If you somehow manage to put the bush at the end of the barrel you will be able to see it since the RB camera is inside the barrel.
But yeah they could make it so if you obstruct the actual optics your view still gets obscured even if you are looking through the barrel.
one of the reasons I like the ELC BIS. The scope is so far off the side you can bush up entirely and not worry about scopes. (don’t worry I only use bushes extensively on like 3 rat tanks)
In the latest list of total fun-ruining bullshit: my CR3 getting penned straight through the mantlet at over a kilometer by an autocannon light tank simply holding left click until enough shit sticks to the wall and a shell pens. No aiming required, no skill, just hold left click and:
These top tier autocannons are completely fun-sapping additions to the game
Some of the maps in Diablo II are HUGE once you get to the higher difficulty settings.
The Act 3 has some outdoor maps that seem to span kilometers, and the walking character can take long time to cover it all - navigating forests and rivers and like WT, red-zones that can’t be bypassed.
Also in 3rd Act are some indoor maps that are quite complex, with dozens and dozens of rooms and multiple paths to get to the rooms. In many ways they are similar to maps in war thunder, but on a scale for pedestrians as opposed to vehicles.
Maps like Sweden and Attica (with forced paths) are quite similar to maps in Diablo II.
(and for the record I absolutely hate Attica)
The simplification of maps is what led to the current SPAA meta.
Gameplay at a lot of tiers is just about fighting lightly armored vehicles in close quater combat.
What better vehicle for that than some of the SPAAs?
In a world where the different advantages that the different tanks offer were equally balanced, SPAAs would have no chance because they would encounter thicker armor, tank destroyers sniping etc.
There obviously needs to be enough alternatives so that you’re not completely at the mercy of snipers and flakers.
The role of snipers or flankers shouldn’t be to make normal gameplay impossible, it should, however, have the ability to exert pressure on the game, thus providing tactical weight.
I will illustrate what I mean by that with the example of the old map of Sinai
Gaijin removed the sniper hill on the east side because they feared it was too dominant, I assume.
In this Graphic I assumed that team A got control over the sniping hill (blue).
Now team B is in the disadvantage, but this doesn’t mean that it is impossible to operate on the map.
The freedom of movement is very limited, especially in the red zones.
Now it is still possible to move carefully in the yellow parts and completely safe in the green ones.
Maybe it is just me, but I think this kind of stuff was one of the key aspects that made War Thunder a great game, you had to react to developments on the map.
This map actually has a problem when it comes to spawncamping but that is a different issue.
This is only my interpretation of the map, obv. it will not be 100% accurate
I don’t want maps wear everybody wears each other out in close quater combat. I want maps like this where the gameplay is very dynamic, where it is about important positions and reacting to the development of the game.
If the enemy takes control over the blue zone the red zones will basically become no go zones, I see no problem with that concept in itself, Gaijin seemingly does.
Gaijin just doesn’t want us to actually play the game. That has to be the explanation for this disaster of a map…
most of the maps are awfull and bullshit, the only one i love is FULDA which really looks like a map for TANKS, its the closest we can get which looks like a GHPC or ARMA map
It’s not only the looks. Maps should provide plenty of opportunities for many types of tanks and not just be extremely small with a lot of houses placed all around.
But I agree, Fulda is a very good map.
Kursk or fire (whatever it is called now) Is the only map you feel strong in on the CR2 being far enough away to actually bounce shots is incredibly novel.
Maginot is a little like that but sniping spots are too obvious and you cannot reliably use them.
Well, Idk of you can still get Kursk (or whatever it is called) but the matchmaker seems to pick it very rarely.
Probably because it is “too hard” to play on…
I really miss the original Kursk map.
I agree there should be a good variety of maps, but I also want to keep the CQB maps. I like them. Much of the community enjoy them. I love a good city map with some corner camping, autocannon spam, all that good stuff. Problem is the map rotations. Been playing a lot for this ground event, and sometimes I get the same map upwards of three times in a row (happened with Stalingrad Factory last night). Some days a map will just seemingly not be in the rotation. And yeah, as much as I love CQB - I am fully against them modifying maps in ways to introduce CQB situations, we already have a good amount of CQB maps. Like when they butchered my boy:
(Ignore KT without track, I mean that entire hill section of the Desert map they removed)
You didn’t accuse me of it but I want to make clear that CQB in definitely a big part of the game.
I think there are good close quater maps. I like Berlin or advance to the Rhein because they offer variety, don’t just consist of small alleys and you can’t lose track as quickly.
Meanwhile Sweden is way too big and you can always get flanked by any of the way too many alleys. Not that it shouldn’t be possible to flank but at that map you quickly lose all overview over the map, it’s completely random where an enemy might be.
90% of this map is cut-off and there are some unused areas which I assume were meant for the cancelled PvE mode. There are some wooded areas that are completely modelled and off-bounds for some stupid reason as well. I remember when you could go on the bridge and bypass the city, but that meant actually playing the game with your brains.
Same for American desert, we can barely play on 1/4 of the map when in reality it is a huge arena, with sand dunes and mountains which are drivable in custom missions. Such a shame…
I enjoy Sweden, but I like to corner camp with my engine off. Even then, it’ll typically end with one side camped within their spawn.
It is, but I agree that:
Is totally unnecessary. The original map already offers enough CQB opportunities. I feel like maps like Eastern Europe and Fields of Normandy balance this out pretty good. Players wanting CQB can engage in that (or those with vehicles more suited for it), while the flank offers plentiful opportunities for others.
Another example that does this super well is Test Site. The more I play that map, the more I appreciate it. Basically every vehicle type can approach that map in its own way and still contribute to an objective. It’s not my subjective favourite map to play, but I see it as the absolute gold standard of theoretical map design tbh
Agreed. I think it’s totally okay, though, if some maps are more open and some are a bit more urban, so there is variety. But they should always be balanced to some degree.
Not every map should be like that but for what it is it isn’t a bad map.
Just know that anything we ask for involving gameplay improvement will be ignored in favor of body pillows.
Let’s have faith in Gaijin. I know this kind of rhetoric isn’t very popular but in all fairness, I don’t think Gaijin isn’t interested in improving the game.
We need to convince them that some things should be changed. This game is very complex, so things take their time.
