I'd like to know, which maps you consider to be most balanced - meaning that axis and allies do have about the same chance of winning. I expect it to be biased and that everything depends on doctines, but lets say we have good players and doctines are somewhat balanced.
2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4 please.
Most balanced map?
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Most balanced map?
3v3 - LaFiere, as i like res balance there, not endless ammo, interesting landscape (town, swamp, bridge, fields, bushes) + sides are not mirror here, axis have field which easy to defend, but its hard to start atack from there due to swamp, alied side is better for inf fights due to many bushes, also mortars are also reliable here. Basicly every faction can find a job here (tanks, arty, inf)
2v2 - Duclair, Metal and Rails. Duclair especially cause of interesting bases postion ( not in front of each other like on all other maps)
4v4 - Montargi region, but players dont like it much, dont know why.
2v2 - Duclair, Metal and Rails. Duclair especially cause of interesting bases postion ( not in front of each other like on all other maps)
4v4 - Montargi region, but players dont like it much, dont know why.
-
JimQwilleran
- Posts: 1107
- Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05
Re: Most balanced map?
2vs2:
- Road to Montherme is a good map for inf, little worse for tanks but this goes in two ways, for axis and allies.
- Duclair is not a bad map, maybe a bit pro-axis, but that depends of docs
- I like Lorriane, but it's a bit too small. Especially when SE player kills your base with 120mm mortar. Otherwise it's a bit pro-allies map
- St.Hillarie is a nice map imo.
- Steel and Rails
- Wolfheze (again a bit too small)
3vs3:
- Hugel 112, a bit pro axis map especially on the bottom
- La Fiere, now this is a map of many good games. It has it flaws, like rushing for town and water in the middle, but still it's a good map
- Reversed Defense
- Road to Cherbourg, many will disagree with me, but I consider this map as balanced
- Wolfheze and St.Hillarie again
- from vanilla maps most are shit, I guess I only happened to play Red Ball Express more than a few times...
4vs4:
- Operation Goodwood, most popular 4vs4 map, and most importantly it doesn't lag
- Dust and stones
- Road to Montherme is a good map for inf, little worse for tanks but this goes in two ways, for axis and allies.
- Duclair is not a bad map, maybe a bit pro-axis, but that depends of docs
- I like Lorriane, but it's a bit too small. Especially when SE player kills your base with 120mm mortar. Otherwise it's a bit pro-allies map
- St.Hillarie is a nice map imo.
- Steel and Rails
- Wolfheze (again a bit too small)
3vs3:
- Hugel 112, a bit pro axis map especially on the bottom
- La Fiere, now this is a map of many good games. It has it flaws, like rushing for town and water in the middle, but still it's a good map
- Reversed Defense
- Road to Cherbourg, many will disagree with me, but I consider this map as balanced
- Wolfheze and St.Hillarie again
- from vanilla maps most are shit, I guess I only happened to play Red Ball Express more than a few times...
4vs4:
- Operation Goodwood, most popular 4vs4 map, and most importantly it doesn't lag
- Dust and stones
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Most balanced map?
very hard questions which i am thinking about quite often. Rails and metals is for me one of the most balanced. Road to montherm as well unless two WE play vs two US which then favors US in early game with jeep, later axis due to these few bottlneckes which can be closed later.
Duc and autry is axis map for me. Most axis play those Maps HR everyday. For me it was always easier to win as axis there. So rails and metals and road to montherm are for me the best. Linden is hard to say. 88´s and 107 mortars are super deadly there. Town better for allis i think, field much better for axis due to open fields.
3 vs 3:
-La Fiere and reversed defense. Funnily booth are often called as axis or allied maps^^. Fact is i had on booth games axis rush games but also decent alli games, even rushs there as well.
-Trun maybe as well.
-Battle of halbe as well (unless 88´s are being deployed in center and hill)
-Many consider veules les rosses as balanced but i dont. When axis takes the field near their base and using then 88+sd2 and early 120 mm and nebler then allis are slaughtered in the streets without options to avoid being hit.
-Valkensward. Its an inf map and mortar map. BK, Luft, SE and inf, AB, RAF can be strong here. Relatively Low ammo income makes destruction of defenses hard but sd2 still deadly due to the small streets.
- Villers Bocage BK mod tipp. But its often crowded and many bottlenkecks. So on long term axis will probably win but allis still good chances in the earlier stage.
-Blazing axis unless allis do early push and a continues push (with US only). But luft, BK, S doc i very crazy here.
4 vs 4.
Graves Bridges (without spamming 88)
Fields of engagment. (witout 88 spam)
Operation goodwood. (without 88 spam)
The large map Black forrest maybe as well.
4 vs 4 maps (and many 3 vs 3 maps) are very depending whether the entire axis team spams only 88, bunker, stuhs and sd2 and rocket arty or not. And when ammo is rather rare and hard to get in then it clearly favors 88´s and stuhs.
@Illa: St Hillaire. Maybe. Still bottleknecked and not seldomly easy defense + early 81 mortar and nebler will take the center for the axis team.
