BF6 Maps - Lets Talk!

[GazzaGarratt 11,290]

Okay, so I have to admit, MOST of the maps I really do like. I equally like that the capture points are slightly different with each game mode.

 

The only ones I've struggled with which seem to be consistent with others online are the 2 desert ones. I think its down to the sheer scale of how open it is, coupled with how bright you stand out when running from one control point to the other. You can see how vehicles can really help dictate how well you do on these maps.

 

On the 2 new maps incoming - I've only played Black desert one. The lighting on this with the sunsetting looks cool but has annoyed me in parts as I think you stand out in certain places to the enemy. Needs a few more plays to see how it really feels. The other one looks similar to what Battle Royale is based on and the buildings on that work really well for cover so that looks promising.

 

My best maps are hard to separate. Manhattan Bridge, with C on top of the building that can get continually destroyed is cool. I think that's up there with Siege of Cairo and Iberian Offensive. Cairo is really cool finding different ways to flank the opposition whilst tanks always converge through the map on to C.

 

Thoughts all?

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

There's no real standout maps for me but the larger New York one is quite good. The rest are all pretty meh in Battlefield terms and even the two bigger ones are pretty small and rather bland. You compare these to the staggeringly detailed and carefully scaled and constructed ones from from older titles - even BFV, and they are very plain and compact in comparison. Sure, you can get into gunfights aplenty but that isn't what this series is all about and you can tell from interviews that the developers are petrified of modern gamers getting bored because they aren't in a firefight every 15 seconds. Flags also change hands so often that even conquest has become arcade domination. You look at the Sobek City map compared to the Gulf of Oman one and it's pretty embarrassing in comparison. 

 

No naval maps is absolutely criminal also. I don't think there is a truly terrible one aside from the new one oil released in season one, as they are all playable to what Battlefield has become in its design philosophy, but there's is zero that radically changes how matches play and in the roles you choose. The watered-down Operation Firestorm is another huge showcase of how inferior maps can be in the wrong design hands. 

[Luseth 2,183]

I think I am similar to James in that none really stand out apart from the god awful firestorm map, why they thought that was the one to bring back I have no idea and I think they really missed a trick in that they should have made the central tower fully destructable. I think I lean towards the siege of Cairo as my current favourite as the destruction is really good and there is plenty on that map.

 

On the point above I thought they had said they were already exploring naval maps or have them in mind for future release?

 

I will say if you compare them to maps in BF1 or V I think they still have a way to go with this game and you can certainly feel the COD elements that have been brought over with the current people in the design process, not necassarily to the benefit of the game either.

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

26 minutes ago, Luseth said:

On the point above I thought they had said they were already exploring naval maps or have them in mind for future release?

Apparently they were quite taken aback when questioned about it so I'm guessing they just said that to keep people happy and probably don't have anything planned or developed currently. Naval maps should've been in there from the off but with there being no naval maps even in Battlefield 2042 then I can't see it happening anytime soon. Seems like these developers want things strictly Codified and boots on the ground outside of land and air vehicles. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,290]

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me, but thats a benefit in my eyes as I've never felt BF shooting has been a smooth experience. Now it feels great.

 

I can't probably comment on the differences in older BF Maps to these maps - I just take it for what it is in this game. The destruction works well in quite a few of them. Siege of Cairo has certain parts that really can make you feel immersed in the battle for a control point.

 

If they want to change one thing, its the lighting on the desert maps - or add a few more buildings that help people on foot get from A to E abit easier without being sniped all the time. There definitely seems enough vehicles on each map to help the charge.

 

If I was being critical from a BF POV, I'd more angle my thoughts towards size. There probably isn't a truly epic/large map at launch. Its either that, or they've made sprinting far quicker with a knife. I'm happy as I don't feel like this game has running simulator in it, but I appreciate that can weirdly annoy others.

[phil bottle 10,226]

I really need to jump on this properly at some point. Too much Tarkov and now Arc Raiders will likely take my time. But yeah maps will make or break a game as far as I'm concerned and I've seen nothing so far that competes with those of the earlier games. BF3 and BF4 are still the peak maps wise. Base jumping into a map like in BF3 needs a come back 🤪

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

15 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me

I think it also is reflected in the general pacing and the amount of engagements players find themselves in. Stims, knee sliding and very generous mechanics make it blur more and more into COD. There are also little consequences for loss of territory and objectives, and even the squad system lacks identity. Plus the challenges and progression system is a carbon-copy and is nowhere near as rewarding or interesting. The interface and how the BR is framed is a ridiculous clone of MW2 back in 2022. 

