Novelty Maps

I would like to see more realistic maps rather than the current majority of novelty maps (Austrian pinancles etc). Just some nice gently undulating terrain (like flanders in Empire). Somehwere were two lines of infantry can converge and fight as they should. I appreciate that CA are trying to make balanced interesting maps but some of the maps are just strange. A few more in the realsitic category and I would be happy. (unfortunately a lot of the scenario maps have rivers in them which maps them undesirable for mp)

I also prefer more realistic maps. A perfect example (to me) of a balanced, interesting, but otherwise strange map is Homestead. The convenient 'ramps' that lead up the hills and such are just so unnatural. I still enjoy the map, but given the choice I'd prefer to fight on terrain that looks like it could actually exist.

I couldn't agree with you guys more, I like terrain to be interactable so that I can use it any way I want, rather than be funneled up one ramp, into a perfeclty square passage. I also personaly have a real grudge aginst impassable terrain.

this is why i like waterloo, borodino and the other historic maps (except ing austerlitz). would it hurt CA to have a largely flat, nice undulating map with nothing but perhaps paddocks and fences?

i didnt like flanders too much, that weird rock in the middle always pissed me off
caucasus was good in empire though as long as no one camped on the alliance one hill

Originally Posted by TheAussieDigger

caucasus was good in empire though as long as no one camped on the alliance one hill

If alliance ones deployment was a bit lower and the map was about double the size, i would have really liked it.

flanders map was good - the rock was there but not everywhere, it just prevented one from just stretching his line and advance straight forward. one had to use the ditch in the middle to his advantage.
Inaccessibility of some of the new maps is so boring - Arcole + Spanish Lakeside for example - absolutly useless for anything than 1v1.

- rocks, lakes, rivers, buildings - too much of everything is always a problem, in this game it also comes with ill-predefined positioning of soldiers in units. They really should be able to form around these facing the direction you want them to. they form thousand impossible and stupid formations instead. THIS should be solved + beter way to present how soldiers take advantage of the cover.

Originally Posted by TheAussieDigger

this is why i like waterloo, borodino and the other historic maps (except ing austerlitz). would it hurt CA to have a largely flat, nice undulating map with nothing but perhaps paddocks and fences?

i didnt like flanders too much, that weird rock in the middle always pissed me off
caucasus was good in empire though as long as no one camped on the alliance one hill

Borodino is ridiculously unfair. The side with the big mesa that screams "PLEASE CAMP!" can just kill your artillery before you even move and then sit across the bridge bombarding you.

Waterloo is the worst we are talking about the definition of camping.

Waterloo is a map i will not play again,i have had 2 games on it,the first one i won after a 30 min arty duel the second i lost after storming the left shoulder of the hill, taking it,then losing from been kited around by skirmishers,both were tedious games.
Some of the new maps are fun in 2v2 but none are any good for 1v1.A good 1v1 should have lots of small terrain features to take advantage of,like a small hill here and there, a couple of houses and patches of forest,as soon as they put a large dominating feature on the map it turns into a novelty map which every battle on it revolves around that feature.
This is why i play grassyflats for most of my 1v1 games just so each game is a bit different.

i think there fun and make you more tactical

You can find some new maps and reworked ones in

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=344822

Waterloo opened on the left to flanking movement and with lower hills.

I agree. I have a burning hatred for impassible terrain, especially when it is used for the sides of goofy hills like on homestead. What kind of hill is square/rectangular and only accessible from 3-4 N-S-E-W ramps? I would like to see gently rolling hills, scattered patches of forest, and maybe one or two farmhouses. Hills only need to be large enough to screen from long range artillery fire, not the massive plateaus found at Borodino or Ligny. And I hate Waterloo with a passion because every single time I am placed on the bottom right side, where you are forced to only attack head on because of that goofy 3ft impassable ridge that extends 1/3rd of the way into the map. My last battle at Ligny, I was automatically in arty range in my deployment zone (opposite that big hill) and lost both my 12lbers, half my cav, and about 120 line infantry within the first 3 min of the battle. What kind of map places you immediately within howitzer range!?!

So yeah, I would like to see maps with less advantageous and impassible terrain without resorting to the monotony of Grassy Flatlands.

I would perfer maps that are extremely large... Extremely large, and general limits on the camera so you couldnt roam across the whole map but a radius defined by your units...

Maps large enough that armies can get lost in them.... Meaning that scouting/vanguard/rearguards would have meaning.

LEGIO_Desaix

I would like to use your maps but I take the following to mean if I install them I cannot use the vanilla maps in multiplayer and this would seriously reduce the number of games I could play.

"Of course you will not be anymore compatible with vanilla players, every player needs the same mod installed to play on these revised maps"

Is it posible to use yours and vanilla maps?