Wolfheze? 2 vs 2 is just toooo small. 3 vs 3... easy axis campy. Seldomly win there with allied (if even in the past two years against halfway decent axis players)
Dust and stones is 88 map unless allied get one ammo point secured and OP. Hügel 112 is a damn bunker/88 map + sd2 and allis must then somehow get over that field. When allis are then are unable to get this 10 mm point near the stone wall then 88 is more or less then ultimate win anway. But tooo often i faced fixed socut cars, 50 mm paks, sniper and sd2 and later 88+ stuhs.
Duc and autry is axis map for me. Most axis play those Maps HR everyday. For me it was always easier to win as axis there. So rails and metals and road to montherm are for me the best. Linden is hard to say. 88´s and 107 mortars are super deadly there. Town better for allis i think, field much better for axis due to open fields.
3 vs 3:
-La Fiere and reversed defense. Funnily booth are often called as axis or allied maps^^. Fact is i had on booth games axis rush games but also decent alli games, even rushs there as well.
-Trun maybe as well.
-Battle of halbe as well (unless 88´s are being deployed in center and hill)
-Many consider veules les rosses as balanced but i dont. When axis takes the field near their base and using then 88+sd2 and early 120 mm and nebler then allis are slaughtered in the streets without options to avoid being hit.
-Valkensward. Its an inf map and mortar map. BK, Luft, SE and inf, AB, RAF can be strong here. Relatively Low ammo income makes destruction of defenses hard but sd2 still deadly due to the small streets.
- Villers Bocage BK mod tipp. But its often crowded and many bottlenkecks. So on long term axis will probably win but allis still good chances in the earlier stage.
-Blazing axis unless allis do early push and a continues push (with US only). But luft, BK, S doc i very crazy here.
4 vs 4.
Graves Bridges (without spamming 88)
Fields of engagment. (witout 88 spam)
Operation goodwood. (without 88 spam)
The large map Black forrest maybe as well.
4 vs 4 maps (and many 3 vs 3 maps) are very depending whether the entire axis team spams only 88, bunker, stuhs and sd2 and rocket arty or not. And when ammo is rather rare and hard to get in then it clearly favors 88´s and stuhs.
@Illa: St Hillaire. Maybe. Still bottleknecked and not seldomly easy defense + early 81 mortar and nebler will take the center for the axis team.
Wolfheze? 2 vs 2 is just toooo small. 3 vs 3... easy axis campy. Seldomly win there with allied (if even in the past two years against halfway decent axis players)
Dust and stones is 88 map unless allied get one ammo point secured and OP. Hügel 112 is a damn bunker/88 map + sd2 and allis must then somehow get over that field. When allis are then are unable to get this 10 mm point near the stone wall then 88 is more or less then ultimate win anway. But tooo often i faced fixed socut cars, 50 mm paks, sniper and sd2 and later 88+ stuhs.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Most balanced map?
TLDR: Larger maps have the potential for "more balanced" play. It is as much as the responsibility of players to have a balanced game as it is for the Devs.
Oh... So I really can't help but talk here. This is something that I've been trying to tell everyone for a while (some of you probably know more than enough about this).
I think the best way to balance maps is to just play on bigger ones. So, for 2v2's to play on a 3v3 map. For 3v3's to play on a 4v4 map (always with exceptions). This itself I think actually fixes a lot of balance issues people normally bring up. I'll go through the ones that come to the top of my head because I hear them often.
1. Too much arty:
I think it's not so much of "too much arty" as it is "too easy to arty". Right now, I think the "meta" is to rush to critical points on the map and hold them. Most of the time these critical points are high resource points or a building/"high ground" a force can easily defend and launch attacks from. The thing about the maps though, is that there is normally 1 critical point per pair of opposing players. So for a 2v2, there are 2 critical points and the game turns into something like two separate 1v1's each battling for their critical points. When there is only a single critical point that all fights revolve around, it's easy to just mark that point as an arty target. So, the same point gets artied over and over again, making it feel like there is "too much" and no skill involved. A player can safely fire into black fog knowing that the chances of hitting SOMETHING is very high.
Playing on a larger map creates more critical points, more ways of defending and attacking critical points, and allowing more places to dodge arty. This will make finding arty targets much more difficult and costly (via CD's or just flat MU sometimes depending on the situation).
2. Bunkers, emplacements, MG42's:
Same logic as arty above. Normally bunkers on single critical points stalemate a game. A lot of times Axis players can plop an MG42 in one spot and essentially cover the entire critical area. So, on a 2v2 map all it takes are 2 mg42's to cover the entire map with suppression, stalemating the early game. Allies normally make mortar pits instead of bunkers, but same situation of stalemating a game.
More map area to cover makes positional strategy much more difficult than the same place every single time (that house on rails and metal... that house on on reverse defense... that intersection on cherbourg... etc.). Making sure the MG's flanks are covered, facing the right direction, etc takes a lot more skill when there is more area to defend. Sun Tzu Art of War says (yes, I'm Asian and have read it) don't try to impede on an open field because the enemy can just walk around it. If the strategic area is wide enough, players are forced to make decisions. Is the cost of digging in worth impeding the enemy at this particular spot knowing they can just bypass this defense? For the attacker, is the defense emplacement worth attacking when I can just bypass and attack somewhere else (another Art of War reference)?
