Can we please stop with those map designs

[Silesian_Lynx]

This map makes sense, Chile got a lot of Andes mountains, sniping from 6893 m at Ojos del Salado would be fun.

[AlvisWisla]

Average map size drops to 1.5x1.5km from over 2x2km.
Heavy tanks are useless.
Tied games everywhere.
Cheaters were more common as a percentage of players.

[richthofen122]

@Uebermacht

With all whats happening right now, i have a great idea for the next april fools event:

I would call it “Nostalgia Thunder” and all it does is revert the game back to around 8 years ago.
All map changes reverted, no volumetric, 10,5 Tiger II’s and D-Points, more gamemodes, no modern tanks, no helis, no Heat-fs and no agtm’s, less cheating and less botting, and FAR better gun sounds (my beloved metalic “clink” of the russian 122’s, or the rumbling thwomp of the german 12,8). Times where Maus and IS4m ruled supreme.

Then every player can experience how it was before, and if they would have liked it. Because i sure did.

This is how War Thunder should still be 24/7 imho. I am not against modern vehicles, but I dislike Era’s mixing together. But that debate is a rabbit hole for other threads.

[Dadl25]

Gaijin needs to work on maps and not new vehicles for a while. The idea of “one size fits all” maps from BR1 to X (I’m at 6.3 right now) is simply ridiculous because the range and lethality of the weapons systems changes so radically.

People have it right that the maps have been changed to force a “hey-diddle-diddle, right-up-the-middle” game. BORING! As someone correctly posted, if that’s where the game is going then forget playing light tanks. Pick the Jagdtiger, the IS3, T-10 and grind slowwwwly forward. Don’t worry, no one can get onto your flanks because there’s no room for flank (e.g. maneuver) play.

The U.S. manual for tank units called for 23 meters (25 yards) lateral separation between tanks, so a five-tank platoon covered a frontage of 100 yards. If we apply that to WT, then a team of 15 tanks would cover a frontage of 400 yards (382m) with just 75 feet laterally between tanks! Now add in the effective range of the guns (a general rule was that the Sherman’s 75mm was effective out to 500 yards).

Now compare that to, for example, Frozen Pass (1190x1190 meters/1245x1245 yards wide), Flanders (1750mx1750m), and Alaska (1500m x 1500m). But that’s the size of map you can look at, NOT what you can actually maneuver on. So, those are already small fields for WW2 era tanks. Now imagine that same map with the 88mm of the Tiger II, let alone the 3000+ meter reach of an M-1. The maps are simply too small. There is no room for maneuvers and renders the light tds, tanks, and IFVs useless because they are forced to go frontal-arc to frontal-arc with MBTs.

Now, complicating that is the lack of complex terrain (woods, walls, buildings) and, frankly, key terrain. I gather that some folks didn’t like “sniping” or dominant positions. Larger maps would help solve that without simply removing the good firing positions.

The Normandy map–which never really resembled the hedgerow country–is a great example. The cap point with the church was lowered so it no longer provides a good field of fire, the second church out in the countryside was also lowered, and you can’t drive out past the village on the north side of the map. All of those were negative changes that turns the map into a tube-to-tube engagement. BORING.

I don’t understand why Gaijin doesn’t take maps of historical battle sites and/or pieces of terrain today (National Training Center, anyone) and digitize that into maps for WT. Sorry for the long note.