Maps for Wikinger

Personally I’d like to see some of the unused elements like weather (and blizzards), day/night and dawn/dusk.

I have a few other ideas around non-standard maps too, for example starting points for one team surrounded, having to fight outwards and the other team has to fight inwards.

If possible and we get to building our own maps, possibly doing mission-in-a-map setups would be nice too.

That’s all i have for now, will come back with some suggestions and maybe even a list of maps.

There’s a lot of talk about which units are balanced and which are overpowered, or which factions are overpowered and whatnot. Most of these discussions are correct but also mutually exclusive. A paradox? Not quite.

I think what we’re missing in these discussions is the nature of the maps being played.

Maps can be evaluated from the 50,000 foot level according to three factors: Length, Width, and Tightness. (You may make a dong joke now. I’ll wait.)

[Length] Length is the distance between the bases in terms of how long it takes to engage. Maps like Hamlet are extremely short, since the bases can sometimes bombard one another, while Trois Ponts is longer than it looks because the river in the middle forces you to go around it. Steppes is a fairly long map, as it can take over a minute for a squad to walk from one end to the other.

[Width] This is how many flanking routes there are on a map. Rails and Metal or Road to Kharkov are fairly narrow maps, as it’s possible to cover half the map with 2 MGs if placed correctly. A map like Hamlet would take 4+ MGs to cover half of the map, as it’s extremely wide.

[Tightness] A map is tight if there is less room to maneuver and the sightlines are short. Dusseldorf and Angermunde are fairly tight, while Steppes is fairly open. Some parts of the map can be tighter than others, such as the middle of La Gleize being tight while the sides are open.

[A discussion of Length] A longer map tends to benefit forward retreat points, in-field reinforcement, and in-field healing. When a squad has to retreat, a long map requires disproportionately more time for that squad to return to the battle than a short one. Having the ability to reinforce or heal in the field instead of retreating gives a massive advantage. Having a forward retreat point at the halfway point from your base to the middle means that you have to force off your opponent once for every time he forces you off twice. It’s basic math and a big advantage. It can be countered, but it’s very powerful.

Shorter maps benefit units that cannot retreat and that are not vehicles. AT guns and ISGs come to mind. An AT gun is extremely vulnerable near the middle of a long map, since it has to walk back while getting shot up and will probably get wiped out. On a short map, the protection of units coming out of the base, and base turrets, provides a level of protection to very slow AT guns.

This means that the OKW and UKF are therefore in good position on long maps. They have access to all three of reinforcement, forward retreat, and field-healing, and get them fairly early. The Americans are in the middle, since they can get a (vulnerable!) ambulance early on but the Major’s forward-retreat comes out much later. The Ostheer are in 4th since they can’t get a FRP, but can get in-field healing and reinforcement. The Soviets are in last, having healing in the field only on a commander, reinforcement through a half-track, and not having any way of getting a FRP.

(I’ve watched some Soviet players, like Cruzz, play on long maps. Notice how often they get forced off? Not often, because if they do they will lose to an OKW player with a forward retreat point. Soft-retreats can work wonders!)

[A discussion of Width] Maps that are wide provide more opportunities for flanks, both for infantry and armor. Conversely, they also provide more opportunities for wipes. If a squad is on the side and has to retreat back to base, putting a few squads in their retreat path can be fatal. Control of the middle on a wide map can become very powerful even if there aren’t as many resources there, so don’t neglect that.

If a map is narrow, such as Road to Kharkov, machine guns become extremely valuable. When players say “just flank the MG”, well, it’s entirely possible to get 100% coverage on some maps with as little as 2 MGs! Because of the player count, the 1v1 maps are universally wide. 2v2’s can become narrow since trying to flank means smacking into a different army who is probably not happy to see you.

