A Different Kind of Battleground Map

In 1931, Harry Beck created the first version of his revolutionary map of the London Underground. Instead of accurately overlaying the train routes over a geographic map of London, Beck presented the topology of the Tube, divorcing it from the complicated, messy reality of the physical world and giving the logical connections between stations instead. This innovation has been rightly copied on metro transit maps throughout the world — presenting the flow of bus routes or subway systems is much more useful to a traveler trying to find the right line and stop than knowing where those lines and stops are in relation to the real world.

Topology is different from topography. Topography deals with the shape of the land, and is often seen in geographic maps. Topology deals with spatial flow. A topographic map will show elevation and surface structures; a topological map will show how different points relate to each other.

Practitioners of engineering, both Gnomish and Goblin, will recognize this type of map in circuit and network diagrams. The physical layout of the network is not as important to understanding how it works as the topology. Engineers need to know what connects to what when troubleshooting a design problem, not neccessarily where those things are located on a circuit board or network. Often elements of the network can be completely glossed over because the details are irrelevant to the discussion at hand — the concept of the Internet as “the cloud” comes from this reduction.

I’m used to looking at geographic maps for battlegrounds. The in-game maps show terrain, the location of objectives and obstacles, and your position with accurate scaling. These maps accurately reflect the battlefield and are useful tools.  Every twist of every path is accurately documented.

But there are times that these maps fail us. They present a lot of information you don’t need when thinking about strategy. They don’t convey the objectives of the battleground, or the flow from goal to goal. They aren’t good tools for new players to learn from, either — much like a geographic metro transit map, there’s a steep learning curve to know where you are and where you go next.

In talking with Nibuca on the Twisted Nether Blogcast, it occurred to me that the maps are part of the barrier to entering (and enjoying) the battlegrounds. “It’s not obvious what you’re supposed to be doing,” she said, and I agree completely. While dungeons are, for the most part, linear affairs, battlegrounds are not. The objectives are not clear when you first zone in, and — here’s the kicker — knowing where to go next is never obvious. Nearly every battleground has a symmetric map, which means there are no cues like “follow this corridor.” Battlegrounds are more complicated than that.

Using the London Tube map as an inspiration, I think looking at the battleground maps logically and topologically, instead of geographically, can help overcome this barrier to entry. And with rated battlegrounds coming in Cataclysm, more and more guilds are going to be looking at setting up strategies and teaching people to fight in these instances. Hopefully these maps will prove useful for both groups.

Normally, I present maps to illustrate a strategy.  Here, I’m just presenting maps to give you a different perspective on each battleground.  I expect you’ll see me use them again in later strategy posts.


I’ve tried to keep each map simple, sometimes absurdly so. This is deliberate. There are complexities to each battleground that are confusing to the new player, and as such have been avoided. There’s a vast amount of tactical knowledge that you pick up running a battleground that can completely influence the fight, but the purpose of a topological map is to point out the flow, not the terrain.

The legend for these maps is:

  • Large circle: an objective players can capture.
  • Small black dot: a graveyard players can capture.
  • Dot within a circle: an objective with an associated graveyard. Control of one implies control of the other.
  • Red node: Starts under the control of the Horde.
  • Blue node: Starts under the control of the Alliance.
  • Colored dot: A graveyard that cannot be captured. Usually, but not always, a spawn point.
  • Solid line: bidirectional path between nodes.
  • Arrow: one-way path. Usually involves jumping.
  • Square: Resource that can’t be captured, but can be used by one side or another.

Let’s take a look at the simplest battleground map of all, the Eye of the Storm.


There are five nodes you can control in Eye of the Storm: the 4 bases and the flag. The four bases at each corner have graveyards associated with them, so they have the bulls-eye symbol associated with them. Each node has only two approaches.

The flag sits in the middle of the battleground, again with only two ways to access it. There is no graveyard associated with controlling this objective — instead, it’s something you have to capture and then return to a controlled base.

Each side starts with one graveyard that cannot be captured; these are the spawn points and cannot be captured by the other side. Players must jump down from the floating rocks to reach the main battleground, represented by the colored arrows.

There isn’t any way to circumvent the routes shown here: this battleground floats in the Twisting Nether and you would need to fly in order to traverse it. So control of routes is absolute.

Make sense?

Next, let’s look at a slightly more complicated map: Arathi Basin.


Arathi Basin has 5 nodes, each with an associated graveyard.  These are the places where you really should fight at the flag.  There are two spawn points that cannot be captured by the other side, but can be accessed and camped, at either end of the map.

The orientation of the geographic map sets the flow of the map along a NW/SE axis, which can be confusing. The bases are set out with one close to your starting point, one far away, and three in the middle.

Unlike Eye of the Storm’s map, it is possible to move outside of the lines in this map, though it almost always involves either going very slowly, falling off a cliff, or both. The Lumber Mill is on a cliff, so characters who can slow fall, levitate, or parachute can go directly to the Blacksmith. Same going from the Blacksmith to the Gold Mine. Going from the Farm or Stables to Blacksmith requires swimming or water walking.

