Map size per player

[holoween]

after watching this thread:https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/should-2v2-and-3v3-share-same-size.1012212/ ive looked at the different map sizes to see how they compare.

based on my experience so far 2v2 and 3v3 games have been the most enjoyable but in general 2v2s were a bit too wide and 3v3 too narrow. as a result these are the current and suggsted map sizes:

Colombelles
width width per player suggested width suggested width per player

• 1v1 4km 4km 3km 3km
  
• 2v2 7,2km 3,6km 6km 3km
  
• 3v3 7,2km 2,4km 9km 3km
  
• 4v4 10km 2,5km 12km 3km

Point du Hoc
width width per player suggested width suggested width per player

• 1v1 4km 4km 2,5km 2,5km
  
• 2v2 6,2km 3,1km 5km 2,5km
  
• 3v3 6,2km 2,06km 7,5km 2,5km
  
• 4v4 10km 2,5km 10km 2,5km

 

[TGApples]

I think your "width per player" argument breaks down at the map edges because it's easier to cover 500m at the edge of the map than 500m between two players. As you add more players width per player should drop a bit.

More generally, I'm fine with maps having different front line densities. Variety is good.

 

[holoween]

I think your "width per player" argument breaks down at the map edges because it's easier to cover 500m at the edge of the map than 500m between two players. As you add more players width per player should drop a bit.

More generally, I'm fine with maps having different front line densities. Variety is good.

yea the width per player isnt perfect but its a usefull way to look at and compare the maps.
i could have also written it as a points per frontline since that is essentially what is important to the enjoyment of the game.
at least for me the interesting part of the game is building a battlegroup(on map) with different units to build synergy and that falls apart once you have to cover too much territory.

 

[Thonar]

yea the width per player isnt perfect but its a usefull way to look at and compare the maps.
i could have also written it as a points per frontline since that is essentially what is important to the enjoyment of the game.
at least for me the interesting part of the game is building a battlegroup(on map) with different units to build synergy and that falls apart once you have to cover too much territory.

I heavily disagree for following reasons:
1. SteelDivision found the perfect width to allow players to see everything but not being able to defend everything. This is actually what causes the game to be as maneuverable as it is because there are weakspots. I dislike the idea that the perfect on-map-unit composition should win the fight instead of the side that maneuvers the own units better. Actually you can perfectly observe such mistakes on map.
(€: This is actually also a point that destroyed ALB and RD, since players were pretty much able to cover the whole map with units without true weak-spots, especially not with the way Planes worked as panic-button)

2. The width a player can cover and can't cover is also hardly depended on the environment. A city needs usually more units to be covered than open ground thus your comparison between the maps is at least partly flawed since players need depending on their position on the map differen widths, even when it might help as a simplification for comparisons it might be actually too simple in my opinion.

 

[holoween]

I heavily disagree for following reasons:
1. SteelDivision found the perfect width to allow players to see everything but not being able to defend everything. This is actually what causes the game to be as maneuverable as it is because there are weakspots. I dislike the idea that the perfect on-map-unit composition should win the fight instead of the side that maneuvers the own units better. Actually you can perfectly observe such mistakes on map.

2. The width a player can cover and can't cover is also hardly depended on the environment. A city needs usually more units to be covered than open ground thus your comparison between the maps is at least partly flawed, even when it might help as a simplification for comparisons it might be actually too simple in my opinion.

1st i think youre somewhat misunderstanding my point. the reason i dislike the 1v1 atm is that to be able to cover the map and not be very easily pushed everywhere you have to spend so many points that you end up with very few units to actually have interesting fights. equally in 4v4 especially on colombelles you end up with enough units but can barely flank because there are too many units around. the hard part is to find a middleground.

2nd yes how much you can cover is dependant on the actual terrain since the more open it is the fewer units you need to cover it. but that is why in this comparison point du hoc ends up with a significantly lower width than colombelles. for the difference within a given map its largely irrelevant as there it only serves to change where you allocate your troops.

 

[Thonar]

1st i think youre somewhat misunderstanding my point. the reason i dislike the 1v1 atm is that to be able to cover the map and not be very easily pushed everywhere you have to spend so many points that you end up with very few units to actually have interesting fights. equally in 4v4 especially on colombelles you end up with enough units but can barely flank because there are too many units around. the hard part is to find a middleground.