Narrow maps benefit frontal-assault techniques and give AT guns a bit more use even if they are relatively long maps. 120mm mortars are great in these maps, as are mortar-pits since you can get 100% coverage with your MGs and Axis options for killing mortar pits with indirect fire aren’t great. Getting shock armor (T70, Luchs, Stuart) is often vital to break deadlocks on these maps. Likewise, building caches early can also be of huge benefit since you don’t need as much manpower to make sure you don’t get flanked.

Lastly, flanking armor works extremely well on wide maps. T34-76s have terrible penetration and poor armor, but they still deal 160 damage on a penetrating hit. This makes them one of the cheapest ways to get 160 damage hits on the field. If you can get 3 T34’s behind a KT, it will be dead or in serious trouble. Good luck pulling that off on Road to Kharkov, but it’s very possible to do that on Steppes.

Super-heavies therefore do extremely well on narrow maps, since their weakness (their rear armor) is far less exposed. The OKW and Ostheer therefore have a big advantage in the late game. The Allies will have a tough time unless they also brought a heavy tank call-in for these maps, such as the Pershing or IS-2. Fireflies for the UKF are likely going to see a lot of action if the game gets to that stage.

[A discussion of Tightness] Tightness is how many blind corners and close-assaults the armies will engage in as they advance. Tight maps tend to be very tough for vehicles since they often get stuck on corners at the worst possible times. Infantry-based AT weapons will get a workout since a couple bazooka rounds can destroy that fancy Luchs which literally couldn’t even see the rifle squad until it was already getting hit.

AT guns and support weapons tend to perform poorly in tight maps, since they are easy to ambush and slow to reface. MGs are less useful but there are usually buildings that the MGs can exploit. Assault guns like the SU-76 and Stug are also vulnerable since they don’t have a turret and thus can’t fire while navigating around corners. In many cases, they can retreat from the enemy, or fight the enemy, but not both like a tank can.

Factions with access to assault infantry become excellent on these maps. If your commanders don’t have any assault infantry, it might be a good idea to veto maps like Dusseldorf or Angermunde.

Because all their infantry are assault infantry, the OKW do extremely well here. The Americans do as well, since they can buy BARs to shred enemy infantry and can get Bazookas to wreck vehicles. The UKF are okay, I’ve found Sappers can get a lot done, particularly wiring off flank routes so my Tommies can get more shots out on charging infantry. The Soviets are Ostheer are variable. Penals can do wonders but conscripts will get massacred. Shock Troops can do incredible work for you even if they are generally viewed as too expensive. You need to get at least one wipe to break even with them. The Ostheer Grenadiers are in trouble, so Assault Grenadiers or Ostruppen doctrines might help. I don’t know, I don’t play Ostheer. When I fight Ostheer on tight maps, I don’t have a problem with them.

Tight maps can also benefit the Soviets if they are smart and use tripwire flares and anti-personnel mines. These mines are cheap and kill models, and in a tight alley they WILL get kills since units can’t avoid them. Ostheer S-mines are considerably less effective, not least of which because they are advertised with signposts.

It should also be noted that tight maps benefit grenade usage and flamethrower usage. Since it’s possible to sneak up close to an enemy, you can often toss a grenade over a wall to hit an ISG and give the other player literally no reaction time. Snipers in these maps can be great just to spot enemies from stealth.

[Conclusion] I think discussions of faction balance should take the maps into account a lot more. Some strategies are considerably less viable on some maps because of their design. Some factions not having access to stock unit types or having them later in their tiers can massively swing the balance on some maps but not others.

My personal favourite map is Moscow Outskirts (summer or winter are both good). This map is wide but not too wide, not too long, and has a few blind corners which can be destroyed later in the battle if I want to remove my enemy’s assault infantry’s effectiveness, or left up if I want to use my own assault infantry. It has a good cutoff interplay with the fuel point and points on the map edges that can be decapped to inflict economic losses to reward mobile play. I think all five armies have a decent chance of winning that map, and that future map designers should look to it for inspiration.”

That was copied from this reddit post: link while discussing vanilla map balance, it raises some really interesting and valid points.