Gaijin, Make us able to choose if we want urban maps or just Nature centred maps!

Despite the Battle Rating adjustments to maps, the overall experience remains subpar. To truly enhance the enjoyment of top-tier gameplay, offer players the option to select sprawling open maps, untouched by human development, and rich in natural features. Exclude urban landscapes entirely and emphasize vast expanses!

Essential for Nature Maps:

  • Abundant Trees
  • Numerous bushes and shrubs
  • Expansive open fields strategically placed for engagements
  • Natural Rises and falls in the terrain to create natural cover

    Kingdom of Sweden
  • Occasional narrow rivers, offering amphibious vehicles a tactical edge, with outlets accessible to regular tanks. Being amphibious grants them a genuine advantage.*

    Kingdom of Sweden
  • Crisscrossing dirt roads flanked by trees leading to clusters of wooden houses, creating natural chokepoints
    Kingdom of Sweden

Let those masochists delve into visually appealing yet “tactically” challenging maps.

Stockholm - Kingdom of Sweden

Saint Petersburg - Russian Federation

Oslo - Kingdom of Norway

Gaijin, please do not draw inspiration from this! lots of us prefer maps that do not prioritize Urban environments!

What features would you prefer in a top-tier map?
  • The elements listed above.
  • No tree lines, but other features are acceptable.
  • No rivers, but other features are acceptable.
  • No open fields, but other features are acceptable.
  • I genuinely enjoy the current urban maps.
0 voters

For those who chose the last option, kindly share a picture of a JAS 39 Gripen in the comments if you’re locked in Gaijin’s basement surviving on rationed mac n’ cheese.


Neat idea on paper, not neat idea in practice. If you want to play games on certain maps, go play customs. If you want to play matchmade games, then deal with the map you are given like the rest of the players have to. All this will do is hurt the matchmaker queue times and will just let people block the maps that would leave their vehicles at a disadvantage.

While map selection might impact queue times depending on what type of map will end up more successful, it’s important to prioritize player satisfaction. Custom battles, while offering map selection, lack the progression rewards essential for advancing in the game, such as research points and silver lions. Therefore, integrating map selection into matchmade games could provide players with more enjoyable experiences without sacrificing progression opportunities.

So in short, Giving you the option between smaller, fast paced combat or bigger, slower paced maps would make the game much more enjoyable for the majority of the players. Then you can focus on the playstyle You Like and can do well,

And additionally if you read the title of my post it does say this:
Gaijin make us able to choose if we want urban maps or just nature centred maps,

Your perspective implies that players should just endure whatever map they’re given, regardless of whether they enjoy it or not. To me, it comes across as a bit harsh, as if you’re saying players should just suffer through it. But shouldn’t the game be about having fun and enjoying the experience? Giving players some control over map selection could make the game more enjoyable for everyone, don’t you think?

This game is already dealing with enough of the Grind mindset as is, we should not make it worse


It is about enjoyment, but not all players can enjoy everything perfectly at the same time. A random matchmaker makes it fair for everyone. Choice does not make it fair.

So say I want to play my Russian heavies at 7.7 in all urban maps so I can play to their strengths, but the German, US, British, French and Swedish players want open maps to play to their strengths. What do I do? How is that fair to me when the majority of players will choose open maps and I am FORCED to play open maps in my tanks because the matchmaker will be flooded and I will be unable to find a match to my liking? Random matchmaking is FAIR TO ALL. It isn’t as fun all the time, but sometimes things have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

I understand your point about fairness, but providing players with some control over map selection doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing fairness. It’s about offering a variety of experiences that cater to different playstyles and preferences within the player base. Random matchmaking might ensure fairness in terms of map distribution, but it doesn’t guarantee enjoyment for all players. Allowing players to have some say in map selection could lead to more satisfying and engaging gameplay experiences overall.

While random matchmaking aims to distribute maps fairly, it can also lead to frustration for players who prefer specific playstyles or vehicle types. By offering map selection options, players can focus on the aspects of the game they enjoy the most, leading to a more fulfilling gaming experience. Additionally, implementing a balanced system where players have the choice between smaller, fast-paced combat and larger, slower-paced maps can cater to the preferences of the majority while still providing options for those who prefer urban environments. Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance between fairness and enjoyment for all players.

1 Like

I want your answer to this. How can I have fun with choice when the choices of others nullify what I would like to do? How is that fair and enjoyable for anyone other than the majority? Random matchmaking is fair for everyone and gives everyone an equal chance to enjoy or not enjoy the map they are given.

