I love tanks like T26E5 which are perfect for close combat, but making maps smaller is the worst decision they can do.
Instead of changing really good maps like Eastern Europe, make just smaller maps.
2 Likes
No MBT is “designed to engage only at longer ranges”.
Some TDs are, but that’s partially why TDs aren’t used anymore.
Ambushing is easily done in War Thunder.
I flanked and ambushed quite easily going straight up the Poland road, as well as on Iberian Castle A-B city where going down roads is quite easy to flank people. Both medium sized maps of course. Berlin flanking is impossible.
Still waiting for your prediction of smaller maps to come true.
It’s been years since a new small map was added.
You know that ‘making maps smaller’ is what can be seen by Gaijin cutting off portions of the map? It has nothing to do with making new maps that are small.
By destroying the bridges You are ‘cutting off’ the portion of the map.
2 Likes
“Some” lets forget about the entire ww2 part. The game is just MBT’s and turret flicking on napkin sized urban maps. Da comrade.
1 Like
You call stuff like Iberian Castle a “big map”?
Gaijin literally hasn’t added a long-range map to the game since Pradesh in 2022, which is seen only at high BRs and incredibly rarely. I can count on my fingers (all 10 of them!) the amount of times I’ve seen it in almost 2000 hours of playing. Before that we had Red Desert in 2021 which I’ve literally only twice in my War Thunder career because it literally NEVER drops, even at high tier.
90% of the maps in this game are short-range and literally all new maps are designed for CQC.
4 Likes
Yes, this map will be the first ever to move from medium size to small size IF it goes to live.
Red zones are due to people complaining in the feedback form about mountain goats like myself; I mountain goated EVERY match on the maps that had it. If ANYONE in this game has a reason to critique War Thunder for those changes it is I.
@PacketlossRedux
When people complain about small maps, it’s 100% about MBTs.
No one cares if you’re on Advance to the Rhine with a Sherman. You’re going to take twice as long to cross the map as a T-55A.
@StevenMac
It’s obvious you responded to the wrong person.
Iberian Castle isn’t a large map, it’s a medium sized map.
Red Desert, Sands of Sinai, Euro Province, Second Battle of El Alamein, Fulda Gap, Fire Arc, Maginot Line, Fields of Normandy, Pradesh, Sands of Tunisia, Vietnam, and Surroundings of Volokolamsk are the large maps currently of the total 43 maps available for 8.0+ tanks, 10 of which are small maps.
CQC BTW is <100 meters for tanks. You can also stretch that out to 200 meters as a definition if you want, but that still won’t change the 10 small maps, nor would 300 meters for that matter.
Making good large maps takes more time.
Also there are not 500+ maps in this game as you falsely claim.
1 Like
It won’t be the first map after ‘rework’ that got smaller.
So please read before replying next time as Gaijin making maps smaller is nothing new.
2 Likes
I replied to the correct person, given your following quote
“Still waiting for your prediction of smaller maps to come true.
It’s been years since a new small map was added.”
Don’t know where I said that there are 500+ maps in the game, though I certainly wish that were the case.
1 Like
People complain about big maps yet want Gaijin to add 40km launch air to ground missiles.
Also i lets not pretend that its fun to play tanks like Jagdpanther/Jgdtiger.etc on small maps with short lanes that defeats the whole purpose of the tank. Big maps are required not just by mbt’s
The game should be designed around its principles and content. Rn its abandoning that in order to cater to quick cash players while screwing over everyone else… when maybe they could facilitate both ? wild idea
2 Likes
I mained Jagdtiger on Advance to the Rhine cause of how braindead easy the map is with an armored casemate, BTW it’s a legacy map.
Effectively all the small maps in-game are legacy maps.
And Eastern Europe isn’t “the game”, it’s an issue that needs to be shelved or… shelved [bridges over water].
All this btw because map dev was too lazy to modify the terrain in 2 spots
Oh bud. If Gaijin can get away with Eastern Europe the rest will follow. lets not be naive
An issue often is semantics or rather, precise language.
People, when they complain about small maps, complain about maps that are highly urban with lots of corner-peeking and narrow streets with little opportunity to go around.
People when they complain about large maps complain about maps that have absurd sight-lines that permit locking down a significant portion of the map unopposed from a singular space.
