Every now and then for major updates there would be a big buzz around the fact that Air Battles is getting a new map for the players to fly in. A buzz that I’m not entirely sure I understand. Yes, I know that in high tiers, terrain features could play an important role in missile evasion, but for the BRs below Missile Thunder, what do these maps add beyond aesthetics? As the general consensus goes, the way to survival in props is to climb. This means after a few hundred metres, all maps are virtually the same, give or take the weather condition.
Sure, you got things like different map temperatures affecting the rate your engines overheat or the ever-so-rare Pacific Maps that screw over the strategic bombers, but at the end of the day, you will most likely be fighting away from the map clutter.
I think to better explain what I mean, I could compare it to how new maps affect the other game modes: on Ground, new maps mean having to learn the proper path to flank or where to best push the enemy in a given location and the terrain can either be a cover or a vulnerable spot; and in Naval, the islands there are primarily there to provide cover and break locks. So what does new air maps provide in varying up the gameplay?
That’s why I stopped playing ARB. It simply is too boring for me. Each and every battle is the same, only with different backgrounds…
Imho nothing more than that you are happy if you get an old map like Stalingrad, Operation Uranus or Poland.
Despite their flaws they have sometimes 3 bases maps with a “killable” airfield which prevents endless streams of base bombing players or you can influence the outcome of the interactions of ai ground units.
I would love to see Norway again. This “mysterious valley infinite loop” is boring like hell…
One change that it bring for props is the layout for ground targets.
I feel you’ve answered a few of your own questions in what you wrote.
But for me, most matches, including props, end up going down to ground level. So different maps with different layouts and features is a good thing. Having to keep terrain features in mind when chasing someone is interest – no point shooting someone just to end up a shadow outline on the side of a cliff.
I miss the pacific maps, but I agree they were bad for big bombers. Even back-in-the-day when you’d get full lineup US/UK vs Japan matches.
It’s stupid how often that map comes up.
I actually think the map is ok, for a symmetrical map at least, but why so often – crazy.
(edit: and Norway is awesome)
Yeah, but unless you are stock grinding to get better ordnances or are strike aircraft, these targets are practically ignorable until you are in the last ten minutes of the map and you really need to grind the enemy’s ticket down as the enemy sits on spawn.
Hmm, fair enough I suppose. I just don’t if in the bigger picture, weaving through one variation of hills would be that big a difference to another variation of hills, at least to the degree of hype that comes with these new map announcements.
And yep! Makes me wonder why bombers are even allowed to spawn on them if the only way to rearm is a carrier or when there are no bases to destroy in the first place.