Bigger maps in SB

Suggestions Maps/Missions/Events
1

Making the maps bigger. More specifically for the higher modern BR’s. Currently the map size for Spain, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Smolensk, Sinai and Denmark are 128k by 128k, which is a bit small. At that BR there are aircraft that if done right can essentially engage eachother from runway to runway with BVR and most simulator players only choose those maps at that BR because all the other maps are way too small.

Of course. Suggestion talks about bigger maps at top tier mostly.

For props to early to mid tier jets 64km x 64km does fine. Also by early to mid tier jets, I’m talking the Me 262, Meteor, F80, F86, MiG 15, ect. Kursk, Ruhr, Stalingrad, Maginot Line, Port Moresby, Tunisia, Khalkhin Gol, Bulge ect. When players want a slightly bigger map for this BR, they can join Sicily, Dover Straight, Zhengzhou. Which I think is closer to 86km x 86km or somewhere around there. Though it would be nice to add more maps around the WW2, Korean era that are 86k by 86k, the medium size maps.

For top tier the current is 128km x 128km. Sinai, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Denmark, Rocky Canyon, Smolensk, ect. Gaijin can keep these map sizes but also make some of the maps mentioned bigger. Like make a version of Sinai or Afghanistan that is bigger. Say around 160km by 160km at the least. So there is more options for map sizes and players can join whatever they feel inclined to fly. EC is limited with maps and sim players want bigger and more maps. Especially more maps with a mix of more terrain masking, having more objectives, ocean (for naval ops), ect for the higher BR above 11.7.

Having the maps be at least 160k by 160k or so at the minimum in the higher BR range where far BVR is pretty much guaranteed I think is absolutely necessary, the sweet spot though would be around 160km by 160km or 192km by 192km for 11.7+ where Fox 3’s are seen in SB. Especially once the Aim-120, R-77, Mica EM and other Fox 3 equivalent missles are added. With the addition of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, F-20 Tigershark, MiG 29SMT, Mirage 4000 and Gripen that carried these missles. And the possibility of other 4th generation aircraft coming to the game that could carry them, such as the F/A-18 Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, J10 Firebird among more 4th generation additions.

Another thing to note is adding more maps with terrain masking as the only maps with decent terrain masking for the higher BR in SB is Spain, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The rest of them are mostly flat. And adding more maps for SB EC like Kamchatka and Pyrenees, ect. Having good terrain masking can add that immersion for SB.

Here is the video.

Here is the original post. Where others have provided feedback. Adding immersion to Air Sim - Bigger maps

Thank you for your time. o7!

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
18 Likes
2

Add them to RB while you’re at it. We could use a big map respawn gamemode there.

21 Likes
3

Hope devs see this post soon enough, we desperately need this added.

2 Likes
4

We definitely need bigger maps. I’m aware there’s some engine constraints but even increasing it from 128x128 to 160x160 or something would go a long way, ideally larger than that of course.

3 Likes
5

Agreed

1 Like
6

With the addition of bigger maps (with the current 16 vs 16) having double the objectives. For example: two survellience aircraft, two air supremecy points, two groups of bombers, double the bases, double the battlefields, ect) so there’s more to do while also having the chance to run into players engaging these objectives, updated AI that matches the BR and also airfield defenses (that actually activate when hostiles are in range) that matches the BR would be ideal.

5 Likes
7

This is a must to keep the game playable as vehicle speeds increases and weapon ranges increase, the size of the maps should increase prepositionaly. I would take fewer maps for larger ones, because with a larger canvas, the battles would have a greater diversity of gameplay.

2 Likes
8

Good idea. Add bigger maps for ground SB and high tier ground RB. or just add bigger maps as a RB PvE gamemode for all vehicles.

2 Likes
9

They need put bigger maps or/and more spread objectives on Realistic too at top tier. The current fight on the top tier with these aircraft with powerful radars and missiles in the center of the map is killing the game in BR 11+

1 Like
10

I would love bigger maps in sim.

If we had 1000km x 1000km, that would start to feel nice. I want to be able to play this as a military flight sim, and I think we’d need at least that to be able to do that. I would honestly pay for a map that size or larger that I could play sim on - that I could play all tiers of sim on.

3 Likes
11

1000km x 1000km is lots of fun in it’s own way, but I also think we need stuff like AWACS and in air refuelling before we can get maps that large.

Right now I think the sweet spot would be around 200km x 200km - 250km x 250km.