3. Axis Tanks OP:
Axis tanks are really strong and have always been a really big argument focus. The arguments are always the same, "The tanks are too strong" and counterargument "Just use more skill and flank it". The counterargument is flawed because there are MANY situation where there is literally no room to flank, especially when the emplacement stalemate mentioned above basically stops any units from skirting the sides.
Bigger map allows for more room to maneuver. Pretty simple.
4. One shot kill units:
Units like Scotts, StuH's, Stupas, Field guns, etc. are effective because of the narrow lanes. This is similar to the "MG42" problem I mentioned before but to a greater extent because these units are mobile. Now, I know these units have been severely nerfed and aren't as much as a problem as before, but there is the occasional complaint. The narrow lanes make blobbing unavoidable sometimes. There just isn't enough room to spread out (as the counterarguments would normally say).
The solution? More room.
5. Blobbing:
So blobbing can be annoying at times because it is a heavy concentration of power with volume on a single point (very Carl Von Clausewitz, yeah you bet I'm studied on different texts of war). Blobbing is effective because defenses are sometimes forced to be confined on a single spot to get rushed. It should be a strategic choice to make a defensive line thin or loose depending on the method of attack. A large map gives players that option. More building space so to speak.
So I'm tired and will stop talking about what large maps fix. Instead I'll start talking about possible concerns players would have with large maps.
1. Wermacht and British will be held back because they have low capping power, slow to build, and are very immobile in the early game. The large maps will favor mobility who can capture fast and take more ground fast:
So... at first I think the initial meta will favor mobility because right now the conservative game is too use to smaller maps. The mobile players will counter the conservative defensive players on larger maps because they are essentially given more opportunity. But, That's not to say that defensive players can't still play their game. It won't be as formulaic as it use to be though. The current Axis "meta" I think are a few varied openings:
1. Pak, MG
2. Pak, Sniper
3. Bike/Swhim, MG
4. Bike/Swhim, Pak
Players who play inf openings or any other variation are normally the gambit types that try for something very aggressive. But I think the formerly mentioned are the top most frequently played right now. These 4 openings are effective because they are very powerful at controlling small areas making them perfect for securing the "critical points" mentioned.
On larger maps, playing this way will be much more difficult which may give rise to "defensive specialist" players. I've done this a few times myself after challenging some people to a series of 1v1's on large maps. Many times they would want to play Axis, so I let them play and I defeat them early game. They give the argument that large maps favor USA, so I switch with them. I would take a defensive spot, secure it, and use a concentrated force to attack their single spread out, mobile, capping units. So, there is always a strategy to stop another strategy and people will find MORE styles, strategies, formulas they will like to play than on the current maps that really eliminate a lot of possible strategies. It will also force the conservative players to think a little more critically than the same formula of play every game.
British is an interesting situation (I never liked playing them because I feel like the way their designed forces a particular style of play). They are very immobile and will have trouble keeping up in capturing. But, they have a very very strong advantage on large maps: their mobile HQ. The mobile HQ is hardly an advantage in small maps and if anything is a disadvantage because it forces British to expose their unit makers to gain resources while other factions can build OP's or Scout Cars. British are limited in building units too because of their cars, which means losing those very exposed trucks is even more devastating. British will have a difficult early game because they cannot capture fast. But, they do have different kind of advantage in the early game. Most British players use this advantage right now. Brits do no need to build, so they send their superior-to-other engineers out early to secure a critical point. They will still hold this advantage on large maps. Yes, they will not be able to capture as fast, but early-mid game they will be able to capitalize on their mobile HQ's while all other factions will have to run and reinforce from the base far far away on a large map. British have the ability to reinforce and create a greater variety of units from their trucks at no extra cost compared to the other factions' expensive FHQ's. I do think British will need a bit of tweaking, but it will not be impossible for the faction to stay competitive. I will probably not be one of those players who are very good with British because I personally do not enjoy playing them as much as other factions. I think they lack flexibility but that is my own opinion.
2. A large map will be slower pace with no action because everything is so spread out and far:
I think that's only if you play the game that way. I think having the choice is play an action packed chaotic game or a slow game should be a strategic choice for the players. I am a fencer and I see many different style of fencing. Each of them are unique and competitive. A good fencer knows how to impose their style on another fencer and force the opponent to play a game the opponent is not comfortable with. If a player wants to play a slow strategic game, that should be a choice. But, an aggressive player can continually harrass, attack, provoke, and create a chaotic atmosphere to make the slow player squirm. Meanwhile, the slow player can also become a patient hunter and make an aggressive player frustrated and blunder. It really depends on the players. I think it is more fun to control the game with skill than to ask devs to create a game that fits the way you like to play. It definitely makes me feel much more accomplished.