All of those are ‘difficult’ paths between nodes, so I omitted them.  Chalk them up to “quirks of the terrain.”


Strand of the Ancients is interesting because it’s the only half-court battleground in the game. One team fights to the Titan Relic while the other defends, and then everyone switches sides. So the flow of the battle always goes from North to South, from the beach to the relic.

Strand has a lot of little touches that make it interesting. Teams start in different places (landing ships for offense, south GY for defense) than their fallback graveyards (beach and courtyard). Control of the graveyards gives control of resources, not the other way around.

Seeing Strand like this really highlights the importance of graveyard control in this fight for both offense and defense. More on that in a later post.


The Isle of Conquest has a deceptively simple flow. This is a battleground where terrain, elevation and lines-of-sight matter. The different abilities and vehicles each node grants your team make this a far different place than Arathi Basin, where all nodes have equal resource value. You can win IoC with control of a single node, for example, something you cannot do in Arathi Basin.

That said, IoC has a typical circular map.  The three nodes in the center force you to divide your forces to focus upon the objectives.  In this aspect it’s very much unlike the other 40-man battleground, Alterac Valley, which is a linear map that doesn’t require tremendous coordination to run.  Let’s look at AV next.


Alterac Valley is a monster of a map no matter how you look at it: there are 24 points of interest spread out in a long North/South battleground. Because the graveyards are separate objectives, graveyard control is its own game within AV.  Knowing where to station defenders is paramount as your forces are sent all over the map.

However, despite the complexity of content, the flow of Alterac Valley is relatively straightforward.  This is not a circular map like EotS, AB, or IoC — it’s linear.  Alliance rides South while Horde rides North.  Teams can establish chokepoints and restrict the enemy from moving any further up the map.  It’s a fascinating, unique battleground, and the map is no exception.

Okay, so I love Alterac Valley.  Like THAT’S a surprise.


Remember how I said Eye of the Storm had the simplest battleground map?

Well, despite what you see above, I still think it does.  Warsong Gulch has the simplest topology, but not the simplest terrain.  There are 4 different approaches into each base, each with strengths and weaknesses.  Learning the ins and outs of the bases is essential.  Learning the terrain of midfield is also essential. But when I look at the terrain of Eye of the Storm and compare it to Warsong Gulch, it’s a far simpler place.  There are two approaches to each base.  There are few obstacles between each.

But in terms of the goals and logical flow of Warsong Gulch, it is as simple as this map makes it.  There’s your flag, and their flag.  Everything else – ramp, tunnel, roof, balcony, midfield – is immaterial.

If there was a zen battleground, Warsong Gulch would be it.


Though it’s not a fully-instanced battleground, I’ve also made a Wintergrasp map in the same style. Wintergrasp is still relevant to many players, and the points in my Introduction to Wintergrasp still apply.

I altered the keep layout a bit to illustrate the flow of the outer ring defenses — breaking into one of the outer keep courtyard doesn’t reduce any of the others, and you have to go through at least one before getting to the inner keep.


I said at the top of this post that I didn’t have a specific strategy to illustrate by presenting these maps.  That’s mostly true.  I think that looking at the logical flow of a battleground is vital to understanding the strategy behind it.  But it’s also vital to learning it and making sense of those first crazy runs across the map.

I hope you find these maps useful.



Filed under Battleground Strategies, Cynwise's Battlefield Manual

32 responses to “A Different Kind of Battleground Map

  1. battlechicken

    What a great idea. I’ve never broken it down this far, but when I look at my favorite BG maps, I kind of see this in my head, especially EoTS and AB. It’s why I don’t understand when people get confused about towers vs. flag. I see 5 nodes; I don’t always understand what they’re seeing.

    IoC is so new to me (having only started BGing again in the past couple of months) that I haven’t yet got a grasp on it. Being able to see it like that alongside the ones I’m already so in tune with is extremely helpful.

    Warsong is still my favorite; couldn’t imagine why… 😛

    • Making these maps really helped me understand the graveyard control strategies in Strand of the Ancients. I’ve played Strand a lot, but there are some subtleties about the South GY that I just wasn’t getting.

      IoC was the BG that inspired this post. Looking at the map, I was struck by how simple it was — but it sure didn’t feel that way learning it! It was big, and confusing, and WTF am I supposed to do?

      I see them in my head like this, too. There’s a lot that goes into visualizing a battleground – this is just one aspect.

      Hopefully it will be a good framework for learning some of the new BGs coming in Cataclysm, too. 🙂

  2. I think you warsong map is missing things. Each base has two distinct entrances from a ‘choke point’ perspective. Also the line from the GY out should be an arrow.

    Great idea though. I mentally convert all map this way and often forget that not everyone makes the mental overlays of time/path/importance.