It does sacrifice fairness, look at my example of 7.7 Russia. Russian 7.7 heavies do not do well in open hilly fields, but the majority of other nations at 7.7 are good in those open maps with terrain features. If players could choose cities vs open terrain, at 7.7 open terrain would be the overwhelming choice because Britain, Germany, US, Sweden, Israel and France (not sure on China/Japan/Italy) have an advantage in open terrain. That means 6 (possibly 9) of the nations aka 60-90% of players at 7.7 would perfer open maps to play to their vehicles strengths. Then there is Russia with heavy tanks that can’t fire over hills, are slow, and would be vulnerable from 3 sides constantly are stuck in open maps because most of the players would choose the open terrain. That is wildly unfair, and that is only one BR. Russian players get screwed, while everyone else has fun. The majority screwing the minority because of choice. That is not fair to those Russian players, and it is also not FUN for those Russian players.

At the possible detriment to the minority of players.

Can cater to the majority. So screw the minority that will NOT HAVE FUN because of this? All players having a random chance to have their vehicles play to their strengths and maximize fun or screw the minority of players at each BR because a majority doesn’t like something? That is a ridiculous idea. Player choice in map selection is fine where it is, completely random and completely fair for all. Equal chance to have more or less fun as the next player instead of having entire BR steps dictated by the majority of players at the detriment of the minority of players.

I’ve given up on ground altogether at this point, its just CoD with tanks.
What I find funny is that they nerfed ATGMs to be realistic, meaning they are useless under a certain range, while most the combat in this game takes place at extremely close range.


I though it was a war simulator?

This post was flagged.

1 Like

Your concerns about map selection affecting gameplay balance are valid, especially when considering the strengths and weaknesses of different nations’ vehicles. However, it’s essential to note that War Thunder already incorporates map rotation based on vehicle capabilities to some extent. Maps are designed to offer a mix of terrain types, allowing players to utilize various strategies and tactics regardless of their preferred playstyle or vehicle lineup.

Moreover, implementing map selection options doesn’t necessarily mean disregarding fairness or balance. War Thunder could introduce a system where players vote for map preferences, but the final map selection could still be randomized from the top-voted choices. This approach would ensure that players have a voice in map selection without allowing one faction to dominate the map rotation.

Additionally, War Thunder could introduce map-specific missions or objectives that encourage players to adapt their strategies based on the terrain and map features. This would incentivize players to explore different playstyles and make the most out of any given map, regardless of their vehicle’s strengths or weaknesses.

Ultimately, the goal should be to provide a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience for all players, taking into account the diverse preferences within the player base. While random matchmaking ensures fairness in map distribution, it doesn’t guarantee satisfaction for all players. By offering map selection options within a balanced framework, War Thunder could enhance player engagement and enjoyment without sacrificing fairness or gameplay integrity.

Futhermore, large open forested maps have the potential to cater to a wide range of playstyles and preferences within the player base. These maps offer diverse terrain features, allowing players to utilize different tactics and strategies depending on their vehicle type and preferred gameplay style.

For players who enjoy long-range engagements and strategic maneuvering, these maps provide ample opportunities to utilize cover, concealment, and terrain features to their advantage. Additionally, for players who prefer close-quarters combat and ambush tactics, dense forested areas offer plenty of opportunities for intense, immersive battles.

Moreover, large open forested maps have the advantage of providing a more immersive and realistic gaming experience. The dense foliage and varied terrain create a dynamic and visually stunning environment that enhances the overall gameplay experience.

By introducing large open forested maps into the map rotation, War Thunder could cater to the preferences of a significant portion of the player base, offering them a more enjoyable and engaging gameplay experience. This approach would not only diversify the gameplay experience but also contribute to the overall longevity and appeal of the game.

1 Like

“if you have any complaints about the current gamemode, go play the useless one that you definitely would already be playing if you wanted to”

amazing logic


It shows how upset you are at my opinion that you nitpick some irrelevent small detail about my post in a completely different thread.

Also Incorporating features like crisscrossing dirt roads flanked by trees leading to clusters of wooden houses, which create natural chokepoints, further enhances the gameplay experience. These elements add strategic depth and intensity to matches, encouraging tactical thinking and teamwork. By including such features alongside large open forested maps, War Thunder can offer players a truly immersive and varied battlefield, catering to a wide range of playstyles and preferences.