I am tired, (1:30AM) I will stop for now. But, if you have any other questions or thoughts let me know. I really can talk about this for a long time (really... ask anyone I talk to on Steam HAHAHA). So, I really don't think it's up to the devs to decide how players play because they literally CAN'T force players to play a certain way. Because no matter how hard they try to adjust the stats and numbers behind the game, the best influencers to balance are how the players decide to play. I will always try to play larger maps, but it seems most players are afraid to try. It is an entirely different game on a larger map, I will not hide that fact. I hope we can get more players to just try to play in different ways/modes (don't get me started on VP mode vs Annil) because I think we as players haven't tried solving the problems ourselves before crying to devs. Come on guys, we aren't in grade school anymore (at least... I think most of us... Maybe that fucker Shadow. That guy sounds like a 5 year old on teamspeak.)
Oh... So I really can't help but talk here. This is something that I've been trying to tell everyone for a while (some of you probably know more than enough about this).
I think the best way to balance maps is to just play on bigger ones. So, for 2v2's to play on a 3v3 map. For 3v3's to play on a 4v4 map (always with exceptions). This itself I think actually fixes a lot of balance issues people normally bring up. I'll go through the ones that come to the top of my head because I hear them often.
1. Too much arty:
I think it's not so much of "too much arty" as it is "too easy to arty". Right now, I think the "meta" is to rush to critical points on the map and hold them. Most of the time these critical points are high resource points or a building/"high ground" a force can easily defend and launch attacks from. The thing about the maps though, is that there is normally 1 critical point per pair of opposing players. So for a 2v2, there are 2 critical points and the game turns into something like two separate 1v1's each battling for their critical points. When there is only a single critical point that all fights revolve around, it's easy to just mark that point as an arty target. So, the same point gets artied over and over again, making it feel like there is "too much" and no skill involved. A player can safely fire into black fog knowing that the chances of hitting SOMETHING is very high.
Playing on a larger map creates more critical points, more ways of defending and attacking critical points, and allowing more places to dodge arty. This will make finding arty targets much more difficult and costly (via CD's or just flat MU sometimes depending on the situation).
2. Bunkers, emplacements, MG42's:
Same logic as arty above. Normally bunkers on single critical points stalemate a game. A lot of times Axis players can plop an MG42 in one spot and essentially cover the entire critical area. So, on a 2v2 map all it takes are 2 mg42's to cover the entire map with suppression, stalemating the early game. Allies normally make mortar pits instead of bunkers, but same situation of stalemating a game.
More map area to cover makes positional strategy much more difficult than the same place every single time (that house on rails and metal... that house on on reverse defense... that intersection on cherbourg... etc.). Making sure the MG's flanks are covered, facing the right direction, etc takes a lot more skill when there is more area to defend. Sun Tzu Art of War says (yes, I'm Asian and have read it) don't try to impede on an open field because the enemy can just walk around it. If the strategic area is wide enough, players are forced to make decisions. Is the cost of digging in worth impeding the enemy at this particular spot knowing they can just bypass this defense? For the attacker, is the defense emplacement worth attacking when I can just bypass and attack somewhere else (another Art of War reference)?
3. Axis Tanks OP:
Axis tanks are really strong and have always been a really big argument focus. The arguments are always the same, "The tanks are too strong" and counterargument "Just use more skill and flank it". The counterargument is flawed because there are MANY situation where there is literally no room to flank, especially when the emplacement stalemate mentioned above basically stops any units from skirting the sides.
Bigger map allows for more room to maneuver. Pretty simple.
4. One shot kill units:
Units like Scotts, StuH's, Stupas, Field guns, etc. are effective because of the narrow lanes. This is similar to the "MG42" problem I mentioned before but to a greater extent because these units are mobile. Now, I know these units have been severely nerfed and aren't as much as a problem as before, but there is the occasional complaint. The narrow lanes make blobbing unavoidable sometimes. There just isn't enough room to spread out (as the counterarguments would normally say).
The solution? More room.
5. Blobbing:
So blobbing can be annoying at times because it is a heavy concentration of power with volume on a single point (very Carl Von Clausewitz, yeah you bet I'm studied on different texts of war). Blobbing is effective because defenses are sometimes forced to be confined on a single spot to get rushed. It should be a strategic choice to make a defensive line thin or loose depending on the method of attack. A large map gives players that option. More building space so to speak.
So I'm tired and will stop talking about what large maps fix. Instead I'll start talking about possible concerns players would have with large maps.
1. Wermacht and British will be held back because they have low capping power, slow to build, and are very immobile in the early game. The large maps will favor mobility who can capture fast and take more ground fast:
So... at first I think the initial meta will favor mobility because right now the conservative game is too use to smaller maps. The mobile players will counter the conservative defensive players on larger maps because they are essentially given more opportunity. But, That's not to say that defensive players can't still play their game. It won't be as formulaic as it use to be though. The current Axis "meta" I think are a few varied openings:
1. Pak, MG
2. Pak, Sniper
3. Bike/Swhim, MG
4. Bike/Swhim, Pak
Players who play inf openings or any other variation are normally the gambit types that try for something very aggressive. But I think the formerly mentioned are the top most frequently played right now. These 4 openings are effective because they are very powerful at controlling small areas making them perfect for securing the "critical points" mentioned.
On larger maps, playing this way will be much more difficult which may give rise to "defensive specialist" players. I've done this a few times myself after challenging some people to a series of 1v1's on large maps. Many times they would want to play Axis, so I let them play and I defeat them early game. They give the argument that large maps favor USA, so I switch with them. I would take a defensive spot, secure it, and use a concentrated force to attack their single spread out, mobile, capping units. So, there is always a strategy to stop another strategy and people will find MORE styles, strategies, formulas they will like to play than on the current maps that really eliminate a lot of possible strategies. It will also force the conservative players to think a little more critically than the same formula of play every game.
British is an interesting situation (I never liked playing them because I feel like the way their designed forces a particular style of play). They are very immobile and will have trouble keeping up in capturing. But, they have a very very strong advantage on large maps: their mobile HQ. The mobile HQ is hardly an advantage in small maps and if anything is a disadvantage because it forces British to expose their unit makers to gain resources while other factions can build OP's or Scout Cars. British are limited in building units too because of their cars, which means losing those very exposed trucks is even more devastating. British will have a difficult early game because they cannot capture fast. But, they do have different kind of advantage in the early game. Most British players use this advantage right now. Brits do no need to build, so they send their superior-to-other engineers out early to secure a critical point. They will still hold this advantage on large maps. Yes, they will not be able to capture as fast, but early-mid game they will be able to capitalize on their mobile HQ's while all other factions will have to run and reinforce from the base far far away on a large map. British have the ability to reinforce and create a greater variety of units from their trucks at no extra cost compared to the other factions' expensive FHQ's. I do think British will need a bit of tweaking, but it will not be impossible for the faction to stay competitive. I will probably not be one of those players who are very good with British because I personally do not enjoy playing them as much as other factions. I think they lack flexibility but that is my own opinion.
2. A large map will be slower pace with no action because everything is so spread out and far:
I think that's only if you play the game that way. I think having the choice is play an action packed chaotic game or a slow game should be a strategic choice for the players. I am a fencer and I see many different style of fencing. Each of them are unique and competitive. A good fencer knows how to impose their style on another fencer and force the opponent to play a game the opponent is not comfortable with. If a player wants to play a slow strategic game, that should be a choice. But, an aggressive player can continually harrass, attack, provoke, and create a chaotic atmosphere to make the slow player squirm. Meanwhile, the slow player can also become a patient hunter and make an aggressive player frustrated and blunder. It really depends on the players. I think it is more fun to control the game with skill than to ask devs to create a game that fits the way you like to play. It definitely makes me feel much more accomplished.
I am tired, (1:30AM) I will stop for now. But, if you have any other questions or thoughts let me know. I really can talk about this for a long time (really... ask anyone I talk to on Steam HAHAHA). So, I really don't think it's up to the devs to decide how players play because they literally CAN'T force players to play a certain way. Because no matter how hard they try to adjust the stats and numbers behind the game, the best influencers to balance are how the players decide to play. I will always try to play larger maps, but it seems most players are afraid to try. It is an entirely different game on a larger map, I will not hide that fact. I hope we can get more players to just try to play in different ways/modes (don't get me started on VP mode vs Annil) because I think we as players haven't tried solving the problems ourselves before crying to devs. Come on guys, we aren't in grade school anymore (at least... I think most of us... Maybe that fucker Shadow. That guy sounds like a 5 year old on teamspeak.)
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Most balanced map?
Great post kwok. And yeah we talked about it few times and i fully agree. I really enjoyed reading it and well, Seeing that you have read Sun is awesome, ive never did completely. I think i gonna buy this book but i think i will find a lot of stuff ive already know or heared somewhere. Clausewitz was btw also the first i think who really described and adopted the gurellia tacic as an "official" strategy.
But thing is we have no 5 vs 5 maps to play 4 vs 4 games oO. However, nice essay and i agree on all points.
Still, you need to be carefull saying "more room" solves all probs. I would say here for example 88´s. As you said an axis player could use his force to secure a point. But from there he can literally build a line of 88´s untill he reaches your base. 3-4 88´s are enough to controle large areas of larger maps and with little support absolutely denying movments in an large area.
About point 3 i wouldnt say axis armor is anyhow overpowered, if anyhting that certain tanks underpowered on both sides. but you are right that flanking options are rare. What makes axis tanks so hard to kill is that they have often a wall of support behind and in front of the tank (inf, paks) and they then always have a save area they can retreat to and any attempt them to finish them by getting close is countered by the stuff behind these tanks. But for that situation we have two ways to explain it:
Either maps are too small making room for tactical momvment rare and a back up support for heavy tanks easily organized by like 1-2 cheap paks. Or lacking options for allied to kill exactly these paks (and 88´s) that are behind that tank. And lets be honest, its only CW arty that can early on smash that little paks effectively, thus exposing the axis heavy tank which then enables further flanking options with Tank destroyers like M10 or M18. And long time ago i talked about exactly this. Having more light arty (that cant harm tanks really) that can only kill the mgs and paks and weapon crews would help a lot to expose the heavy Tanks making them then more vulnerable to flanking tactics. So its not so much the axis tanks itself but rather their supporting defense line being always right behind them and which can be only reached by arty as mortars would have no chance to come into range. And we have just two options to solve that.