But even increasing it to 160km x 160km would be huge. It’s so crammed even on the larger maps right now. We need some breathing room after taking off. By the time your at altitude and cruising speed you’re more than halfway across the map and have probably been intercepted already

2 Likes
12

I disagree about the AWACS and in-flight refueling.

It’s not a playstyle for everyone, but there are many who would enjoy maps that large with the current tools we have. Such a map could even include airfields as close to a few enemy airfields as we have now; have a sort of “hot zone” at the center of the map or something.

Mega-sizes 1000km+ would give players the option of starting farther back as well, it’s doesn’t need to take anything away from 200km or 300km maps, it would just add more around it and ideally more well-protected space farther back. For players who want it, it would allow us to climb to altitude and cruise across the map at 50% throttle for a long-range deep-strike, or perform CAP missions at-altitude relying on radar, patrol patterns, and high-performance for intercept attempts. It would create room for eventual proper SAM sites and SEAD gameplay as well, without that interfering with those who just wanna melee-brawl on the deck in the up-close spawns.

1 Like
13

In-flight regueling would be useless at the current map sizes.

AWACS could be useful though as data-link gets implemented to the aircraft that had them.

The map size being 1000 km by 1000 km is way too much. First of all most players that play sim play it for the dogfights and wont want to fly an hour across the map just to find one. Secondly console wouldn’t be able to run 1000km by 1000km and Gaijin wouldn’t do that and lose customers that have probably paid hundreds add all those console players up and thats alot of money.

The sweet spot being around 160km by 160km or 256km by 256km is all we need. Just a little bit more map distance. With that they can add double the objectives and more of them. Like add CAS or SEAD objectives at top tier. That way there’s more player spread so it’s not so player cluttered but also you don’t have to fly so far just to get a surveillance aircraft all the way across the map or another objective, so there’s more objective spread as well.

For props to low-mid tier jets like the F80, F86, MiG 9, MiG 15 BR. 64km by 64km or 86km by 86km is fine.

2 Likes
14

+1 agreed

15

At 1000km x 1000km to 1500km x 1500km we would definitely want in flight refuelling, especially if the game plays like it currently does where you have to find players yourself, you’ll spend a full tank looking for someone who will likely be RTB or dead by the time you get to him?

Also at 11.0-12.0BR, most jets can only reliably find other people in a 30-60km radius, with a few exceptions. That would only be a fraction of the map, we would definitely need awacs and full team datalink between jets, otherwise finding people would be like finding a needle in a haystack…
Screenshot 2024-01-22 at 15.20.38
Red lines are radar ranges for Mig23, Mig29 and Gripen for example, and that’s only the 1000km x1000km map

3 Likes
16

You’re completely right, I’ve stated before the sweet spot we need right now for 11.0~ to 12.7 is around 200x200-300x300km, but even increasing it to like 160x160 would go a long way. (considering there’s some game-engine limitations right now)

1 Like
17

The current system map and base is above being bad. it’s the worst system I’ve ever seen in videos game in the history. always the same thing. 4 base and 6 F4S to bomb those 4 base and not mention the bombers like F111A and others. I’m asking war thunder team. WHY NOT you make those 4 base needs 2 planes to take out. for example if one base in BR 10 to 12 needs 4000 of TNT to be destroyed we increase that number to 12000 TNT in order to destroyed that base. when you make that you will make players love to do more team work and above all the hate and team killing problems. why not make the players love the team work more and stop being selfish. if 2 planes work on one base and they both get 50% of the total score that base give everyone will be more than happy to work as team.
In short my suggestion is
1 - at last 10000 TNT per base to help the team work more
2 - MAKE BIGGER MAPS IN ALL MODS from BR 9.3 to 12.7
The match always end within 4 mins. no fun in that. I play in Realistic mod all the time and I never feel anything realistic

2 Likes
18

256km maps I think would be the sweet spot for high tier matches. I know they’ve said there are engine limitations stopping them from adding bigger maps, but as far as I know they haven’t said anything about what those limitations are. If the limitation is the number of polygons for the map mesh, I would think that having a map with similar land area to the current 128km maps chopped up into some interesting islands and scattered around a nice stretch of ocean would mitigate any issues and make for a varied and enjoyable map. Could have mountains, ground targets, naval targets, bases, carriers, basically everything, all on a single map.

2 Likes
19

I think the sweet spot would be between 160km and 192km. It would be a huge step forward for 11.0 - 11.3+

Because of “supposed” engine limitations it would be fairly easy to fix that with 160km or 192km. Also I wonder what engine limitations it is… Fuel, overheating…?

20

This is talking about simulator mode for EC.

Though realistic mode could also use bigger maps as well I’m sure.

1 Like