This is where I think you are wrong actually.
As a matter of fact it can be easily seen that most players I currently have played with start to overcommit themselves and their position pretty early just to get a feeling of security. At the same time they do not play with a kind of mobile on map reserve.

Maybe I really misunderstand your point, but I can only understand you the way I do I think, when you say you end up with very few units for interesting fights because you don't want to be pushed everywhere. Generally you aren't pushed everywhere at the same time since your opponent will have to spent points to being able to push. Also you might have lost initiative at that point, it really depends strongly on the situation which is why I don't want my statements here seen as general statements, just as possibilities of probable mistakes.

On Collombelles 4on4 I also think the opposite. Especially the "city-less" center is often times very weakly defended and rather easy to push through in most cases since most players are getting too much attracted to the cities and the industry-complex. This was also very well observable during the stream yesterday in which they commented on a player-game.

 

[evilcat]

There could add bonus 10v10 map. Since 10v10 on 4-4 map is spammy.
10v10 is hard to balance, but players like to play it. Also good map to spot optimalization issue.

 

[holoween]

On Collombelles 4on4 I also think the opposite. Especially the "city-less" center is often times very weakly defended and rather easy to push through in most cases since most players are getting too much attracted to the cities and the industry-complex. This was also very well observable during the stream yesterday in which they commented on a player-game.

that the center is often weakly defended is a decision on the players side since they do have to points to cover it easily.

for the 1v1 example im coming from a fairly simple approach. you have to cover the entire frontline more because otherwise a simple 15point bike can push the frontline back quite far and win points. that means per km of frontline i will always need a certain minimun ammount of units (generally cheap inf and recon). once that is done there are some points left to build a small force to actually push the enemy.
the problem is the resulting fights on the flanks are quite boring. if the map wasnt as wide it would make those fights more interesting.

 

[Thonar]

that the center is often weakly defended is a decision on the players side since they do have to points to cover it easily.

for the 1v1 example im coming from a fairly simple approach. you have to cover the entire frontline more because otherwise a simple 15point bike can push the frontline back quite far and win points. that means per km of frontline i will always need a certain minimun ammount of units (generally cheap inf and recon). once that is done there are some points left to build a small force to actually push the enemy.
the problem is the resulting fights on the flanks are quite boring. if the map wasnt as wide it would make those fights more interesting.

1. You can increase the income rate already.
2. You need recon and sight, not more. The rest can be mobile. If he penetrates to deep with a single bike, you can cut him off and pretty much nearly ignore non-airborne units.

€: I don't think we come to a conclusion here, since it is partly a subjective matter of "feeling". Nevertheless the current approach prefers higher mobility and maneuvering in comparison to for example Wargame.

 

[holoween]

1. You can increase the income rate already.
2. You need recon and sight, not more. The rest can be mobile. If he penetrates to deep with a single bike, you can cut him off and pretty much nearly ignore non-airborne units.

€: I don't think we come to a conclusion here, since it is partly a subjective matter of "feeling". Nevertheless the current approach prefers higher mobility and maneuvering in comparison to for example Wargame.

honestly i have no idea how you get higher mobility from the games.
if you start moving vehicles around a lot you will just end up running into atgs more often. and your vehicles wont fight for quite some time while your enemy pushes with inf.

 

[TGApples]

Pointe du Hoc, at least, has roads behind the lines which can be used to fast move reactionary units. Fast move is a lot more important in SD than it was in Wargame.

 

[facmanpob]

1st i think youre somewhat misunderstanding my point. the reason i dislike the 1v1 atm is that to be able to cover the map and not be very easily pushed everywhere you have to spend so many points that you end up with very few units to actually have interesting fights.

If I may be so bold as to quote Sun Tzu:

If he (the enemy) sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.

The key is to compel the enemy to disperse his army, and then to concentrate superior force against each fraction in turn. Easy to say, much more difficult to put into practice.

 

[Arctander]

All I know is that I want different 2v2 and a 3v3 map sizes. Right now the 2/3 size is just too large for 2v2 IMO... I tried yesterday to get the devs to reply to a question about it during the twitch, but no luck... they would rather try to answer questions that they didn't understand (in fairness the question they picked actually made no sense.)

 

[ZhukoDim]

From my observation 2v2 maps are just 25-30% bigger than 1v1 version of them. Do not make them smaller please!

 

[holoween]

From my observation 2v2 maps are just 25-30% bigger than 1v1 version of them. Do not make them smaller please!

point du hoc is just over 50% larger and colombelles 75%