[Luseth 2,183]

18 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me, but thats a benefit in my eyes as I've never felt BF shooting has been a smooth experience. Now it feels great.

 

I think this show's your limited experience of COD, I can't believe it but I am agreeing with James twice in one day, it is the pacing. The game wants you in constant fire fights and does not appreciate there is gameplay in a slower gameplay style, looking for ways to flank the enemy or sneak around to objectives on the other side of the map adding a tactical element into the game. There have been a few times we have gone to take the base closest enemy HQ but to get there you have to essentially run through the main pathways of the map.

 

On other battlefield games you saw it more in that you would get certain vehicles associated with a point, so say the team that captured point C would get an extra chopper or plane or tank for example. This game is much more COD than I think you realise, in fact I would say this is COD ground war moreso than old battlefield.

 

Yes the gameplay is COD esque but that's not necassarily terrible, however most guns are like lasers, the guns don't feel weighty and there is no skill required i.e. trying to allow for recoil or bullet drop. The range finder as we were discussing last night is mad the way it basically makes it a piece of piss to hit a target with.

 

I am enjoying it to some extent but whether it will have the longevity in it I am not sure, it will really depend on the maps.

[GazzaGarratt 11,290]

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

I think this show's your limited experience of COD

 

You mean Battlefield, right? I've played far more CoD than BF. Like years.

 

4 hours ago, J4MES OX4D said:

Stims, knee sliding and very generous mechanics make it blur more and more into COD.

 

Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game.

 

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

On other battlefield games you saw it more in that you would get certain vehicles associated with a point, so say the team that captured point C would get an extra chopper or plane or tank for example. This game is much more COD than I think you realise, in fact I would say this is COD ground war moreso than old battlefield.

 

That's a fair point, as I wouldn't know this given my experiences lie more with CoD than BF. It doesn't 'feel' like CoD to me though. Its not about twitch movements, KD, and CoD really doesn't have any squad co-ordination whatsoever. The way they've put the control points out there, it definitely has pulled me in. We had a game last night where they were taking us out with lone snipers on the mountain, so it was a nice tactic to try and get C and D, whilst we had 1-2 of us on cover fire to try and get rid of those annoying snipers.

 

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

I am enjoying it to some extent but whether it will have the longevity in it I am not sure, it will really depend on the maps.

 

I agree with this 100%. That being said, maps and gunplay dictate all FPS games we've ever played. We usually drop them when the maps kill people's love for the game or the gunplay is too all over the shop for us.

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

2 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game.

I think it is because when you fuse all these Codified ingredients together, you essentially get a completely different game. There is very little difference between this and what we played 3 years ago in Call of Duty and it's clear this game was developed off the back of that and by ex-COD devs. 

 

Battlefield maintaining its identity with all the originality it created was far more important but they've clearly wanted to entice COD players to the series when COD was at its most vulnerable, but this has come at the cost of BF's core design and without doing anything new or innovative. This game is miles off MW2019 and doesn't have much room to manoeuvre in terms of innovation. It just feels like they are recycling so much that we've seen the past 6 years. 

 

I don't mind Battlefield moving away from its identity and evolving but there is nothing here that we haven't seen in many other live service games in the past several years and all the padded-monetisation is really piss poor too. These changes could hurt the game because if they lose 50% of players back to COD then all these changes were in vain and then the developers will have to cling on to the alienated Battlefield community to rework things - something they did for 4 years straight after they screwed up royally with 2042. 

[techno 3,547]

With all the past experience etc I'm always baffled as to why game developers can't come up with better offerings or even equal offerings to what they've managed on inferior hardware. All of these maps are worse than what we've had in the past. Why are there stairs to nowhere rooms you open up that go nowhere clutter everywhere sometimes more is less. Then there's the new map, which is just dull, there are definitely a couple which are simply fine, no idea what they are called as I simply don't care. Im sure peoples views on maps depend on the game mode they play. 

The game isn't  bad but it really could have been so much better. 

[Luseth 2,183]

16 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

 

You mean Battlefield, right? I've played far more CoD than BF. Like years.

 

 

Yes sorry.

 

16 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

 

Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game.

 

 

That's a fair point, as I wouldn't know this given my experiences lie more with CoD than BF. It doesn't 'feel' like CoD to me though. Its not about twitch movements, KD, and CoD really doesn't have any squad co-ordination whatsoever. The way they've put the control points out there, it definitely has pulled me in. We had a game last night where they were taking us out with lone snipers on the mountain, so it was a nice tactic to try and get C and D, whilst we had 1-2 of us on cover fire to try and get rid of those annoying snipers.

