MP MAPS : gj CA, but

Playing few mp maps yesterday I must say: GJ with the design CA, we have some very diverse and interesting maps.

1/ But we need them bigger. Much BIGGER - not by means of players involved, but by means of actual landscape to operate armies.

Flanking is still hard with full stack armies facing. Armies spread from left to right side of battlefield.
It is almost not very favourabe to move in first, as most map allow setting up artillery without move and start destroying the advancing force with devastating efect - supports camping

Some maps have large hill in the middle which is designed with good intention to promote offensive gameplay, BUT: the battlefield is so short that it is easy for camper to just pummel-barrage the hilltop with arty from his starting position, taking central hil first thus is not as favourable as it seems. Again - promotes camping

2/ BUILDINGS - due to artillery accuracy, it is almost folly to garrison any units inside - they go down on their occupants too fast. Buildings definitelly need to get some defence boost to make them viable part of a battlefield

Otherwise GREAT JOB CA

Originally Posted by Hans Schormmer

2/ BUILDINGS - due to artillery accuracy, it is almost folly to garrison any units inside - they go down on their occupants too fast. Buildings definitelly need to get some defence boost to make them viable part of a battlefield

My verdict on that is not out yet; but up to now, I found buildings to be very useful.
They do provide a defence boost: when under artillery fire, the units inside don't take damage until the building itself collapses.
I've used buildings to draw fire away from my other troops where it would have caused much more damage...
of course you have to move the unit out in time

And bigger maps...
I'm not sure about that either. A camper that deploys at the end of the deployment zone is just further away and marching towards him under his artillery fire takes even longer...
plus, the more space there is, the more room for light infantry kiters until they're finally with their back to the red line.

Originally Posted by daniu

My verdict on that is not out yet; but up to now, I found buildings to be very useful.
They do provide a defence boost: when under artillery fire, the units inside don't take damage until the building itself collapses.
I've used buildings to draw fire away from my other troops where it would have caused much more damage...
of course you have to move the unit out in time

And bigger maps...
I'm not sure about that either. A camper that deploys at the end of the deployment zone is just further away and marching towards him under his artillery fire takes even longer...
plus, the more space there is, the more room for light infantry kiters until they're finally with their back to the red line.

good points danyiu.

Buildings : your post inspired me to think deeper about my problem with buildings and units and I have come to think that loosing whole unit just by building falling down as ruin is too harsh. I also think that to pound a structure down to such heap of crumble would take much longer. At some point before total colapse, the structure should just stop giving defense or any other boost and from that point the unit would take damage from the arty hits, but not from the roof falling on their head. It just feels to me the building should be a better boost with less penalty when left unattended (if not invaded by a daring raid force) - that it should work as reliable strongpoint of your line if you go for it to allow you to fiddle with your troops somewhere else. But that is just my feeling. It is a matter of view.

Map span .. if camper camps it cannot be changed by anyone but himself, but advancing to central area should reward the attacker better than now on some maps. Some maps promote staying in deployment area by its design. Some maps seem better - usually ones without one central hill or ridge, but rather central higher plateau, or more than one ridge in the middle.

Maps are smaller in Napoleon. At least Grassy Flatlands seems so.

On one map, Ligny I think, my typical strategy is:

Set up arty in specific locations at my deployment zone (some good hills in deployment zones).
Kill enemy arty with mine.
Drive enemy away from the river crossing.
Advance across river with army.
Focus fire on any significant points of resistance.
Profit?

For some reason the building strength on a scenario battle (I'm talking about waterloo) is huge. It is nearly impossible to destroy those fame houses. I wonder if CA did this to prevent players from diviating too much from history and trying to bring them down with a couple volleys of cannon fire?

In terms of size of the maps, yes and no. I think the maps are a bit narrower, which should be changed to allow better flanking, but not to have greater depth. On Austerlitz, during a 4v4, I did a wide flanking maneuver (up the hill) and it took forever. At some point you have to abandon realism and keep the game fast pace. Allowing someone to travel miles down the map is therefore not making anything more fun.

i think the reason they didn't make maps larger, is because with no control points it still becomes a camp fest - if you capture the hill in the middle of the center, why would i go anywhere near there? i'll deploy half mile away and wait just like you. and armies can run away for longer too on a larger map. but i totally agree, maps are way to small, it continually cramps my style of play (which is cavalry flanks, and just flanking in general). people never have to divide their armies, and players on the same team can never get separated from one another. in short, there is STILL a whole lot lacking on the MP maps.