But thing is we have no 5 vs 5 maps to play 4 vs 4 games oO. However, nice essay and i agree on all points.
Still, you need to be carefull saying "more room" solves all probs. I would say here for example 88´s. As you said an axis player could use his force to secure a point. But from there he can literally build a line of 88´s untill he reaches your base. 3-4 88´s are enough to controle large areas of larger maps and with little support absolutely denying movments in an large area.
About point 3 i wouldnt say axis armor is anyhow overpowered, if anyhting that certain tanks underpowered on both sides. but you are right that flanking options are rare. What makes axis tanks so hard to kill is that they have often a wall of support behind and in front of the tank (inf, paks) and they then always have a save area they can retreat to and any attempt them to finish them by getting close is countered by the stuff behind these tanks. But for that situation we have two ways to explain it:
Either maps are too small making room for tactical momvment rare and a back up support for heavy tanks easily organized by like 1-2 cheap paks. Or lacking options for allied to kill exactly these paks (and 88´s) that are behind that tank. And lets be honest, its only CW arty that can early on smash that little paks effectively, thus exposing the axis heavy tank which then enables further flanking options with Tank destroyers like M10 or M18. And long time ago i talked about exactly this. Having more light arty (that cant harm tanks really) that can only kill the mgs and paks and weapon crews would help a lot to expose the heavy Tanks making them then more vulnerable to flanking tactics. So its not so much the axis tanks itself but rather their supporting defense line being always right behind them and which can be only reached by arty as mortars would have no chance to come into range. And we have just two options to solve that.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Most balanced map?
Yeah, about the 88's. Some units are probably just broken. I mean, larger maps might lessen the problem of the 88's and not fix it; they might just be broken. But... there's no way to know unless people TRY IT OUT.
Mmm, agreed on the point of axis tanks. I mentioned the wall behind the tank I think, but the tanks have always been a talking point so I brought it up and where I thought the "problem" is (the stalemate emplacements).
Mmm, agreed on the point of axis tanks. I mentioned the wall behind the tank I think, but the tanks have always been a talking point so I brought it up and where I thought the "problem" is (the stalemate emplacements).
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
-
ShadowIchigo
- Posts: 340
- Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 20:25
- Location: Philadelphia Born N Raized, US
Re: Most balanced map?
kwok wrote:TLDR: Larger maps have the potential for "more balanced" play. It is as much as the responsibility of players to have a balanced game as it is for the Devs.
Oh... So I really can't help but talk here. This is something that I've been trying to tell everyone for a while (some of you probably know more than enough about this).
I think the best way to balance maps is to just play on bigger ones. So, for 2v2's to play on a 3v3 map. For 3v3's to play on a 4v4 map (always with exceptions). This itself I think actually fixes a lot of balance issues people normally bring up. I'll go through the ones that come to the top of my head because I hear them often.
1. Too much arty:
I think it's not so much of "too much arty" as it is "too easy to arty". Right now, I think the "meta" is to rush to critical points on the map and hold them. Most of the time these critical points are high resource points or a building/"high ground" a force can easily defend and launch attacks from. The thing about the maps though, is that there is normally 1 critical point per pair of opposing players. So for a 2v2, there are 2 critical points and the game turns into something like two separate 1v1's each battling for their critical points. When there is only a single critical point that all fights revolve around, it's easy to just mark that point as an arty target. So, the same point gets artied over and over again, making it feel like there is "too much" and no skill involved. A player can safely fire into black fog knowing that the chances of hitting SOMETHING is very high.
Playing on a larger map creates more critical points, more ways of defending and attacking critical points, and allowing more places to dodge arty. This will make finding arty targets much more difficult and costly (via CD's or just flat MU sometimes depending on the situation).
2. Bunkers, emplacements, MG42's:
Same logic as arty above. Normally bunkers on single critical points stalemate a game. A lot of times Axis players can plop an MG42 in one spot and essentially cover the entire critical area. So, on a 2v2 map all it takes are 2 mg42's to cover the entire map with suppression, stalemating the early game. Allies normally make mortar pits instead of bunkers, but same situation of stalemating a game.
More map area to cover makes positional strategy much more difficult than the same place every single time (that house on rails and metal... that house on on reverse defense... that intersection on cherbourg... etc.). Making sure the MG's flanks are covered, facing the right direction, etc takes a lot more skill when there is more area to defend. Sun Tzu Art of War says (yes, I'm Asian and have read it) don't try to impede on an open field because the enemy can just walk around it. If the strategic area is wide enough, players are forced to make decisions. Is the cost of digging in worth impeding the enemy at this particular spot knowing they can just bypass this defense? For the attacker, is the defense emplacement worth attacking when I can just bypass and attack somewhere else (another Art of War reference)?
