COH: Europe In Ruins

...and it gave me an idea.

4v4 maps tend to be a bit hit and miss, mainly because they're so big and take so long to make. On the other hand, most 3v3 maps are of a good size and could probably take a 4th player into the mix without it destroying the playability of the map.

My suggestion? Make a majority of 3v3 maps 3v3/4v4 maps. Abbeville and Schijndel have already set the precedent, why not a 3v3/4v4 version of some other maps?


Tanteville currently fights 2 at the village and to the right, 1 on the left. I don't think 4 would be too much, 2 in the village and 2 on the left could become a pretty ferocious battleground.

Radar Station usually fights 1 on the hill, 1 at the station and 1 at the village, a 4th would easily fit on to that map.

St. Lambert plays ok with 3, 1 up the middle and 1 down each of the sides, I'm sure a 4th wouldn't break that balance too much, there's enough room for the spread to balance itself.

Bocage would work nicely as a 4v4, it always feels a bit big in a 3v3.

Obviously some maps work less well as 4v4s than others, but smaller 4v4 maps will also improve lag problems (smaller maps are generally less laggy), give 4v4 games the quality maps that 3v3s enjoy, and give more flexibility to the War Map list, allowing more 4v4s to be played. There's also the question of 2v2/3v3 maps. There are a few 2v2s that wouldn't be ruined by adding the 3v3 capability to them also, and a few 3v3 maps that might play well enough as 2v2s, but that's a different topic.

This isn't intended as a criticism of the War Map list in any way. The idea is purely about artificially increasing the number of maps in EiR by allowing some maps to double up for different game types, thus broadening the available selection of maps for each category. If you have...

5x 2v2 maps
5x 2v2/3v3 maps
4x 3v3 maps
4x 3v3/4v4 maps
3x 4v4 maps...

you have a total of 21 maps. However, you have...

10x 2v2 maps
13x 3v3 maps
7x 4v4 maps...

essentially giving you a selection of 30 maps for games. I'll take a moment to apologise for using mathematics to support my argument, but it helps illustrate the point.

I have no idea how difficult it is to add in extra player capacity to existing maps, but as the maps are generally already balanced and play tested, it helps reduce the workload on the mapping dept. to produce more maps for a particular category, if an existing map will already double-up. And obviously, less time spent churning out new map after new map gives more time for fine tuning the new maps, and for playing games, which is never a bad thing... :)

Bocage already feels kinda small for a 3v3, it's certainly no 4v4 imo.  There has to be room for flanking and for the battle to move around the map, most 3v3 maps with 4 players on each side would just be a frontal meat grinder along the entire front which would benefit some doctrines and factions more than others.  I feel abbe winter is small for a 4v4 map personally.

We need more maps but not at the cost of gameplay.

I think Abbeville works pretty well. I've yet to play a 4v4 on it that feels like a grinder, although the battles certainly feel a lot tougher when there's an additional player's worth of units to overcome on the attack or counter-attack.

Personally, I prefer battles to be hard fought and come down to the wire. Games where one team dominate and win after 30mins just get boring at the 15min mark. I like a game to be a contest rather than a walkover, or being walked-over.

adding 4v4 to 3v3 won't hurt it's still players choice if they want to play 4v4 on it or not, so mukip why you whine on something what can only add some flavor and has no downsides.

I'm not whining I'm stating my opinion in this discussion.  The downside will be getting pressured to play these maps in 4v4's.

Tanteville is a great map for a 4v4

it's not about forcing people to play 4v4s, it's about giving people that DO play 4v4s the opportunity to still contribute to the war-map, as well as exapnding the maps lists for each category.

4v4s are horrid. they are horrendous when it comes to balance. at best its a huge hit or miss and its mostly miss.

If the map creators are willing to add 2 more slots to their maps then by all means go for it :).

I think that the map list will prevent people form playing any other maps.

If we could have 1 200% map that we fight for and a list of 5 randomly selected daily 150% maps it would add more variety and people could play other maps.

