Natural Maps

[Chagan_Arslan]

Archers/xbowmen *are* at a disadvantage on the map such as Dune, which doesn't mean it's a bad map or the one that shouldn't be there (I like it, and I'm usually xbowman).

same thing can be said about cav on every of those village maps

No amount of tactics will eliminate the fact that map favors cavalry and less other classes.

i've seen it with my own eyes, pikemen outside archers throwers inside, for me as a cav it was really hard to kill anyone outside of enemy cav

Medieval combat as any combat *was* about capturing geostrategical locations, and not random open fields.

i was talking about capturing buildings not geostrategical locations, and i would presume that maps are those geostrategical locations thats why we are fighting on them

And key points were always buildings.

key point was always some building ? Hattin, Tannenberg, Azincourt no buildings, and the list goes on and on and on

I am yet to see some information on how many medieval battles were fought on open field, since many keep assuming that was so. I don't believe it at all. Armies only fought where they had advantage, unless they the general was bad tactician and his decisions were emotional (example: Battle of Krbava). An army will therefore only engage the other in the open field if it considers the opponent equal in strength. If it considers itself inferior, it will try to lure the enemy into forest, or something like that. If an army has superior cavalry it will engage in the open field, if not, it will try to lure the enemy into the forest. That kind of things.

ok i think im gonna skip this one, its too messy or im too tired right now and the fact that you dont believe in history and write your own oO ok

To get back to a map such as Dune - good thing is that usually classes are mixed in cRPG. Otherwise surely a cavalry based faction would win almost all the time on this map. Thats just how it is, regardless of tactics being used. Anyone who played Beta knows how Rhodok vs Swadia battles looked like. And how Khergit vs anyone else battles looked like. And we're talking about Native where crossbows shoot much faster, and archers too.

are we talking about cRPG or native? there is no single-type troop sides so why even bring this up to discussion?
both teams got cav, cav kill cav first most of the time, those who survive cav clash attack inf
neither of the teams have advantage over the other one, so its up to players in those teams to win, and in my opinion its what this game should be about

[Tai Feng]

same thing can be said about cav on every of those village maps

Exactly, and no one said cav is not at disadvantage there, and no one said that cav is going to be just ok as long as it uses tactics. No, it won't be. It will still be at a disadvantage.

i've seen it with my own eyes, pikemen outside archers throwers inside, for me as a cav it was really hard to kill anyone outside of enemy cav

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. You alone as a cavalry were not able to beat 10 enemies working together?

We can theorycraft all day long. If teams are equal, this "formation" is silly. They'll get shot blindly, and they can't disperse because cavalry will annihilate them. It's been seen over and over again since Warband Beta. And even in Warband Beta we were always hearing from some people how it's all balanced you just need to use tactic (while enemy team must not). That's not balance.

key point was always some building ? Hattin, Tannenberg, Azincourt no buildings, and the list goes on and on and on

Battle of Hattin did not happen because they wanted to capture a piece of desert on which the battle was fought.

The key point was Jerusalem, and other cities etc, geostrategical location of oasis etc. But that piece of desert was not a key point.

ok i think im gonna skip this one, its too messy or im too tired right now and the fact that you dont believe in history and write your own oO ok

I'd say you're simply emotional. "Field battles" the way you see them existed only in, for example, ancient Greece where two armies of hoplites would meet on a field and duel it out with minimal casualties. That was by no means a norm for medieval skirmish.

are we talking about cRPG or native? there is no single-type troop sides so why even bring this up to discussion?

To illustrate a point, by showing how it would look in the extreme.

both teams got cav

That's beside the point, the talk was about the importance of obstacles to archers and xbows and the balance of the map when it comes to classes.

neither of the teams have advantage over the other one, so its up to players in those teams to win, and in my opinion its what this game should be about

The team with better and more numerous horsemen would have the advantage, naturally.



My post is simply a response to your view as a horseman how hills/mountains/roofs are negative and it would be better without them, and that archers should instead 'use tactics'. I understand completely why you would favor such scenario but lets not pretend that anything here would be balanced or left up to the skill of the players. Maybe, if all players were cavalry on a map such as Dune.

[Erasmas]

My point is that on "Mirage" and "Dunes" there is literally NO place to hide. From my perspective - as xbowman - it means life expectancy of glass hammer. I am not saying that ranged chars need roofs to be effective, because they don't, but any form of natural concealment is needed. Otherwise the battle will change into cav paradise. Xbowmen need to stop and load; doing that on open field is a bad idea. Archers on the other hand will do a bit better.

Roofs provide elevated point of view, but also place to hide during reload, and some inaccessibility (and here I agree - that may be a bad thing). So roofs are just one of the means of providing ranged chars some comfort in melee battle. It can be achieved in other way - by creating some natural obstacles that can be used for reloading. 

IMHO, maps should be balanced, both from the perspective of teams' chance to win and characters type. I know that there are lovely maps that are a bit unbalanced this way or another, and these may be like that but I would really hate to see such maps dominate the rotation. Also, see here:

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,2814.0.html

[Chagan_Arslan]

@erasmas

yes your right being a crossbowmen sucks when you dont have a place to hide and reload i know, but imo such maps will force players to work together thus planting siege shields or creating shield wall, and that for me enchances gameplay and overall fun factor dont you agree ? ;]

@tai feng

i shouldnt argue with you but ok

- while cav cant do anything to people in unreachable places, yet archers on flat terrain can do just fine its only that using tactics enchance their perfomence even more
- i didnt said i was the only one, there was bunch of cav that couldnt do too much, so yeah i guess i try to prove that cav can be counter via tactics
- ok a little misunderstanding there, im talking about key point on the actual battlefield, places where our maps take place, while you are talking about outside factors that led to the fight
- well maybe a bit emotional due to being tired, but i just couldnt understand what all that you wrote had anything to do with the map balance ;]
- well we could also say that if chadz would implement muskets, than those maps would be terrible for non musket users.. but its not there so lets focus on things that are actually in the game ok ? :]
- i would add more obstacles if it werent for siege shields, they give you cover where you want it. You know i try to avoid placing those "obvious defence points" because it leads to map being played all the time the same way, everybody would rush it, whitout those in place people have to think where to go what to do do get better position
- well its a matter of autobalance rather than map imo, same thing applies for the archer team on village map, but cav on my maps is seen from a far, it cant come out of the corner kill and dissapear, this gives time to any ranged troop to deal with them, and they really can only surprise you if you really dont pay attention to the surroundings

And finally i didnt created them with the perspective of cavalrymen, to make it best cav maps believe it or not. I just dont really like that hide'n'seek maps game horse or not. When eu4_bt1 was still online, they had one of my maps, river delta and while playing it you could saw on chat that archers were quite happy, most of the time they sticked with their inf while cav were fighting cav. Or maybe its just me living in denial ;p

[Bjarky]

no your not living i denial chagan 
i've tried the river map on eu4 too as cav and we mostly got shot down in the end, so somehow these open maps work anyway since cav cant hide behind a hill or house either.
btw its always nice to have some other maps in for a change.
So thx for the good work, i hope we get some of those in the server

[Kophka]

I'm still trying to figure out how a flat open map gives anyone an advantage. It means that EVERYONE is exposed to enemy ranged, can see enemy cavalry coming, and won't get ninja'd by enemy infantry. Oh wait, it does give one team an advantage. The one that can pull together, protect their ranged, move as a team, etc. So yeah, first team to use tactics beyond blob/scatter/blob will definitely win.

Good job, great maps, keep it up amigo!

[Erasmas]

@erasmas

yes your right being a crossbowmen sucks when you dont have a place to hide and reload i know, but imo such maps will force players to work together thus planting siege shields or creating shield wall, and that for me enchances gameplay and overall fun factor dont you agree ? ;]

Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, usually open maps end up in massive run of teams towards each other, with cav riding over other team until they clash. Not much tactics, pure force. Sometimes it is different, but not often.

[Leiknir]

Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, usually open maps end up in massive run of teams towards each other, with cav riding over other team until they clash. Not much tactics, pure force. Sometimes it is different, but not often.

If both teams are retards, yes. But let 1 team start to work together, they win for sure, and force the enemy to work together next round.

[Toffi]

work together as a team, and it's a more balanced map than others, the other maps are always an archer paradise as long as there is one roof, one hill, something unreachable for infantry and cavalry.

[Erasmas]

If both teams are retards, yes. But let 1 team start to work together, they win for sure, and force the enemy to work together next round.

And that is very true, sir! Although not very common...

work together as a team, and it's a more balanced map than others, the other maps are always an archer paradise as long as there is one roof, one hill, something unreachable for infantry and cavalry.

And here I have to agree as well.

There is a difference, however, between the maps allowing for roof/high hills camping, and the map where is no natural obstacle at all, which essentially makes certain types/builds useless or close to useless. And that is my only concern.

[Memento_Mori]

Epic maps, good job, I especially like that windmill one !

Just some words from a foot soldier.


to the weird discussion about where medieval battles were fought, yes generals would try to fight where they thought that they held an advantage over their enemy, but in a game it's not fun when every map involves archers laddering to roof tops cav butt rushing your spawn & all infantry running out in the longest scattered formation you've ever seen.

IMO open maps or at least maps without the 'funnel effect' reward team work (sticking together even) and punish those who run in all different directions by them selves unaware of anything except the fact that to win we must kill them all.
obviously it's not a set mathematical equation that tactics beats no tactics, I just like it when teams are together and we have an epic clash. win or lose I just wanna see some awesome battles.

(not saying maps with funnel effect are bad or that the only maps there should be are open, I like variety & maps won't stop or start tactics/teamwork that is our job [the players] )

[Kophka]

There is a difference, however, between the maps allowing for roof/high hills camping, and the map where is no natural obstacle at all, which essentially makes certain types/builds useless or close to useless. And that is my only concern.

Both types of maps hurt a certain build or playstyle. The difference is, an archer/xbowman can still be an archer/xbowman on flat ground. He can use his team for cover and protection. So a flat open map means he must change tactics, but the playstyle is nowhere near useless, just different. On the other hand, a tightly packed street, tunnel,  or super roof-camp map does make cavalry useless. They must dismount and become infantry, which is not their character type. Which of the two options seems more fair and balanced to you?

[TommyHu]

Nice maps, they look pretty cool.  I agree with the thought that when there are less things to hide behind, mainly buildings, people are forced to work together more, aka sticking close to one another for protection.  Just because a map is flat and open doesn't mean cav is always going to win. There is just less ability to roam off on your own as inf because lets face it...1v1, Cav vs a Footman w/o a pike or heavy throwing weapons, the footman is almost always going to be at a range disadvantage.

On a side note- For the bazaar map, did you mean blocked rooftop access as in, there are no natural ways onto the roofs? or you put invisible walls on all the roofs so you cant get up on top of them even with bought ladders.  death to invisible walls, plz? 

[Erasmas]

Both types of maps hurt a certain build or playstyle. The difference is, an archer/xbowman can still be an archer/xbowman on flat ground. He can use his team for cover and protection. So a flat open map means he must change tactics, but the playstyle is nowhere near useless, just different. On the other hand, a tightly packed street, tunnel,  or super roof-camp map does make cavalry useless. They must dismount and become infantry, which is not their character type. Which of the two options seems more fair and balanced to you?

Fair point. Cav guy is probably worse footman than any ranged troop. I am only afraid that change of tactics in the case of xbowman will end up in being a regular melee fighter who can forgot the ranged weapon due to lack of cover. Now, we are talking about maps like Mirage or Dune, all others are really cool. These two will have nice climate too, but I will miss some stone or piece of wood.

Do not get me wrong, Chagan_Arslan, you did a good job, but I will not feel good there...

[HarunYahya]

I really enjoy playing on your maps Chagan !
So far i played on Tilting at windmills,Bazaar and River Delta all are amazing.
Especially for cav 
I do have some fps issues with Bazaar tho,but its awesome keep up the good work brotha