These issues exist within WW2 BRs as well.
An ideal large map would have good sight lines, but those sightlines should be limited and come with trade-offs. This can usually be achieved through varied terrain, permanent wreckages, buildings, forests and the like - things that prevent you from driving onto C and shooting straight into spawn, or into one of the few lines of egress that there are.
Another fix for ideal large maps is more spawns with multiple covered routes to leave that spawn that are difficult for the enemy to predict, making it impossible for a single individual to cover them all.
As for small maps. I play britain, I hate corner fighting. Urban maps that don’t make me hate the match tend to be mazes with objectives far enough away that you can reliably avoid the enemy to get behind them for flank and spank.
However, my ideal map would be a large one where one of the objectives has an urban area to let brawlers shine with their stabilizers and fast turret traverse; one of the objectives is a match-maker advantage with very good sight lines over another objective’s approach (but not spawns directly, and a blind spot to approach this objective you cannot cover from the sniping position. In fact, it should be very difficult to defend as a trade-off) and finally a heavily covered objective that’s easy to defend but makes little impact on the rest of the map due to low elevation and bad sightlines.
5 Likes
Thing is, designed or not -
a number of nations across various eras have specifically designed certain vehicles for doctrines that are very, very incompatible with fighting corner-to-corner in a claustrophobic environment.
These are tanks with very little armour (to the point some of them can die to machine gun fire!), no stabilizer (while contemporaries may have stabilizers or are stabilized through complex transmission/track designs) and practically non-existent reverse speed (it’s also a problem when peeking over hills, but usually in open maps you can relocate to a position to get the first shot unnoticed, whereas in a city map your engine sound will give you away if the enemy pays attention).
What are these tanks supposed to do? While spectacular skill can make any meme-worthy tank get top of the leaderboard, for the average player it’s a significant handi-cap for wishing to play certain nations along certain BR ranges if all they can get are corner-peeking maps.
However, you do have a point “for modes like arcade battles anyway”, given the significant differences between AB and RB ground. There’s a reason people strongly, very strongly advise playing britain at all in AB ground - markers nullify their mobility and ambush oriented gameplay and the powerful 17 pounder never gets a chance to shine. Given their paper-thin armour, I imagine japan and especially italy likewise suffer. Especially italy, with their literal jeeps that someone decided to strap an anti-tank gun onto.
edit: Doublechecked.
Yep, italy has a number of vehicles going as high as 6.7 BR that can be easily torn apart with a simple 50 cal machine gun (8-20 mm hull armour on the front)
2 Likes
Yep. All these silly exaggerations and meme-style posts (in both visual and text form) accomplish is tell the devs that “clearly the community doesn’t actually understand the changes, so we’ll ignore this feedback as being invalid”.
That’s all everyone is actually accomplishing with this, setting themselves up to be ignored.
2 Likes
And make map smaller help?
It just make gameplay even more boring and tasteless
Take top tier for example the gameplay right now it just knifes fight with advanced tanks the more armor are the better which only MBT can do that (Especially Russia and Sweden because their mbt has armor) what about light tanks with good optics? That shine at long range or ATGM carrier? did gaijin forget that this game have more than just MBT? That the point of research those light tanks when they force to fight the battle they are not designed for
2 Likes
stupid people be stupid.
But the guy that made it and a lot of us sharing it are doing so to laugh at and highlight how poor the map limitations and changes as of recent have been
6 Likes
Gajin is helping botters so they have itz eeven more easy to exploit and brake the game for all legit players. How else can you explain that? The games get even more predictble. Soon we will have a 100 meter big map with singel cap zone and no obstacles. Eveen worse then naval game mode.
2 Likes
But that’s one of the points… We don’t understand why they changed something, so it is their job to make us understand. Ignoring your clientbase just because they didn’t understand your action and therefore show their discontent with it is awfull business strategy
1 Like
They’re not ignoring us, they’re on their weekend… -_-
Well if “we” don’t understand something, the sensible thing to do is to fix that issue before providing any feedback; uninformed feedback on any topic tends to be useless, and often actively harmful.
And this really isn’t a complex topic here, this is a rather straightfoward change as are the reasonings for it; remember that you can understand something without agreeing with it.
“Understanding”, of course, having the meaning of “can explain the other party’s position as if from their own perspective”.
1 Like