As far as the search engine on our forum tells me, I’m seeing many people complaining about the small maps for grb, and almost nobody speaks for small maps (seen only 1 or 2 posts). Wondering whats the actual idea of our whole community, and whether some of us really like doing CQB with modern mbt
POLL ADDED by update 8/13
CQB kinda forces tanks that rely on long range, hull down sniping… to die. (Abrams, Leclerc, etc) So i kinda disagree with the whole CQB map thing
The community outside of players here prefers small maps. Look on Reddit and you will often see a 50/50 split for small vs big map enjoyers.
Personally I think Gaijins map design is awful, and it makes larger maps worse than they could be. I do wish non urban maps were more common too.
Too many newbes,real…
Many of my friends who have recently purchasedRank vII tank packs are utterly inexperienced when it comes to playing on complex, large maps. They only engage in close-quarters combat on smaller maps because it’s easier for them to target weak spots and quickly move on to the next match (should their only vehicle meet an untimely demise). A good number of them can’t even distinguish betweenHEAT and AFPSDS, nor do they know whether to aim at a tank’s upper glacis or the welded turret. Some are even clueless about activating thermal imaging and the laser rangefinder, instead constantly complaining about too many snipers and overly intricate maps. I find it baffling that they’ve never considered their own shortcomings—yet now they expect veteran players to bear the brunt of their selfishness.
MAKE A POLL!!! What’s the point of simply asking people?
CQC allows tanks that have weaker armor to face tanks like T-90M, 2A7V, etc that work better at longer ranges with a more equal playing field due to the universal idler wheel weakspot, and easier breach hitting.
So it was bound to happen.
Actually its the opposite.
Tanks with weaker armor becomes stronger at longer ranges due to faster fire rate and penetration loss.
For example Abrams,Challenger2, Type-10 and Leclerc can utilize their reverse and reload speed while their turret armor can actually stop incoming enemy Shells in hulldown positions.
Tanks with heavy armor benefits from CQC most due to fast engagements.
You understood the concept compeletly wrong.
I would say that it is less with players disliking large maps and more of players disliking gaijin-style large maps
I hate it when the maps are cut with red lines and players are getting timed out or even blown up by crossing the boundaries.Whole areas of the map are lazily redded out for no apparent reason.It really is lazy map making and editing.
I disagree with you. For large caliber guns (88mm+) there is no drastic penetration drop for ranges one can feasibly encounter even on most “long range” WT maps (up to 1500m). There are few cases where your armour is too weak to stop these shells at 100m but still strong enough to reliably withstand them at range.
And you cant reliably hit weak spots, like the cupola, at long ranges, making heavy tanks actually stronger in those situations.
In case you didnt noticed i was talking about top Tier environment, havent played low tiers for quite a while.
My statements applies to high Tier gameplay.
Understandable, my bad.
No worries.
And that why you never have any Challenger 2 go past 2(F) and Ariete any further than (P) and I can made Ariete go to K/D 5.0 with 300+ battle (and that tank suck)
because it doesn’t suit your playing style, isn’t it?
tanks like Ariete and Challenger 2 work better at longer range not close range
Russian tanks are better at close combat .It is NATO tanks that work better at range.
After some time went to try big maps again, worst crap than before. There are 2 ways to play big maps
1- you run to cap point or middle map sniper point ( being a hunter duck )
2- move to a sniper spot at 200 mts from your spawn and hunt the ducks
I really can’t see the fun on big maps playing realistic 3rd person sniping, on sim yeah its better
similarly, if im forced into urban fighting with my abrams, i lose all of my advantages.
Idler wheel weakspot and breach are universally easy to hit in close range.
Which are coincidentally Soviet tanks’ primary weakspots.
@ARK_BOI
I have the Black Night, I’m just not using it cause I prefer the Challenger 2F and 2 over the Black Night.
And I stopped at Ariete P because Hungarian ground was added so I went back to get Hungarian vehicles to balance out the 10.3 lineup.
Has nothing to do with them being good or bad.
Ariete’s primary weakspot is its entire turret, which exists whether it’s 2km away or 100 meters away.
T-90M’s idler wheel weakspot disappears at 400 meters, and its breach weakspot effectively is gone at 1500 meters.
Ariete’s isn’t though.
T-80BVM by extension too since its turret is weak.
Soviet vehicles are weaker in close range, most people know this which is one of the reasons why maps are preferred to be closer range.
I’m not sure how true that is, atleast for higher BRs. Everyone thinks they are stronger at close ranges, which is partly true because of their strong frontal armour. No one prefers close range matches because Soviet tanks are easier to kill. I’ve never seen anyone say any of what you said before.
They’re worse at long range than Nato tanks due to their weaker turrets and lack of depression. They are better in cqc combat since their overall weakspots are smaller when compared to any nato tank except the leopard 2s.
Except the front armor is only front toward enemy at medium to long ranges.
In close range side and angled armor is toward enemy a lot of the time cause you have to go around corners.