 

 

 

Yes it is a bad thing, progression for this series should have been smarter maps, more tactical gameplay, improve upon the building elements of BFV, improving the destruction (which they have but the battle royale show's it could have gone further), develop naval warfare.

 

14 hours ago, J4MES OX4D said:

These changes could hurt the game because if they lose 50% of players back to COD then all these changes were in vain and then the developers will have to cling on to the alienated Battlefield community to rework things - something they did for 4 years straight after they screwed up royally with 2042. 

 

They had to do it with BFV as well when they first attempted battle royale, this is becoming a recurring theme now and if it happens a third time around and is not successful then I know a few people who won't return to the series. This is CODafield currently and that's fine if that is the direction they go in and it works, but as you say if those COD fans go straight back to COD when it is realeased it will be all for nothing and will have further alienated the fan base that has kept this series going. 

 

[MrBiron 1,513]

The maps are just bad. I've played BF since Bad Company and I've generally enjoyed most of them (we can all just forget Hardline exists) but I just don't like this game. I don't remember getting shot in the back as much as I do in this game. I think it's because the maps are really small compared to previous BF games.

[Luseth 2,183]

38 minutes ago, MrBiron said:

The maps are just bad. I've played BF since Bad Company and I've generally enjoyed most of them (we can all just forget Hardline exists) but I just don't like this game. I don't remember getting shot in the back as much as I do in this game. I think it's because the maps are really small compared to previous BF games.

 

I think part of that is the spawns as well, I don't know if you have noticed but if you are capturing a base and people spawn in on said base they almost always spawn behind you. I think this is about trying to keep everything happening at a fast pace for players, you know the ADHD aspect of COD.

[MrBiron 1,513]

23 hours ago, Luseth said:

 

I think part of that is the spawns as well, I don't know if you have noticed but if you are capturing a base and people spawn in on said base they almost always spawn behind you. I think this is about trying to keep everything happening at a fast pace for players, you know the ADHD aspect of COD.

 

It's definitely down to them trying to appeal to the COD audience. If I want to play COD then I'll play COD. I don't want to play a BF that's like COD. I play both of them because they're different to each other.

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

BF6 challenges be like

[Luseth 2,183]

On 10/31/2025 at 9:05 AM, MrBiron said:

The maps are just bad. I've played BF since Bad Company and I've generally enjoyed most of them (we can all just forget Hardline exists) but I just don't like this game. I don't remember getting shot in the back as much as I do in this game. I think it's because the maps are really small compared to previous BF games.

 

@GazzaGarratt asked me last night what it was I am disliking about the game at the moment and I had a think about it after I came off last night and I have swung towards the same thinking as you. The maps are just bad.

 

The things I picked out about them:-

 

- The maps just feel very chaotic and without any real structure to them, in some instances you can have snipers shooting people in spawn sat up on a mountain, in others you can have tanks not even leaving their spawn and being able to take out people across the whole map.

- Moving from one objective point to another generally see's you having to run across open spaces leaving you completely exposed to anyone sitting around waiting for you.

- A number of the maps have high rise buildings that you can only reach the top via flying over in a helicopter and ditching it. Now I am no builder or architect but I don't recall many buildings in the world where they have been built without fekking stairs to the top! So many times I have been killed on this battlefield game by people sitting on top of a point that is not reachable by any means so unless you snipe back you can not counter them. Before Lee say's it, camping by snipers has always been in Battlefield but there has always been a way to fight back i.e. cover to sprint between to get to the sniper and such. Unfortunately we can't scale walls in this one. Even on the smaller skyscrapers you find there are sometimes no route up which to me is a futile attempt to make the assault class worth playing with it's ladders.

- The maps are smaller than historically, operation firestorm compared to almost every other map demonstrates this. Then the space within the maps is not utilised well at all. Think of all the routes through from one side of the map to the other on Cairo for example, there are no choke points or tactical routes which removes any tactical element of the map. 

- Then where we have bigger maps they are far too open and all of the objectives seem to be placed centrally leaving swathes of the map empty.

- The new oilfields map is atrocious, it's like someone created an empty map, put some ridges in and then dropped in random geometry from the generic battlefield library and that's what we got. There are genuinely way better maps already in the community area.

- Spawns are dreadful, the number of times I spawned on a point yesterday and I was being shot before I even moved anywhere.