3. Axis Tanks OP:
Axis tanks are really strong and have always been a really big argument focus. The arguments are always the same, "The tanks are too strong" and counterargument "Just use more skill and flank it". The counterargument is flawed because there are MANY situation where there is literally no room to flank, especially when the emplacement stalemate mentioned above basically stops any units from skirting the sides.
Bigger map allows for more room to maneuver. Pretty simple.
4. One shot kill units:
Units like Scotts, StuH's, Stupas, Field guns, etc. are effective because of the narrow lanes. This is similar to the "MG42" problem I mentioned before but to a greater extent because these units are mobile. Now, I know these units have been severely nerfed and aren't as much as a problem as before, but there is the occasional complaint. The narrow lanes make blobbing unavoidable sometimes. There just isn't enough room to spread out (as the counterarguments would normally say).
The solution? More room.
5. Blobbing:
So blobbing can be annoying at times because it is a heavy concentration of power with volume on a single point (very Carl Von Clausewitz, yeah you bet I'm studied on different texts of war). Blobbing is effective because defenses are sometimes forced to be confined on a single spot to get rushed. It should be a strategic choice to make a defensive line thin or loose depending on the method of attack. A large map gives players that option. More building space so to speak.
So I'm tired and will stop talking about what large maps fix. Instead I'll start talking about possible concerns players would have with large maps.
1. Wermacht and British will be held back because they have low capping power, slow to build, and are very immobile in the early game. The large maps will favor mobility who can capture fast and take more ground fast:
So... at first I think the initial meta will favor mobility because right now the conservative game is too use to smaller maps. The mobile players will counter the conservative defensive players on larger maps because they are essentially given more opportunity. But, That's not to say that defensive players can't still play their game. It won't be as formulaic as it use to be though. The current Axis "meta" I think are a few varied openings:
1. Pak, MG
2. Pak, Sniper
3. Bike/Swhim, MG
4. Bike/Swhim, Pak
Players who play inf openings or any other variation are normally the gambit types that try for something very aggressive. But I think the formerly mentioned are the top most frequently played right now. These 4 openings are effective because they are very powerful at controlling small areas making them perfect for securing the "critical points" mentioned.
On larger maps, playing this way will be much more difficult which may give rise to "defensive specialist" players. I've done this a few times myself after challenging some people to a series of 1v1's on large maps. Many times they would want to play Axis, so I let them play and I defeat them early game. They give the argument that large maps favor USA, so I switch with them. I would take a defensive spot, secure it, and use a concentrated force to attack their single spread out, mobile, capping units. So, there is always a strategy to stop another strategy and people will find MORE styles, strategies, formulas they will like to play than on the current maps that really eliminate a lot of possible strategies. It will also force the conservative players to think a little more critically than the same formula of play every game.
British is an interesting situation (I never liked playing them because I feel like the way their designed forces a particular style of play). They are very immobile and will have trouble keeping up in capturing. But, they have a very very strong advantage on large maps: their mobile HQ. The mobile HQ is hardly an advantage in small maps and if anything is a disadvantage because it forces British to expose their unit makers to gain resources while other factions can build OP's or Scout Cars. British are limited in building units too because of their cars, which means losing those very exposed trucks is even more devastating. British will have a difficult early game because they cannot capture fast. But, they do have different kind of advantage in the early game. Most British players use this advantage right now. Brits do no need to build, so they send their superior-to-other engineers out early to secure a critical point. They will still hold this advantage on large maps. Yes, they will not be able to capture as fast, but early-mid game they will be able to capitalize on their mobile HQ's while all other factions will have to run and reinforce from the base far far away on a large map. British have the ability to reinforce and create a greater variety of units from their trucks at no extra cost compared to the other factions' expensive FHQ's. I do think British will need a bit of tweaking, but it will not be impossible for the faction to stay competitive. I will probably not be one of those players who are very good with British because I personally do not enjoy playing them as much as other factions. I think they lack flexibility but that is my own opinion.
2. A large map will be slower pace with no action because everything is so spread out and far:
I think that's only if you play the game that way. I think having the choice is play an action packed chaotic game or a slow game should be a strategic choice for the players. I am a fencer and I see many different style of fencing. Each of them are unique and competitive. A good fencer knows how to impose their style on another fencer and force the opponent to play a game the opponent is not comfortable with. If a player wants to play a slow strategic game, that should be a choice. But, an aggressive player can continually harrass, attack, provoke, and create a chaotic atmosphere to make the slow player squirm. Meanwhile, the slow player can also become a patient hunter and make an aggressive player frustrated and blunder. It really depends on the players. I think it is more fun to control the game with skill than to ask devs to create a game that fits the way you like to play. It definitely makes me feel much more accomplished.
I am tired, (1:30AM) I will stop for now. But, if you have any other questions or thoughts let me know. I really can talk about this for a long time (really... ask anyone I talk to on Steam HAHAHA). So, I really don't think it's up to the devs to decide how players play because they literally CAN'T force players to play a certain way. Because no matter how hard they try to adjust the stats and numbers behind the game, the best influencers to balance are how the players decide to play. I will always try to play larger maps, but it seems most players are afraid to try. It is an entirely different game on a larger map, I will not hide that fact. I hope we can get more players to just try to play in different ways/modes (don't get me started on VP mode vs Annil) because I think we as players haven't tried solving the problems ourselves before crying to devs. Come on guys, we aren't in grade school anymore (at least... I think most of us... Maybe that fucker Shadow. That guy sounds like a 5 year old on teamspeak.)
