My point seems to have gone past you, so let me finish your sentence for you:
, any talk of real world doctrine that was formulated to deal with threats that don’t exist in game, is pointless. Meaning that what you said here
has zero bearing on the actual game, precisely because real world doctrine has nothing to do with WT.
You use a substantial amount of real world doctrine whether you know it or not.
Good players learn good tactics, and those good tactics end up being rather similar to real world doctrine, obviously not 1:1 as doctrine fanboys are toxic, but usually have the best pulls, sir WW2 exclusive player.
No, you really, really, really don’t.
Sure. Good tactics for War Thunder, an arcade game with realistic elements and fast-paced team matches.
War Thunder does not set out to be a milsim. Nothing about its structure supports it. Therefore, I agree with you that it can be quite toxic (or rather, idiotic) to expect realism from a game that is perfectly good as it is with its current level of unrealism. Because this is not a hard sim, gameplay should always come before realism, in my opinion.
By that same token, however, invoking realism to justify the fact that we fight in CQC maps is completely useless. First of all because it doesn’t matter if fighting in CQC is realistic or not, what’s more important is the quality of the gameplay. Second of all because WT is not realistic anyway, so we should just focus on the quality of the gameplay.
My reason for wanting more long-range maps is elementary, and it’s about gameplay, not doctrine toxicity. We have lots of vehicles in WT. Some are very versatile, others specialise in brawling/sniping/whatever. A healthy mix of map styles and combinations will ensure that all vehicles are more or less equally competitive.
So, balance of performance logic. Not “real world at all costs” logic.
On reddit meanwhile, one of the top threads “Wow they really hit it out of the park with this banger of a map, Flanders” everyone agreeing in comments…
Depressing isn’t it? The maps are being given the same layout. They’re like franchise store hamburgers. Exactly the same but with a new theme, a different name and a different sauce.
You like that map? Well here it is again, but in WINTER THEME!!! In the next major update, we will give you it again, but in AUTUMN THEME!! Based on player feedback, we have eliminated all hills, and changed the capture point location to be exactly the same as every other map!
Calling War Thunder arcade is dismissing the simulator genre entirely…
Milsim is unrealistic.
Not depressing IMO, I think it’s great too. The “3 lane” style map is great, I never get stuck with a map where my vehicle is just going to do shittily no matter what. There’s always a rolling hills are for a dicker max, and always a town area for brawlers, etc. I’m a big fan, personally.
The winter/whatever is dumb and doesn’t matter, but the new style of actual new map is good (the atomic heart map being another recent example. Tunisia and Finland being old examples)
It’s a game where our barrels disappear into solid objects. We have gunner optics inside the barrel in two modes out of three, where we also get to control the tank while operating a hovering drone that gives us third person perspective.
Your tank doesn’t have a turret basket? No problem, you can reload on the move while rotating the turret even if it’s physically impossible in reality.
Your tank is going at top speed using all of its engine RPM for movement? You can have magic extra RPM to rotate the turret, no problem.
Your crew doesn’t bail on a crippling hit, but simultaneously repairs the transmission (or the gun barrel!) while still maneuvering the turret and firing against incoming enemies.
I could go on.
It’s not a bad thing, in fact, all of these elements make the game a lot more accessible and intuitive. All these arcade elements.
Steel Beasts is a simulator. War Thunder is not. That’s why it has a much larger playerbase than the former.
Nearly all simulators have barrels as non-physical.
Engine RPM already being up means the turret traverse is fine.
Reload is slower than real life to begin with so no turret basket doesn’t really mean anything.
Steel Beasts is less realistic than War Thunder in physics, and that matters most in modern simulators.
Ugh. I detest that atomic heart map. Yet another case of a close quarters map disguised as being “open”.
An actual, fully open map is just bad, especially at higher tiers with thermals and laser rangefinders. Literally becomes a point and click cookie clicker mobile game.
I agree, Flanders is an awful map. I feel like the north spawn always wins no matter what. It’s plainly obvious that Gaijin should never be in charge of map design.
‘Stupid Flanders!’
How is that any different to a close quarters maps?
Because thermals don’t work through walls? You have to think about where people might be, go, come from, ahead of time.
If the enemy can use their ears walls wont do much either so yeah
You described open maps as “point and click”. Please, close quarters maps are all about slow, considered aiming and strategy?
You’re implying that long range maps have more “slow considered aiming”. I mean yeah… I know. Aiming is a synonym for “pointing” lol.
Then after that you click, to fire the gun.
strategy
“The enemy will shoot from their hill, I will shoot from mine”
Flanders is Okily Dokily
Flanders has tons of sniping and you’re complaining about them removing sniping I don’t get it