Iwo Jima being horribly unbalanced?

[Singami]

I love Iwo Jima, I love playing that map. Especially as an American, because I seriously never saw Japanese winning an Iwo Jima round. Okay, I think I saw it once, by time, when Allies were too late in storming the last bunker. But even then, it was a meatgrinder.

It might be that this map shows a great weakness of RO2. Iwo Jima theoretically gives Japanese a great bonus of having bunkers to shoot from. The problem is that you'll never see anyone using a bunker, because it's window is a clear indicator of "hey, this is a place people will shoot from". And since everyone has dead-accurate sniper laser guns instead of weapons, you can have great fun laying headshot after headshot on people poking their faces from there. Surely, if bunkers were that ineffective, nobody would ever bother building them.

But that was just a rant, Iwo Jima is a problem nevertheless. I actually saw five American soldiers spawning right in front of my face, because the point I was defending just got taken. Please look into it.

 

[JosephBaier]

It's imo the most biased map atm.

 

[Sgt.NightFire]

Indeed, it was allot better in the testing phase were there was not so much cover in the battlefield and the allies really had to work to get to the next objective.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I like the map, but the problem with some of the bunkers is that you can't see down enough from most of them at the Allies near the bunker.

 

[RoastinGhost]

I think the bunkers are too easy to shoot into but too hard to shoot out of. maybe if they were really dark inside...

 

[titsmcgee852]

This map is a good example of how some maps can become formulaic. It's not difficult to win this map with 10 minutes to spare. Once A and B are taken, all it takes is for a squad leader and engineer to deploy smoke and satchels on D and E, whilst the American team to stack up behind C and then cap it once D and E are destroyed. Then, get one or two flamethrowers to rambo up behind F and the game is won for the allies. Very biased map IMO, it takes a skilled japanese team to defend this, and even then it can be iffy. Not sure how it could be balanced though. Perhaps if one of D or E weren't able to be destroyed by satchels, and the American team had to physical capture it with bodies.

 

[Drecks]

Played it probably twice and I don't like it.
Seeing the topic first thought was Spetz had a new forumname ?

 

[dwhee]

From personal experience, it all depends on how long you can hold the line at A and B, preferably without losing either. You don't have to get lockdown, but that's your best shot.

I've played Iwo Jima 7 times since the Betio patch, 6 as axis, 1 time as allies. 4 wins as axis, 1 tie, 1 loss. 1 tie as Americans.

It seems highly unlikely based on these limited observations that Iwo Jima is anywhere close to the most biased map.

I always press auto-select for my team, hence the axis bias there.

 

[jergul]

I would have agreed with the sentiment more earlier. But the axis teams are fielding more and more scoped mgs as players level up. Giving defence in depth.

Anectdotally - just finished two round with axis winning both.

 

[The Univermag's ghost]

Nah I find it's a balanced map, with 2 normal teams but it becomes unbalanced if the 2 teams are both noob teams. As japanese, you have the possibility to plant boobies in D and E (very very useful) and you can suppress a lot with fixed MGs firing non-stop in the smoke, plus a lot of good sniping spots, this is the only map where you can do 50+ kills with only a bolt action rifle.
Also funny being behind enemy lines as jap assault trooper and kill the enemy commander with the pistol grip when he is about to call arty.

"battalion this is platoon commander fire mission coordinates...THUD!"

"battalion this is japanese troll fire mission coordinates: our spawn"

 

[Nightingale]

If the Japanese ever lose A and B on this map, it is because they do not make enough use of the suicide grenade.

 

[gimpy117]

as a mostly japanese play, you have to be really good to win this one. Look out for my MG right side lol

 

[Singami]

Nah I find it's a balanced map, with 2 normal teams but it becomes unbalanced if the 2 teams are both noob teams. As japanese, you have the possibility to plant boobies in D and E (very very useful) and you can suppress a lot with fixed MGs firing non-stop in the smoke, plus a lot of good sniping spots, this is the only map where you can do 50+ kills with only a bolt action rifle.

I can get a lot, a ton of kills on this map as Japanese, especially if I get an assault class. But still, unless the Japs are amazing at defending A and B - points that are clearly favoring them - the game is bound to snowball out of control. Especially that later points does not spawn Americans behind them, but right on top of them.
Hell, even A and B aren't that great for Japanese, if anything they're balanced.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

I find the best way to win is put up a fight a A B C, ignore D E, and hole up in F and make sure the sniper picks off any flamethrowers before they get close.

 

[Zetsumei]

At least statistically on full 64 player servers all RS maps appear to be balanced. However with different player amounts the balance at most maps goes in favour of the attackers. The biggest issue with Iwo is that the easiest spot to hold out at are the guns that can be blown up (only a few paths to attack, good mortar usage locks it down), while a single lucky satchel can immediately take those out.

If you however not have good coordinated mortar fire, and mg crossfire iwo can get very easy.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

At least statistically on full 64 player servers all RS maps appear to be balanced...

Which seems good initially, but servers play with varying amounts of people. Perhaps maps (in general) should be balance with some sort of average number of players, between 24-64 players.

 

[Zetsumei]

personally I would prefer statistics on different player amounts and adapt things during the game based on the active players. Its not my think to decide these.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

personally I would prefer statistics on different player amounts and adapt things during the game based on the active players. Its not my think to decide these.

Yeah, I know. I remember pre-release that the (ROHOS) maps were supposed to adjust in size depending on the player limit for the server. Sounded like a nice idea, but I guess TWI could not get it to work properly. Not knocking them for it, but I'd hate to think they decided to balance maps based on full 64 player servers.

 

[The Univermag's ghost]

I can get a lot, a ton of kills on this map as Japanese, especially if I get an assault class. But still, unless the Japs are amazing at defending A and B - points that are clearly favoring them - the game is bound to snowball out of control. Especially that later points does not spawn Americans behind them, but right on top of them.
Hell, even A and B aren't that great for Japanese, if anything they're balanced.

True. After A and B or you have one or two good squads sticking the enemy at D/E or C, and you put arty in the other objective, or you get pushed back to F in no time. No matter if arty finishes, beacuse in iwo japs can call artillery nearly non-stop.

 

[Zetsumei]

Yeah, I know. I remember pre-release that the (ROHOS) maps were supposed to adjust in size depending on the player limit for the server. Sounded like a nice idea, but I guess TWI could not get it to work properly. Not knocking them for it, but I'd hate to think they decided to balance maps based on full 64 player servers.

it is there its just that its based on the max player amounts of the server. There are different versions effectively for 16 32 and 64 player amounts. But no server runs at 32 players, and I wouldnt be surprissed if the settings from those player amounts would be just a linear interpolation from the 64 player version.