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.