A good map has routes for flanking that have cover, uses all of it’s space productively, supports multiple forms of play, has flags which make military sense as objectives (either they contain hard cover, or are physically dominating terrain) and does not provide positions which lead to easy spawn trapping of the enemy. It also should not have multiple objectives directly against the uncap edge, let alone overlooking it.
I think Aerodrome is the objectively worst map in the game because it doesn’t meet any of these criteria.
A huge portion of the map is a cover devoid wasteland across the entire top of the map. This easily could have held another flag, I’d suggest some kind of munition dump and bunkers set into the gorge, surrounded by blast berms. This also would have removed the large geometric advantage the German team has on this map due to the bias in objectives to their side, and the easier access from D-C then from C to B or A.
Most of the map is wide open, and most of the cover is easily destroyed, it’s ability to support diverse play is limited and tedious. It contains few transports to make up for the lack of cover or create anything but an infantry ‘run and hope you aren’t sniped’ style experience. The C flag in theory provides more close quarters, but in reality it’s not a very dynamic place It’s almost like a honey trap for people to die in. It needs two more entryways, as an easy solution.
Meanwhile several flags on this map, A, B, D and to a point F and E, are overlooked by large amounts of high ground and don’t make military sense. These would not be the points you defended if you actually had to defend this map in real life. They are deathtrap holes.
Most of the fortifications on this map are also near worthless, like why are so many in the bottom of the dry wash? And they aren’t even commonplace overall, which suggest game performance isn’t a reason why they are rare. It feels like someone stopped adding them halfway. Also per usual in BFV, the fortifications even when useful, usually have some really glaring weak spots designed into them which prevents the defender from seriously exploiting them. I don’t get the logic of this considering how much work it is to build them up vs how easily they are blown up. They don’t need large weak spots added.
Though the C flag on Arras is perhaps the absolute worst in the game in terms of flags being overlooked by high ground and poorly fortified. This objective makes no military sense, the crossroads near it would be a more logical point to defend. It’s overlooked by higher ground on three sides, and even the low end by the map edge has some rocks which overlook the actual capture zone.
While not ideal I think Twisted Steel has proven to be the best map, not because of any really specific design choices, but because basically every flag has a serious amount of cover on it, and the large number of indestructable trees ensures that even very intense fighting can’t leave it with large cover devoid wastelands. It has a lot of transport vehicles, the flags fill all of map area in a rational sense, more then one combination of flags creates a reasonably, defensively, winning position and, none of the flags is directly against the uncap zone. It has an infantry focused zone on the B-E axis, but nowhere is actually impossible to go as infantry, or as a vehicle. The only thing I’d change would be maybe another ford on the main river, but I actually rather like it overall.
FJELL 652 meanwhile… plays as the worst map in battlefield history. But it doesn’t have to be. I think about 95% of this is because of the VEHICLE DEPLOY SCREEN. It should not be possible for both teams to have 100% bombers. But the game lets them do that. This is obviously flawed game design, and very painful when it happens. But it’s not really the map’s basic fault other then that it has planes at all. That said, if the vehicle deploy screen is going to exist then maps need to be designed with it in mind.
The other 5% problem I see is basically, the map could use one more flanking route, and basically I’d like to see a ring style pathway around the base of the mountain connecting all points. That would reduce the bomber farming and the really bad choke point situations. But really it’s the flawed vehicle spawn design which has seriously degraded all battlefield gameplay. The infantry combat can be rather good otherwise.
If each team on Fjell had 1 bomber, 1 attack plane and and 2 fighters, and the center point let you gain another 1 bomber the map would play far better.
All battlefield V maps would play better if more flags actually mattered. Battlefield used to have a complex game changing system in which certain flags gave you different vehicles. And because vehicles were map specific that serious affected the balance of power. And it gave you a reason to not only try to get one flag over another, but to focus on defending that flag because it kept giving you that vehicle spawn.
The nerfing of this mechanic, only a handful of points in BFV grant any form of combat vehicle, and the total removal of the armored vehicles and planes spawning on the map vs the deploy screen seriously dumbed down game play, while also making it less fun and less interesting in general. I have no doubts that this is directly linked to why zerg hoard style game play has become so prolific in BF1 and now BFV. No real reason exists to do otherwise if all points are created equal.
Something else which I think is serious affecting most of the maps in the game is the location of respawns from the flags. The maximum I have noted is 160 meters for the C point on Panzerstorm. This is absurd, but 100-120m distances are common.
Back in the days of BF4 the distance was usually more like 60m, but since battlefield 1 the typical distance seems to be 80m minimal with a handful of exceptions, and often considerably greater. This doesn’t make sense when some objectives are as little as 100m apart. Spawn on the E or F flag on Narvik and you can end up at the boundry of the other point. At which point I’d rather have spawned on the center of the other objective so at least I could pick up some ammo.
I recognize that sticking to a strict limit creates design problems or may cause you to spawn die (we should be told if we are going to spawn contested) but as a rule the spawns are too far from objectives.
Also just in general, I think the maps need more indestructable cover then less. Twisted Steel for example would be terrible if you could destroy all the trees. I know some folk want to be able to level maps, but with amount of carpet bombing and V1 strikes in this game hard cover is more important then ever. The best maps in battlefield’s past never would have worked if they could be flattened, and frankly the bullet penetration system in this game is so opaque and hard to figure out, as well as seemingly not allowing penetration of more then 1 barrier, even if its two wooden fences I’m not a big fan of that either.