Or we just need to speed up the rate at which it progresses :P

you actually do that through current balancing state

not to think about how long a war would take when axis would be able to win some games

We should just double or triple the speed like I said somewhere else. Too slow right now.
But the map list should include all ~200 maps and we should be fighting on 2 200% at the same time and 4 150% 2 up, 2 down.



When axis defend:
Terror cheap mines+goliaths (ubercamo, mobile)
88+flakverling+camo armies.
->Allies begin to arty whore in order to win war

When allies defend:
Expensive mines + demo charges (buildings only, can be seen by the enemy)
Royal engineers failplacements.
->Axis makes a slight adjustment but all strategies still viable.

that wouldnt' be such a bad idea. Just move some of the 3v3's and add two extra slots, shouldn't take much. Look at abbeville winter, its basically abbe with an added southern sector and its in winter and other lil changes but its the same size and it can be played 3v3/4v4 I think Tante, Cheatue, that new map that Leo made from the mission i forget teh name and Bocaage would work as 4v4's easy.

so why arent there alot of 4v4 maps in the warmap?

Well... we actually have a lack of them in the community.  Also, Unkn0wn took the 2 that were in, out. 
/me shrug. 

We don't really have good 4v4s though.

schinjdlesomthing and abbyville winter.

Both are also 3v3 maps.

computer performance is usually a big problem in 4v4s. And ofc as I was saying my comp can handle a 4v4 no problem, I lag out cuz i needed to update my graphics driver  :P

It's near impossible to convince ppl to do 4v4s because it's no fun when someone drops

but you could also make the same argument that the bigger ones favor some doctrines and factions more then others as well, its really not a real argumentative point is it?

I like the idea of bringing lambert back to a 4 v 4, that was my all time favorite EIR map..

I'm not a fan of 4v4s.  It tends to be laggy and many abilities work differently in a 4v4.  For example all the plane offmaps are less effective in 4v4 because it takes so long to move across the map.

Since when can enemies see demo charges?

if its the demo charges in buildings you can zoom into houses until the ground and see them

but who has time to do that for every building while a battle is in progress?

1) strafes still kill before the plane comes on screen.
2) you used to be able to see in the fog of war if the enemy if planting a demo charge, not sure if that still is possible.

Ok...

1. This is not a thread about whether people like 4v4s.
2. This is not a post about faults with the war map.
3. This is not a balance thread.


Now, instead of hijacking, why not discuss the proposal at hand? I'm not pushing people, or forcing people, to play more 4v4s. The suggestion is to increase the number of available maps for each game type by getting maps to double up, (e.g. as 3v3/4v4 maps, or as 2v2/3v3 maps).

Unlike some who have made their opinions unnecessarily well voiced in the thread, I DO enjoy playing 4v4s, and I would like a bit more variety in the maps we can play. One problem with them is that there are only a few 4v4 maps, most of them are only 4v4, and thus get played less often and tend to be less popular, whereas Abbeville and Schijndel are also 3v3 maps and get played more frequently.

The other reason I suggested it was that the reason, as I see it, that there are few 4v4s on the war map is that the maps that are purely 4v4, FORCE people to play a 4v4, whereas if the maps were 3v3/4v4, they could play either type of game on that map, thus allowing 4v4s to count towards the war map without forcing people who don't like to play /can't play 4v4s to do so.

Now, is there anyone who can use the map editor who would be willing to experiment with that idea and make a couple of 3v3's into 3v3/4v4s as a test of the practicality of the idea?

nah not really. would be nice if we had more maps but there are not that many 4v4s at all soo..not an issue

Well, perhaps you don't play them Aloha, but typically I manage to get at least 2-4 4v4s in a week, and there's usually at least one in progress in the evenings when I first log in.

In either case, it's an available game mode and people play them, so saying it's not an issue is simply dismissing an element of the game play of this mod. People do play them, and I think more people would play them if the variety of maps was wider, and people could play maps they are more familiar with.

I reckon Salan may be right, on re-inspection, that St. Lambert would make a good 3v3/4v4 map, as although it's fairly narrow, it's certainly large enough to accommodate 8 players. Would anyone be willing to add 2 spawn points into that and give us a proto-type to test?