    • Great suggestion on the arrows. I think I had a reason why I made them lines, but whatever it was I’ve forgotten it. I updated the WSG map to reflect your suggestion.

      I’m going back and forth on having the double paths from midfield to the bases. I have another version which presents all 4 routes (Ramp to balcony, ramp to FR, tunnel to FR, tunnel to roof) but it’s waaaaay to complicated. It’s also presenting routes dictated by the terrain that have the same goal. In other maps I omitted routes that didn’t add a path that skipped a node (the high road out of the Alliance cave in AV, the dry riverbed in IoC).

      It doesn’t look like it, but Warsong Gulch really is the hardest map to represent topologically. It’s *so* simple that you lose all the detail of the battleground. It really is a simple strategy that requires you to know the terrain, and not the objectives.

      I’m still thinking about it. Would love to hear more about what people think here.

  3. Ok, this I can get behind. This is MUCH easier to see. I still think it’ll take while of staring at AVs map to get it.. but these simplify it and eliminate a lot of the confusing and unneeded information.


  4. Win, as usual when you think outside the box.

    I think you may be missing an arrow-line in IOC from Hangar -> Workshop. It’s possible and reasonably easy to jump down the ledges on that cliff without any special slow-falling tricks.

    And I was not aware that there was a direct line from Workshop -> Docks…but then, I’ve never really looked for one either. Guess I’ll look again :-p

    • Thank you, sir. How’ve you been?

      You know, for the last week I’ve had that arrow in but haven’t logged in for a few days to check out if you could do it safely without slow fall. So I yanked it out today. I’ll put it back in.

      You should be able to ride over the oil pond and through the rocks to the docks. It’s not direct so much as “possible without going to one of the other nodes.”

      I’ve had long queue times in IoC, so if my memory is faulty on that one too let me know. 🙂

      • I’m listening to your TN podcast…ty for the almost-name-drop, I smiled :-). I thought, I should do that!…and then I thought…I can’t talk for two+ hours :-p.

  5. @Ihra
    You would be surprised 🙂

    • Ihra was on my list of bloggers you should interview next, should that question have come up. You should totally get him on your show!

  6. Wonderful job on this. In Strand I guess I had this mental block that I was traveling north from the shore to the final relic. Perhaps because I was going uphill, I’m not sure. Finally after a few games I got my head wrapped around it.

    This is a wonderful view of the BGs and I think a great way to think strategically when playing.

    • Thanks! I still get confused about the cardinal directions in Arathi Basin — I don’t think of it as Northwest or Southeast, I think “STABLES” or “FARM.” It’s all relative to each other.

  7. Erik


    My only thing for the WSG map is that the one line from the flag room to midfield is too easy to associate with the tunnel and noobs always just go tunnel as if it is the only way. Tunnel is no good for flag running unless your team is completely owning midfield, but it is still really easy to get ganked in there by rogues. I am worried the one line will just reinforce that tunnel only mentality. After all, it is really easy to look at that line and think to yourself one line = tunnel. Maybe you could make just one squiggly line from the FR to mid? That should throw the noobs off! 😀

    • I could perhaps add a second line going out to an angle like the ramp. I played with it before and was really undecided. Trying to stay faithful to the principles of the other maps while making the WSG map useful is hard. 😦

      • Erik

        Yeah, I understand. Great work though with them all.

        This wouldn’t be a problem if noobs couldn’t grab the flag! 🙂

  8. Vok

    That is awesome. An excellent, excellent way to present the BGs, particularly for folks new to them.

    Well done mate

  9. This is amazing. It makes the roads so much clearer to me (I’m a newbie!). It just eliminates me having to squint at the map trying to find where I am and then where I want to go and then how to get there, meanwhile getting stunlocked with my map up.

    But now, I can go, okay, I’m here, and I just have to go this way to get there, and…it feels easier to navigate on the fly with these maps than anything else.

    Though, I wish the abbreviations were bigger with the full name as the smaller parentheses. Since everybody uses the abbrevs it’d be faster to just spot the abbrev. I might just print these and write it bigger myself.

  10. Pingback: Episode 92 – That’s what Ril said « Twisted Nether Blogcast

  11. Pingback: Blog Leveling: 1-…Something « Psynister's Notebook

  12. Pingback: Cynwise’s Battlefield Store « Cynwise's Battlefield Manual

  13. Pingback: There goes the month’s budget « Armaggedon's coming!

  14. Pingback: Manual de Batalla, reconociendo la zona de combate « Eyes of The Beast Within

  15. Pingback: For Your Fel Intel « Fel Concentration

  16. Pingback: Tol Barad and the Ghosts of Wintergrasp | Cynwise's Battlefield Manual

  17. Pingback: The Battle For Gilneas | Cynwise's Battlefield Manual

  18. Pingback: The 7 ‘P’s of PvP « Green Bar Spec

  19. Ed Tiongson

    Thank you. This is great! Now my response time to help teammates will be quicker.

    Where is the Twin Peaks map though?