....kwok... youre my fuckin hero man. This just made me admire you so much more. Ive known you for very long time but this really detailed and exemplified your way of thinking and strategic side even further. Not inly that, it made me sooo much more motivated to support "your crusade" (not saying you really have one). But this is exactly a reason why i recently put that mappack up. There are biggg huge maps that are not bugged or broken and dont lag. I really really want people to support this idea, but im not saying it solves everything and i know you are not either.
Its mainly bc of that very valid point you gave about mobility. Regardless what map you play.. axis have far superior mobile units, and to top it off they have, in most areas, better defensives as well. And if you read any of my posts, they were not all statistcal changes. Usually it is stuff that would make the most sense. But my main suggestions i focused on were damage systems because it is true axis still have the far superior damage system. Not saying to make them all even, but i feel most allied weapons are way too below. Just make them close to even. Take the allied mgs vs mg42 for instance.. mg42 will literally shred inf in seconds, while allied mgs, esp against vets, takes longer to kill. Lets not forget about the countless times axis inf would crawl still while being suppressed and losing maybe two guys at most to get close enough to allied mg and trow a grenade. Didnt u just have that exact same problem yesterday? Lolol
Im auprised wolf hasnt commented on this yet, and mark for that matter as well. Im sooo curious as to what their thoughts would be on this mater.
Re: Most balanced map?
Haha, thanks for the bump ass-hat-mcgee. As for me "crusade", you know what it is: BKNC. Glad we're on the same page for so many things. I'm more worried about the friendliness and attitude of players before the game itself.
Hey, you know I REALLY want to get that map pack but have no way of actually getting it? There are like 2 seeders out there and they're not even consistent. Gotta get that crap on at least some low bandwidth site or maybe ask devs to host it out as a part of BKmod modbb? Is that possible/too much to ask for, devs?
Maybe we'll catch Wolf and Mark's opinions, but honestly I don't think they can change how the game is played. Unless, I dunno... they said something way out of the blue like "this game is balanced for larger maps".
HAHA just kidding devs. I'm not going ask something stupid like that. (don't let that stop you from saying it though, yaknow?)
Yeah, in terms of balance large maps WON'T "fix" everything but it's a start to finding the deeper balancing issues I think? I understand the devs worrying about making any changes at all because of the domino effect of the changes. I think larger maps sort of shrinks the domino effects actually because it more or less makes ALL units less effective in some aspect. This brings more of the gameplay in the hands of players rather than unit stats.
Love ya, twat-face-butt-licker.
Hey, you know I REALLY want to get that map pack but have no way of actually getting it? There are like 2 seeders out there and they're not even consistent. Gotta get that crap on at least some low bandwidth site or maybe ask devs to host it out as a part of BKmod modbb? Is that possible/too much to ask for, devs?
Maybe we'll catch Wolf and Mark's opinions, but honestly I don't think they can change how the game is played. Unless, I dunno... they said something way out of the blue like "this game is balanced for larger maps".
HAHA just kidding devs. I'm not going ask something stupid like that. (don't let that stop you from saying it though, yaknow?)
Yeah, in terms of balance large maps WON'T "fix" everything but it's a start to finding the deeper balancing issues I think? I understand the devs worrying about making any changes at all because of the domino effect of the changes. I think larger maps sort of shrinks the domino effects actually because it more or less makes ALL units less effective in some aspect. This brings more of the gameplay in the hands of players rather than unit stats.
Love ya, twat-face-butt-licker.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
Re: Most balanced map?
Yep, whenever I'm playing with others we tend to use maps which cater to at least 2 more players than we actually have, sometimes 4 (PLaying 1v1 on a 3v3 map). It makes mobility and positioning matter, in these situations it's really hard to have an OP unit as maps of this scale have so much variety some units will work well in some areas but not others. It also makes FOBs very meaningful. And there's actual ground to cover, you need to move art positions and can set up ambushes as the advance is coming because the distance they have to cover gives you the time to do so.
The Rhine is a brilliant map, combination of urban and rural combat on a meaningful scale. Shame the river has so few crossing points
I don't think maps should be intentionally balanced, terrain in real life wasn't. As long as it isn't overwhelmingly one-sided.
But anyway:
Lyon
The Rhine
<I'll edit later, I need to scroll through them to remind myself>
The Rhine is a brilliant map, combination of urban and rural combat on a meaningful scale. Shame the river has so few crossing points
I don't think maps should be intentionally balanced, terrain in real life wasn't. As long as it isn't overwhelmingly one-sided.
But anyway:
Lyon
The Rhine
<I'll edit later, I need to scroll through them to remind myself>
Re: Most balanced map?
Tony, lets play some games together someday.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.