12v12 is honestly very good imo, but they really need to tend more towards the full sized EC style maps like Spain EC, Afghanistan EC, and to a lesser degree Vietnam EC, particularly as missile performance improves and high performance Fox 3’s are soon to be seen in-game. Most WT maps just dont work well for top tier, and will get even worse in the future.
Id argue that as it stands, Afghanistan is the best top tier map, followed by Spain EC, and Vietnam EC, with the next map being Pyreness. After that, most maps are trash mid or trash.
Golan and Sinai are way too flat and aren’t really that big despite Sinai “seeming” big
Non-EC vietnam is the same as EC vietnam except it funnels all planes into a small area, which leads to furball garbage (im also 99% sure the map is slightly smaller than EC version, but this might be just a placebo from the furball)
Small Spain is WAY too small, particularly since the entire fight gets funneled over the river area between the hills/mountains
City doesn’t use 2/3 of the map since there’s no reason to go over the sea or the mountains on either side of the city and the mountains act as a sort of hard barrier as well. There’s usually 1-2 players that go and fight in the mountain but then whenever the winner returns to the fight they realize the games already over.
Rocky Canyon and Rocky pillars both have the exact same issue of funneling the fight into a single area leading to the maps feeling a lot smaller than they actually are.
These issues are accentuated by larger team sizes and higher performance weapons, and I think gaijin adding the new high performance IR missiles (9M, R-73, and to a lesser degree P3) and increasing team sizes from 12v12 to 16v16 is starting to highlight the cracks in their maps and map designs.
Yeah, it’s also important to make sure the players are well spread on the map. As it is right now everyone just rushes for the furball in the middle of the map, so no matter how big the map is, the outcome will always be both teams figthing in a furball in the middle of the map.
We need more airfields and more objectives, spreaded apart on the map.
I find the EC maps do this pretty decently quite frankly. Obviously not perfect, but a step in the right direction. I find EC maps tend to start off more spread out and the match will finish in a dogfight between ~5 players or less on each team near the end due to the natural flow of BVR players who cranked to either side or base bombers who went to strike bases on each side of the map, which I think feels a lot better.
This gives all types of players something in the match. BVR enjoyers get the early game long range missile slinging action. Grinders/base bombers/strike aircrafts can go strike targets away from the map center, and people who enjoy dogfights get to enjoy their dogfight with less interruptions from 3rd parties once they manage to close the distance for the fight.
Agreed, and if you actually actively create an undisturbed 1 vs 1 vs their best player/plane combo by luring your enemy away from the pack (and reducing his energy advantage in this process) you might have a very nice 1 vs 1 - but your team managed to die completely in this few minutes - sometimes there is just one guy left, either repairing or afk.
That’s why i love these small matches 6 vs 6 on Pacific maps as you can actually make a difference with just 1 or 2 kills…
Also, to help spread the players across the map, all maps that have a sea should include an aircraft carrier to use as an additional airfield. And also include more naval targets.
Came to make sure this was being addressed, but 16v16 at top tier is not fun at all. Way too chaotic. Winning more often feels like luck than rewarding. I’ve played far less since the lobby sizes were increased.
we are mostly talking about higher tier in which climbing is not the smartest option in current meta as you’re are literarly the only target avaliable before the first missile barrage, but if you are talking to lower tiers (9.7 and below) that is valid option to do but still, ARB needs to get changed.
good take, there were no subsequent large air engagements plausible from that day on. So why sortie in the same way from that day onwards. If they were expecting a large engagement, like in Warthunders RB battles, they would sortie in a large group.
There’s no modern engagement where more than four or five jet fighters have fought each other at the same time. And do not confuse an entire war with an engagement. Of course wars have hundreds of fourth gen fighters flying, but not all of them are meeting in a same engagement. What we have in War Thunder are engagements, and if they are to be realistic, they must be realistically scaled. But this struggle is not for the sake of realism alone, 16v16 is unbearable gameplay-wise.
Edit: i’m researching more and i find that pretty much most engagements are 2v2. But of course 2v2 is too small for Air RB so something between 8v8 to 12v12 is best
I suppose i didn’t specify air to air engagement which is what i was reffering to.
I pointed to an example of where a lot of fighters sortied together in formation. If there are more examples after that where its mostly strike missions, i mean that is an argument for large strike oriented air RB if one cared about “realism”.