Just my opinion, idk if anybody agrees to it.
Edit; eight people pretty much do,

1 Like

How so? The only thing that drives the matchmaker is BR. Some maps are not used for certain battle ratings because of the ability of those vehicles as whole, not for specific vehicles. Hence larger maps for 11.7s in comparison to reserve vehicles.

Again, please address my example of the 7.7 Russian tanks. That example disregards fairness. Everything else you say matters none until you can come up with a way to address the fact that some BR’s will screw over one or two nations compared to the rest. How does the minority enjoy the fun of choice when their choice doesn’t matter in the end?

You can’t guarantee satisfaction. You can guarantee fairness. I’m not satisfied when I sit in my Imp Chapparal for 15 minutes during a game and there is no aircraft to shoot down. Some players aren’t satisfied if they die more than they kill. Some players aren’t satisfied when they get killed by an artillery platform in a heavy tank. Satisfaction is case by case for each person and can change in a moment’s notice. Fairness can, to a point, be catered to for the whole of the player base at once. Random maps may not give a player the most fun every single time, but it gives the entire player base the same chance to have a map that plays to their vehicle strengths or against them.

By all means, add more large forested maps. That would be great. I’d love to see some larger maps like Red Desert, Pradesh, Dom#2 Ardennes, Dom#2 Maginot Line, Dom#1 El Alamein, Eastern Province, and Fields of Normandy. It would be good gameplay for larger maps to exist overall, especially in the mid tiers. Letting players dictate what maps are selected is not a great idea for anyone but the majority in any situation.

This is done by random map selection. Nothing makes you explore different playstyles more than not knowing where you will be fighting. Adapting to circumstances is part of warfare. Selecting the place you want to fight because it suits you is not.

Ahahaha, war simulation there, COD with tanks here. I’, just sitting here enjoying that you can’t decide what Warthunder is. But I digress.

1 Like

how about we just say, its a good game that progressed faster than it should have. without taking the necessary steps to prepare for it. And now we are suffering because of their mistakes…

1 Like

Thanks, I enjoy that you agree that my logic is amazing!

But seriously, custom games are where you can actively select exactly what you want to do. That is the game mode of CHOICE and we are talking about CHOOSING maps. Matchmaking in the standard modes (AB/RB) is the same in every single game of this type. Wargaming does random maps in its titles without player’s choice as well. I wonder why that is the case for games of this genre? Enlisted shares random maps too. If this was Call of Duty, where every player has the same type of controlled unit (infantry), and the only differences are weapon selection the playing field is level. It doesn’t matter which map they play on because each player moves about the map and engages in combat the same way. Games like Warthunder, with differing vehicles classes in the same balancing system, do not ever have a level playing field like that. Characteristics of vehicles vary wildly, and allowing players to choose the map will actively HURT the minority of players in any circumstance. If your favorite BR got destroyed because you could effectively never play a map that suits your vehicles strengths, I bet you wouldn’t be very happy. If players could choose map type, that WILL happen to players at ALL levels in this game.

Custom battles lack progression rewards, hindering player advancement. Both fun and progress are essential in War Thunder, necessitating the availability of both regular matchmaking and custom battles. While custom battles offer flexibility, they don’t provide any progression. It’s crucial to maintain both options for maximum enjoyment.

Implementing changes may upset some players, but the potential benefits outweigh the negatives. Gaijin could allow player voting for adjustments if necessary. Let’s not fear trying new things for the majority’s benefit.

Your reluctance to embrace change may suggest an attitude of map perfection, despite evident player dissatisfaction. Players seek improvements, not dismissal of their concerns. Imagine being told to switch games due to dissatisfaction. Players want their voices heard and their concerns addressed, not ignored.

Your immediate defense of your stance overlooks community feedback. Embracing change is crucial when valid concerns are raised. Remaining open to new ideas fosters a better gaming environment.

Your concern about map selection’s impact on queue times is valid. Integrating nature-focused maps can balance player distribution and enhance satisfaction. Acknowledging diverse viewpoints ensures a solution benefiting all players.

1 Like

I’m sorry that me disliking Anime offended you, why cant we just be friends?

I don’t dislike you, and you disliking anime doesn’t matter to me. It was how you went about things in that thread.

I also like to point out inconsistencies. That is why I replied in this thread. Weird way to have fun I suppose.

What about how I asked offended you?