Need More Multiplayer Maps!

[Arethin]

ETW needs more MP Maps.

All siege battles are 1v1, there are no city maps or farm maps (where are buildings) for 2v2 battles or larger.

Anyone agrees with me?

[ElFenix]

Yep, i agree, but not only with MP maps. The number of maps and historical battles is simply ridiculous! I miss those Historical Campaigns present in M:TW (some historical battles connected so you had to win each battle before being able to play the next). But well, i don't think they do it, at least not until all bugs are dealt with.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

And of course, all of the MP players want an obstruction-free, flat map where neither the host nor the guest have a starting terrain advantage. People won't take this game seriously until there are fair maps implemented.

[YellowMelon]

I don't know if a flat-map would suit this game. I mean in every TW there has been a desire for flat maps, but this one feels like terrain is more crucial. The problem in the past has been campers, but with artillery playing a more prominent role, camping isn't necessarily as much of a problem.

What I want are symmetrical maps. Maps where perhaps each side is equally advantageous but requires some resourcefulness.

[Lupu]

I don't know if a flat-map would suit this game. I mean in every TW there has been a desire for flat maps, but this one feels like terrain is more crucial. The problem in the past has been campers, but with artillery playing a more prominent role, camping isn't necessarily as much of a problem.

What I want are symmetrical maps. Maps where perhaps each side is equally advantageous but requires some resourcefulness.

This

[PrimeChaosVC]

I disaggree, I wouldn't take this game seriously if it is played on a completely featureless flat map. It may be good for RTW or even MTW, but this era is about taking cover, positioning and manuvering under terrian cover hidding the true strength of your army. The problem is not terrian but the lack of an attacker and defender role. I believe that if you a tourny is held where players take turns to swap roles and take the best out 3 games, it would be more tactical rather than a flat map and waiting contest. Yes its fair, but unrealistic, I can accept rtw and mtw to be played in this condition because these games has no sense of realism any way. But supprisingly, BI is can be playable even if one side have high ground as the bonus given is not too great an advantage for them.


my 5 cent.

edit: I disaggree with flat map. didn't know yellowmellon posted before me.

[Alkarin]

need 3v3 map damnit!

[Pendragon crash]

need 3v3 map damnit!

hooo yes !!

[LEGIO_Desaix]

In short we need a map editor tool. The rest we'll be done by us.

[Norpheus]

Im gonna start making a green and completely flat map as I get the tools yes.

[king-nord]

yeah a flat map that is featureless would not work on this game and tbh, would look terrible however a map which is more or less flat, few trees , and a few other details would be good .

[Norpheus]

You can actually already play 3v3...

[YellowMelon]

Yes but on one map...

[♔Mandelus♔]

A discussion about more and further maps is still running on every forum with the theme „Empire TW“.

So I will only give here as statement what all is written to it…

1.)
First of all was the question why there are not more maps and beside this was asked, why and with what reasons there are special maps for 2v2 onwards and not all maps playable from 1v1 up to 4v4, cooseable by host what gametype he want as in gamespy?
But ok, this shall not problem if there much more maps ....

2.)
A really flat map for tournaments was demanded for 1v1 up to 4v4 is demanded.
But here was / is a really discussion about the looking of that map:

Faction 1 said, it must be a flat grassland map like in RTW or can be as in M2TW, because only this is really fair. This map is accepted by many players in the past etc.

Faction 2 said this is “bull****” and has nothing to do with the game, because it’s only a green paint pool table and not more! A table flat map is ok for it and why not, but with some “life” on it as trees, bushes, fences etc. that will and can not give any advantage for someone!

I am personally faction 2, also because I had at least in RTW guys who found a 2 inch high area on flat grassland which shall give an average advantage (and this is only sick). But I think at least, why not both types and all are happy!

3.)
Of course shall be more maps here, also are most wished maps with some fences, stone walls along a road, with farmyard in the centre or with a village like on M2TW map “death valley” or some single barns etc., even with a small river which is mostly normally crossable
Here in ETW you can use all this stuff and in houses hide troops etc. So why not mp maps with it and only in campaigns as in the moment?


4.)
In term of the 3v3 battles is still a map for it missing.
To use the 4v4 map for it will mostly not work, because with only 6 players the battle will only sometimes start, mostly not. Also to put as no. 7 and 8 an AI player with one unimportant unit or however will not always work.

[KiLLerBoy]

Nice post

[MrT785479]

As far as competitive multiplayer is concerned, PoM is right. A flat map is entirely essential. With the way melee works right now, even the slightest grade gives the unit at the higher end of the hill a huge advantage. Even when shooting the unit with the higher ground gets a bonus. Units know how to shoot down a hill, but when trying to shoot up one they often end up just hitting the ground in front of their target.

Not to mention that artillery does nothing to prevent camping. Having your artillery unlimbered and ready to fire before the enemy's is a huge advantage. In both artillery and infantry fights the force that is advancing almost always fires second, which means they have less firepower right from the start.

At least if the map is flat then out maneuvering a camper is worth your time. But if hes camping on a high ground then it won't matter if he has even the slightest idea how to play the game.

[Gora sahib]

3v3 maps and 5v5 maps please, and more 4v4 and 2v2.

And while I dont want a pure 'flat' map, it would be great to have maps with more gradual slopping terrain ... with some streams maybe. Or a few villages to fight through (with estates / buildings to occupy).

[Alkarin]

not sure why the maps are so fricken hilly and crap in MP. during this time period you tried to find a very flat field. not the most forested hilly area to deploy your LINE INFANTRY

[Norpheus]

I can tell you guys that all the maps I make will be like a mirror from the middle...so its completely fair. Thats how maps should be and CA have not realized this.

[♔Mandelus♔]

not sure why the maps are so fricken hilly and crap in MP. during this time period you tried to find a very flat field. not the most forested hilly area to deploy your LINE INFANTRY

Of course and beside the situation like in north america sometimes during war of independece f.e., they won't have fight in the forrest normally.

BUT...

name me only one single battle of this age where the battlefield was table flat and sterile lihke an operating theatre in the hospital!
We can short it, will find no one!