 

Oh on the game play side of it (we should just have 1 thread on this game) has anyone noticed that when you move from one lobby to another you can sometimes find yourself spawn in and start playing but other times you spawn in and the opposite team have already captured the first 2 bases before your side really get going? Like they load a number of players into the lobby at a time or something?

 

[GazzaGarratt 11,290]

I'll stick to the maps in this thread, cos its the thread for it 😄 I can definitely see some of those concerns coming through on specific maps.

 

New Sobek City - This one has the most vertical issues. Like you said, the fact people can find cubby holes on sides of buildings with no standard stairs you ropes to get you there is very odd. I think thats where obviously vehicles, well, helicopters I mean, get you there but also having an Assault class with deployable ladders. I still don't think thats a good enough answer though as you should be able to have stairs to 95% of all high openings. This desert map is nearly as bad as Operation Firestorm. Also, the vertical issue compounds the problem by way of allowing people way higher to also control the point. I don't think that is a good design at all.

 

Operation Firestorm - Way too open. Far too wide for snipers to take you out.

 

New Oilfields Map - Like Matt says, ridges around but too vast of an area wide open and no cover. Lighting also not great.

 

On the flip side, I do find these enjoyable so far:

 

Manhattan Bridge - Great point (usually C) on top of building. Can be blown up quite abit and can change the way a game flows given the advantage point but also can easily focus too hard on it. Middle 4 way point very good with lots of ways to attack it. One of the further points, E, can have different fights, given the pipes that are destructible but give good cover, and the zip line across the top of the point but doesn't allow you to control the point.

 

Iberian Offensive - Nice lanes to flank teams across both sides. Tanks can make differences at both end points and at D but its good that 3-4 points aren't affected so a change of how you tackle each point must be taken into consideration. Spawn Beacons can really help on this map, possibly underused so nice to see how it can flip a game and area. C can have great cover points, but also largely destructible which can change how you play attack/defence on this.

 

Liberation Peak - Large peak that separates E from B,C,D definitely adds something to this game and how different ways you can approach winning the game. Vehicles can help change a game but also a good defence strategy across either the bottom control points, or capturing high end grounds D, E and F. Snipers can make a difference on the Peak when C and D matter in whatever game mode you're playing.

 

 

Theres obviously more, but just wanted to highlight some bits I really don't like on maps, and some that I do.

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,430]

The maps are largely (excuse the pun) bad Battlefield maps but I don't think they are all atrocious MP maps in general. These are what COD maps used to be 15 years ago. After 75 or so hours, here's my final thoughts on them:-

 

Blackwell Fields - now this map is an atrocity. Terrible visibility, way too open, aesthetically nasty and just a hideous layout. 

 

Cairo - decent map and plenty of destruction. Drone glitchers galore though. Works well in several modes.

 

Manhattan Bridge - good layout and decent size. C flag is well-positioned for a good battle. Action on and off the ground and it works well in all modes. 

 

Empire State - really small and frantic. There's very little room for any tactics and squad play is irrelevant. Decent MP map but not a good Battlefield experience.

 

New Sobek City - one of the bigger maps but still really small. Pretty fun in Breakthrough but lacks any scale or complexity like the Gulf of Oman map.

 

Mirak Valley - tries to be a BF1 map but feels mostly like a barren land. Big but not huge. Still fun in breakthrough but hardly feels like a traditional map from this series. 

 

Iberian Offensive - not a very good looking map. It's really basic but has a decent enough flow. Doesn't feel like a Battlefield map.

 

Operation Firestorm - 30% smaller than the older variants and it feels really watered-down. The inflated colours make it look really off too. A horrible remake. 

 

Liberation Peak - A good size and finally a map where vehicles can utilise the landscape. Still feels a bit compact on how the action flows but a good all-rounder. 

 

 

No naval maps in inexcusable and it's clear the developers don't like water because it fragments the action and they are probably worried people will get bored if they don't have a gun fight every 10-15 seconds. I think there is probably only one half-decent Battlefield map in this game and the rest are detrimental to the series although they aren't terrible in MP terms and how the game is designed. One map per season is not good enough either especially if it is as bad as the Blackwell Fields. 

 

Considering how bad the maps were in 2042, there really hasn't been many good maps out of this franchise for a very long time. Most of the maps also negate squad play that made the series so special. You can literally ignore your squad the whole game and still end up top with 45-60 kills and 20 captures. In older BF titles, squads were imperative especially for maintaining territory and pushing objectives. In this game flags change hands so often, if you ain't got double figures of captures come the end of the game, you've barely played the objective.