Improving Ground RB Without Replacing It: Spawn Protection, Logistics and Optional PvE Support
1. Introduction
I would like to propose a gradual improvement to Ground Realistic Battles (Ground RB), rather than creating an entirely new game mode.
My central idea is simple: keep the existing PvP battle as the core of Ground RB, while introducing optional support mechanics that improve spawn protection, vehicle sustainability and gameplay variety.
I believe the existing capture-point system and vehicle combat mechanics are fundamentally worth preserving. The problem is not that Ground RB needs to become a completely different game.
The problem is that players can sometimes lose the ability to participate meaningfully long before the match actually ends.
This affects experienced players, returning players and newcomers in different ways.
2. What Problems Am I Trying to Address?
Spawn camping
In some battles, a small number of players can occupy favorable positions near an enemy spawn and repeatedly destroy newly spawned vehicles.
This can become frustrating for both sides. Defenders have very limited opportunities to respond, while attackers may end up waiting for spawn protection to expire rather than fighting for objectives.
I am not suggesting that an overwhelmingly superior team should be prevented from surrounding the enemy.
However, maintaining a spawn blockade should require a meaningful tactical commitment, rather than allowing one or two vehicles to repeatedly eliminate an entire team.
Limited ground-based counterplay against air attacks
Combined arms gameplay is one of War Thunder’s defining strengths, and I do not want to remove player-controlled aircraft from Ground RB.
However, ground-based air defense can face ammunition shortages, terrain restrictions and repeated attacks by aircraft using precision-guided weapons.
Aircraft have airfields where they can return to rearm. Ground-based missile vehicles should also have a reliable, reasonably protected way to restore their combat capability.
The goal is not to make aircraft ineffective. It is to improve the ability of ground players to respond.
Limited meaningful roles after losing the frontline
Not every player has a complete lineup or the experience required to compete effectively in every situation.
A player who cannot break through the enemy frontline should still have some optional tasks available, such as air defense, reconnaissance, fire support or attacking lower-value AI objectives outside the main battlefield.
These activities should not replace PvP or directly determine victory.
They should provide alternative ways to participate, learn and earn some rewards.
3. What Should Remain Unchanged?
This is the most important part of the proposal.
- The existing A/B/C capture points and primary victory conditions remain unchanged.
- Player-versus-player combat remains the main activity and the primary way to win.
- Current player vehicle combat, damage models and normal scoring rules remain in place.
- Players are not required to interact with the new systems.
- No playable infantry or new large-scale strategy mode is required.
- AI support should not be strong enough to replace competent human players.
- Side missions should not directly reduce the enemy team’s tickets.
A player who simply wants to spawn a tank and fight for capture points should still be able to play Ground RB in essentially the same way as before.
4. Proposed Optional Improvements
I propose investigating the following features as separate, independently testable additions.
A. Forward Operating Bases (FOBs)
Convert existing ground spawn areas into protected, partially destructible forward bases with limited automated defenses and vehicle ammunition resupply.
FOBs would make low-effort spawn camping more difficult without making spawn areas completely invulnerable.
B. AI Logistics Convoys
Periodically spawn AI supply convoys that travel from the outer battlefield toward existing FOBs.
Successful delivery could restore ammunition stocks, damaged defenses and base functionality.
Aircraft could intercept convoys outside the playable ground map. Ground vehicles could engage them once they enter the ground combat area.
C. Limited AI Air Support
Allow eligible ground vehicles to request limited AI air missions through a familiar map-based support interface.
Reconnaissance vehicles could request ground attacks, while air-defense vehicles could request temporary air patrols.
AI would have limited ammunition, predictable mission parameters and shared cooldown restrictions.
It should assist players, not replace them.
D. Optional Peripheral PvE Objectives
Use part of the currently underutilized airspace and terrain outside the playable ground map to host AI convoys, aircraft and support targets.
These missions would provide Silver Lions and Research Points, but would not grant match score, Spawn Points or direct ticket reduction.
The most rewarding and decisive gameplay would still take place in the central PvP battlefield.
E. Indirect Fire for Suitable Artillery Vehicles
Introduce an optional map-based indirect-fire interface for eligible self-propelled artillery.
The interface would rely on approximate reconnaissance information and realistic ballistic limitations, not an omniscient overhead camera or automatic target tracking.
This should be considered separately from the initial FOB changes.
5. Why This Could Help Players
I am not proposing artificial advantages for the losing team, automatic comeback mechanics or stronger weapons for inexperienced players.
Experienced players should still benefit from superior aim, positioning, knowledge and coordination.
What I would like to improve is the number of meaningful decisions available to someone who is currently unable to win a direct engagement.
A new player may learn the map through reconnaissance or defensive tasks.
A returning player may use an older aircraft against peripheral AI objectives.
An air-defense player may remain useful through reliable resupply and limited support missions.
And a team that is already losing should still be able to organize some resistance from its spawn area, even if that resistance ultimately fails.
6. Development Philosophy
I believe these additions should reuse existing mechanics wherever practical:
- Existing artillery-support map interfaces
- Existing ammunition-resupply mechanics
- Existing AI convoy and aircraft behavior
- Existing aircraft spawn areas
- Existing reconnaissance systems
- Existing mission warnings and cooldown systems
Reusing these systems would not eliminate development work. Maps, AI behavior, mission logic and balance would still require testing.
However, I believe an incremental expansion of Ground RB could be more practical and less disruptive than designing a completely new mode.
7. Suggested Development Order
I would prioritize:
- FOB spawn protection and reliable resupply.
- AI logistics convoys.
- Limited AI air-support missions.
- Optional peripheral PvE tasks.
- Specialized vehicle roles and indirect artillery fire.
National AI doctrine differences and faction-based matchmaking could be considered much later, but they are not required for this proposal.
8. Conclusion
I do not want to make Ground RB easier to win. I want to make it harder for players to lose every meaningful option before the match has ended.
If the enemy controls every objective, they should still win.
If a team is completely outplayed, it should still lose.
But victory should primarily come from controlling the battlefield, rather than repeatedly destroying vehicles at their spawn points.
I would be interested in hearing whether other players would support testing these concepts individually, especially the FOB system.
I welcome feedback on technical limitations, balance risks and potential unintended consequences.