Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Hi everybody,
I've recently been playing a couple of 2v2s on Bocage, and i had this feeling about this map which i could not understand: games seemed to be positively different on this map, tho i could not understand why.

Fortunately other players' comments made me realize what this was: low res sectors.
This map has in fact only 1 medium ammo point "per half" while all the others are low for both fuel and ammo. That made my ammo income of approximately +27, while fuel was probably lower.

Every other map played on pvp has usually medium and high resources points, with consequent insanely high income and spam of so called "OP" stuff.
What happens on Bocage is that very expansive units and abilities/off-maps can't really be used without thinking: on pretty much all other maps, on a 50:50 situation, both factions have a high res income (maybe even just one between ammo and fuel), and this always allows player to use the "easiest way" to fight, which always mean using some kind of ability or unit that does the job quick and without risk/effort, but usually becoming overused and making the game quite frustrating for both sides.

An example: I love RAF doctrine, and very often it happens to me that my ammo income is high enough to use bombing run whenever its cooldown allows me to do it (making the ammo cost just useless), and often being the same even when you add rocket airstrike which takes down very expansive units with an endlessly repeatable click. Of course you'll cause huge damage very easily, but 90% of the times opponents will start complaining about how OP such an "easy click" thing is.
Same example can be done for those games where in late game Axis side pops out one panther after the other (just look at what nami does here viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2066 with terror doctrine, i know he does not anything else but panthers come out one after the other, whith even a koenig) combined with stuka: just a combination of high ammo ability spam and high fuel units spam.
And what about 210mm nebels spam? Their price has been increased, but they're still used a lot in every kind of situation, allowing SE players to count pretty much only on that for every purpose as we can see here viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2014 (except for AA and scouting).

On Bocage instead, i saw luft player using straffing run on my sapper squad and he's not been able to use that for a while on more important targets: other maps just allow you to do that since you can use that whenever you want, even when it's just a "lazy" (very lazy in this case) choice whithout any strategy behind it. I myself was spamming rifle nades to deal with fallshirm, and i suddently found myself out of ammo because i was carelessly spending ammo as i'm used to do on every other map. At the end i found that game very enjoyable, having more flanking and units manouvering than just microing very well 1 of them.

What theese abilities and units do is in my opinion, as i probably said many times, killing any kind of strategic play and giving this game a very "arcadish" shade that for many people generates "EPIC GAMES" just because of the number of "cats" and veterancies on arty pieces and mortar halftracks, but for others, like me, might not be that fun.
I hope the solution i thought will even make arty partys less frequent, allowing only cheaper arty docs pieces to shoot more often, while requiring it to really be necessary to use other arty pieces on other doctrines.
This is why i came up with the idea of suggesting to rework already existent maps to give them low/medium res points instead of medium/high: this has already been partially made with map pack 2, but i think this could go further with great results, allowing players to choose what kind of game to have. I have no experience in "map" matter, and i'd like to know if someone could do it without much effort, or, if someone else likes this idea, I might work on it in my free time if other people will tell me they like this idea.

Thanks for reading and let me know what you think

Finally someone as well came up with thought like this.I had a simillar impression after my first few weeks at bkmod..

Decreasing resourses income would make game a lot better in my eyes too.
Even more, in future time perspective, it will also allow to balance everything much clearer, since, what u pointed "and i suddently found myself out of ammo because i was carelessly spending ammo as i'm used to do on every other map. At the end i found that game very enjoyable, having more flanking and units manouvering than just microing very well 1 of them.", would become more a frequent thing on battlefield.

Game will only win, from somewhat more "hardcore" in it.

Tried this once, I agree but want to caution that sometimes it isn't enough. It's not just resource but resource per area; if the area isn't big enough then it just makes mortars stronger since they don't cost that much but the ease of targeting indirect fire remains the same. See most 1v1 maps with little resources as a sample...
See also endro's fixed maps where he lowered resource points, cherbourg is still a camp map.

Meanwhile if you play a large map even with high resources it isn't so bad and could even be enjoyable because you can get interesting high value units onto the field without them being too strong but other constraints like cool down and positioning keep over using particular units/abilities in check.

My personal "map pack" I reworked and shared with only a few people didn't fix resources, just took away players on the map. That's my suggestion. If you want to continue editing those I just sent them toni.

I still want to ask though... what's so freakin hard about just playing on big maps? No one ever offers counter points when I bring it as a balance solution. When I first posted the solution it barely received any criticism and mostly agreement. But no one wants to do it. Just keep adjusting adjusting adjusting other things. Even my last post about "recent balance in patch" it was just straight up ignored. I was even directly replied to on the thread but they talked about every other point except my largest points: play big maps.

I'm not saying your idea isn't good... I'm just saying there are solutions already in place without needing to do work.

Just to point it out.U did ask me about "bigger maps/less players" thing once or twice, and my best answer to that was, that most of maps are made intentionally for some specific numbers of players and "strategic" roles for them.So for example, playing tunnel map like extraWolfheze 2v2 is not fun, since its pure tunnel and every player face his opponent on specific "spring/line" of confrontantion..which was intented by mapmaker from the start.
I see the thing behind it, most of the time i feel need in more space too, but well.., lets be clear, most of "bkmaps" are campaign adopted.Which were never made for kind of game we do so its just problematic to find exclusively well made map u can fit exact number of players.

Playing big maps? - YES
Is there any good maps for it? - IMO, NO

small edit here.

Potentialy, there are maps, that with some changes could be amazing.But again, we must first clear what is "bkmod map" and what is not, and well..Toni's main question there was "who is able to do change at all?"

Extra wolfheze 2v2? You mean the 3v3 version of wolfheze? I've set player positioning in a way that the teammates are together and I found it fun coordinating where to go together/separated. I think the map you're thinking of is redball which is most obvious. But I really don't think the majority of the maps are like this... Especially at the 3v3 and 4v4 level.

The maps were intentionally made for some specific numbers of players on vcoh where the range of units are like half. But the range on BK pretty much makes 1 player able to cover 1.5 worth of players. What this creates is a game of decision making and trade off instead of squaring 1v1 vs 1v1. If you play a 2v2 on a 3v3 map where there are 3 "springs/lines" or critical locations of strategic value, then the team has to start making decisions on which points to take and sacrifice which I think makes it as you describe it "hardcore" instead of sitting back on a predictable spot where you can reliably mortar cheaply.


And I can change and have changed (sent my maps to toni) but I only change to my liking: less players per map. I don't fix other things that I don't think are problems. Ask endro about his new maps, he did exactly what toni proposed and you still find camping.