Creating impassable lines to slow approaching enemies.

It seems like in 1v1 maps you would only want red cover in a few places:
1. Either straight from base to base to kill/chase down retreating enemies.(RED)
2. Or across the center of the map(YELLOW) ie Crossing in the Woods.
3. Or just some random areas to punish movement thru them.



Langreskaya has RED cover all around your base exits. Seems bad. And it just feels wrong to make some of the road red cover and some not. Then it becomes ambiguous and works opposite of the deep snow mechanic.

As all of my posts, 75% I speak from experience and what I see everyday. 25% is to either raise awareness for other readers or to ask questions I do not know the answers too.


Maybe you should ask him. His video was helpful!
I agree to remove red cover infront of a base, but like around the middle VP it should stay.

1. Faster attack possible for tanks
2. Risky attack for inf, but if you get in a good position the enemy has this problem to reach middle vp.
3. People should always be know where to stand. And not hey i stand afk on a road and idc ...

and all your other called points ofc :)

Because you talked short about angovill: Don't change the vps on angovill! we can talk more about angovill in the angovill thread.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Zyswen
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Opportunity Cost
Faymonville Approach
Faymonville Approach Honor
Honor it
5
Download
Download
51
uploaded by Zyswen

Board Info

298 users are online: 4 members and 294 guests
RoastinGhost, Mr Carmine, 3lydiac4723wB5, SneakEye
111 posts in the last 24h
660 posts in the last week
3167 posts in the last month
Registered members: 26981
Welcome our newest member, 3milae2491hc0
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM