This map is heavily unbalanced for one side gaining the most advantages over the other team.
One side has a clear advantage over the (B) Bunker- Boundaries are expanded for one side to have perfect cover over the trenches, and an easy to place spawn point by an engineer guarantees a spawn point that will last an entire match without being destroyed. Tree cover from this overlook over B, and the trenches allows practically zero risk of being pushed since the other team will receive attrition damage going into this upper mound to deal with any squads entrenched to overwatch the Bunker, and any troops moving to capture the bunker… no idea who’s bright idea was to allow one side to have better map control then the other with these out of boundary locations.
Now the biggest flaw that’s abused throughout each match… and you don’t need a heatmap from analytics to figure it out. Capture point near the woods is an absolute death trap with zero lateral or horizontal cover. A few small defilades to protect whoever is crazy enough to capture or defend the point… this should not be the case when the opposing team’s (C) capture has a village for protection…
Why is (A) so flawed? Start of the match you have enemy attacker/bombers aiming for this location as it guarantees squad wipes, and a clear early advantage at the start. you have 50KG/250KG bombers melt anything remotely near A… and of course the (A) side fighter/bombers have to deal with lateral cover over C… which doesn’t even come close to how ridiculous (C) is in comparison. All the open ground to push into the village is another nightmare all onto itself.
The map needs some serious re-structuring for conquest with at least 4-5 capture points… not just 3.
I could live with the map without artillery spam and the stupid trench close to B.
Though the map could be better as Invasion than as Conquest map anyway.
Thats why I mostly spend my time there spamming B with my mortar hehe
I personally really like this map, especially thanks to it being open (bolt actions and LMGs can shine there, which fits my prefered playstyle) and overall atmosphere (destroyed convoy, bunker, weather). I find it as my favourite conquest map in Moscow.
But I see your point about A being completely open and because of that, very vunerable for artillery/plane spam. Something could be done with that.
I also support the idea of making conquest with 5 points instead of 3 and expanding the maps - not only that one.
The only thing I would change is make the periods where it’s so foggy you can’t see diddly but the ai can and the periods of clear a bit longer. Ie make the pea soup happen less often and have the clear periods last longer.
You can disagree, but the issues are still relevant regardless.
Each side is winnable, even for A side with its massive disadvantages, but that comes down to individual play, and smart engineers setting up spawn points between A/C which allows whichever team holding 2/3rd’s of the map to overwhelm either side… only issue is if you don’t have skillful teammates who take to this level of play in the first place you’ll quickly notice the maps issues for balance.
Agreed, the map is a guaranteed desertion from me if i get it, and its the most common one.
The main issue its that is a 3 point capture when you should have at least 4 points to capture on it. A/C can exist on an entire different world from B and you wouldnt know.
Weather is pretty to look at but it only helps to fuck the disconnect from B to A/C when there is a snowstorm going, and help camping teams get a better hold on controlling the map.
A is just an open field. Devs clearly didnt thought that one out. C is the best point of the map. There are multiple ways to attack it and multiple ways to defend it. A/B both require to defend it from within, and while B is “fine” because its a literal bunker, A has nothing. All the cover it has from the destroyed convoy will probably get fucked because its in the way of the A side tank spawn. Arty strike spam absolutely fucks whomever wants to cap A.
B on the other hand is limited at best, while also suffering from the issues A has. The trench line is clearly the only place where you can place rally points to attack B from any other side that its not the B side spawn. The bunker itself has nothing going for it, there is only one way in and one way out, encouraging camping and nade spams.
Both points require more indestructible cover for whatever side has to defend. A is a joke and B is “get in the bunker or die trying”. You could also just move the trench line backwards away from B and make another cap point there. Why not even go beyond and put “something”, like a downed plane or whatever, as a cap point in the middle of the map? These are just ideas but the core issue of the matter is that the map is not good enough, specially when compared to other maps on the campaign.
It’s just a conquest map that takes longer to run across.
Pt B is no more exposed to 1 side than the other - both can position snipers on or near the trenches, and I’ve destroyed opposing spawns and had my own destroyed by people willing to run outside the zone and take the hit.