![]() ![]() Problems with 4v4 maps is they are designed to accommodate extra players and the map designers thought the best way was to increase map length over width. I don't think general mud is that bad or probably the least worst offender. It was a terrible map for coh1, not sure why it made it into coh2. Montagris region being the worst offender. Jump back to quoted post, 15:25 PM PanzerGeneralForever Bad 4v4 maps include:īingo, these maps are complete cancer for 4v4. Don't have mud everywhere, just for the express purpose of advertising the mud mechanicĮ.g., Hill 400 would have been a perfect map, if not for the inclusion of the maphack watchtowers (and the prominence of mortar pits/Walking stuka) ![]() Don't have all resources clumped up together (Montargis, wtf?) ![]() Have reasonably-well contestible resource points (Steppes - good. Lienne forest is notorious for the often-neglected forest region) Allow the players to utilise almost the entire available territory (e.g. Short enough to make FRP rince-repeat cheese less powerful Wide enough to allow for flanks (and prevent MG lockdown) If you want to play these maps, just fire up CoH1 and experience them the way they were meant to be. Let those ghosts hang back in the closet. Were never designed with Forward-Retreat-Points or JT/Elefant in mind Most of them are too crowded, even by 3v3 standards Have a completely different resource allocation system Lack cover (which is needed for snipers, mgs, etc) As a rule of thumb, if the map in question existed in the map-pool of CoH1 (e.g., Montargis, Red Balls, Hill 331), just veto it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |