It's no secret Barashka is one of those maps that isn't played very much. Players generally avoid it in droves, even though TWI designed it to accommodate the community's long time demand for maps with long distance encounters and combined arms gameplay.
I will describe a typical match on Barashka: Both teams scramble for the bridges, and the Axis take the peninsula (B) while the Allies take the main bridge (C). Over time, players concentrate at B until about 90% of all players are near or on the objective, leaving A C and D basically unmanned. The Axis take advantage of this by capturing C with a small force, allowing the village at A to be captured. Another small force runs up to A unopposed and quickly capture it before the men from B can move back or respawn to defend it. So the Axis suddenly wins the match without any opposition. Sometimes, the reverse happens and the Allies win by doing a very similar maneuver. So the effect is basically that no fighting happens anywhere which isn't either B or C.
To stop this sort of sudden victory from happening so much, and to encourage more "tug-of-war" gameplay between the two sides on this map, I suggest adding transition objectives so that the map becomes like this:
If the Soviets capture [D] and [E], [F] and [G] unlock and the battle progresses there. If [F] and [G] are taken, then the Soviets are allowed to attack the final objective [H]. And vice-versa for the Germans. This way, fighting occurs on parts of the map which aren't the bridges. We get an actual drawn-out battle where both teams are alternately advancing and retreating according to the situation and they actually have the time to do it.
Now, I can imagine that a lot of people might something like "It's the Russians'/Germans' fault if they lose like that. You shouldn't put all your men in one area." I'm not going to argue against that, because it's true. However, the truth of the matter is that 90% of all games played on Barashka are public matches and in 99% of those matches, close to no organization/communication is happening. It's just too much to expect the common player to hang around in A or D just in case the enemy suddenly bursts through. Everyone is going to go straight to the main contested objectives. If we want to have fun matches on Barashka, I think we have no choice but to reorganize the map in some way to stage the skirmishes we would like to see.
Well that ends my wall of text. What do you guys think?
I will describe a typical match on Barashka: Both teams scramble for the bridges, and the Axis take the peninsula (B) while the Allies take the main bridge (C). Over time, players concentrate at B until about 90% of all players are near or on the objective, leaving A C and D basically unmanned. The Axis take advantage of this by capturing C with a small force, allowing the village at A to be captured. Another small force runs up to A unopposed and quickly capture it before the men from B can move back or respawn to defend it. So the Axis suddenly wins the match without any opposition. Sometimes, the reverse happens and the Allies win by doing a very similar maneuver. So the effect is basically that no fighting happens anywhere which isn't either B or C.
To stop this sort of sudden victory from happening so much, and to encourage more "tug-of-war" gameplay between the two sides on this map, I suggest adding transition objectives so that the map becomes like this:
If the Soviets capture [D] and [E], [F] and [G] unlock and the battle progresses there. If [F] and [G] are taken, then the Soviets are allowed to attack the final objective [H]. And vice-versa for the Germans. This way, fighting occurs on parts of the map which aren't the bridges. We get an actual drawn-out battle where both teams are alternately advancing and retreating according to the situation and they actually have the time to do it.
Now, I can imagine that a lot of people might something like "It's the Russians'/Germans' fault if they lose like that. You shouldn't put all your men in one area." I'm not going to argue against that, because it's true. However, the truth of the matter is that 90% of all games played on Barashka are public matches and in 99% of those matches, close to no organization/communication is happening. It's just too much to expect the common player to hang around in A or D just in case the enemy suddenly bursts through. Everyone is going to go straight to the main contested objectives. If we want to have fun matches on Barashka, I think we have no choice but to reorganize the map in some way to stage the skirmishes we would like to see.
Well that ends my wall of text. What do you guys think?
Last edited:
