An arcade multiplayer shooter. That is it, it isn’t a realistic simulator, it isnt a hardcore tactical team-based competative game. It isnt there to simulate realistic battles, it focuses on having playable gameplay instead. There are many aspects of realism to the game, but those aspects are (with the best intentions) not going to harm the core gameplay, only enhance it. Realism is ignored where it would damage the gameplay, and this is a good thing. So saying that “IRL the germans would always try to engage over 800m” shows a complete lack of understanding about what game you are playing, and how it is designed to be played, and how the mechanics are implemented. It isnt even a point, its wholly irrelivent to any discussion about changes to the game.
If i had 1Ge for every time ive heard this or something similar…
That is kind of how I see it.Trouble is,it’s all become so directionless.Each player has to latch onto something that worlks for them otherwise why stay playing the game.
For me the arcade shooter thing is fine mixed with a WW2 aspect ,its a good balance.It a balance that is irradiated around 6BR so that is where I stop.
Now thats me ,so everybody must have their own take ,maybe they love modern tanks whatever
so the issue is do we separate it all at this point or just work harder to merger it all for some kind of perceived player base?
I mean we can all see the older WW2 enthusiasts trying to squeeze some fun and immersion out of this thing and we can see those who just want red and blue football teams and the highest score possible,so who do we appease?
So one side will want appropriate gritty and realistic battlefields for the era and another will be happy to play in a soccer stadium,hopefully one decorated with anime or manga
Which means what?
Longer games are not what people want if you are playing a strategy game like Civ or the such even against other people, that is how the game is advertised and played.
Warthunder and its other games ( some have almost disappeared without trace ) and Wargaming are set up as fast paced shoot em ups and advertised as such. Once you start trying to add layers of complexity and strategy it falls apart pretty quickly, it is a very very loose team game.
Simply it is not what people expect or how it is portrayed or advertised and it does not lend itself to a longer game setup, people will just sit back until the timer runs out, it is a horribly boring enough game as it is without that happening.
Yeah the game with a focus on realism and a mode called realistic battles is here to focus on arcade, I’m certain of it
I’d rather have that than a massive map where it takes 5+ minutes to get everywhere.
Then people wonder why Gaijin keeps ruining maps for the sake of three lanes CQC battles
What maps have Gainin ruined? Off the top of my head I can think of American Desert and big Tunisia and that’s it.
Most of the bad maps are already older and in need of a total rework.
and the total rework will be red lines to force three lane battles to appease people like you
Who said I think those types of maps are good? I think many maps in WT are bad for basically that exact reason.
Also give some examples of bad changes please.
Super fun if your play style/favoured nation prefers long-range/flanking/hull-down actions over corner CQC.
The fun is stated in an ironic, sad manner.
Spoiler
I agree in the general statement that there are plenty of bad maps in war thunder, but how about suggesting specific ways of fixing them, instead of just “bigger”, because then we will just have big poorly designed maps, and it doesnt solve the actual issue anyone has.
Generally, my wish for maps partially ties into better and more impactful objectives. I usually request maps with more varied terrain - more hills, ditches, cliffs, valleys. More wreckages and craters. Less dense streets and more scattered buildings so that you can still use buildings as cover and as a positional advantage but not be forced into “do I hear a tank engine?” CQC slugfest (even “Do I hear an engine?” is better than a few lanes with little room to maneuver. I prefer advance to the rhine to Port Novoro for this reason)
Map size itself does not really worry me beyond the placement of objectives in relation to spawns, spawn locations themselves and how easy is it to reach a position where you can gain overwatch over a place the enemy can spawn from. To be clear: I want it to be difficult to reach such positions. I also want more spawns, spread wider out rather than concentrated together so players can spawn elsewhere if they got pushed in one place. And objectives likewise should be spread out with varying tactical value (one objective may give good sniping positions, another may have good cover etc).
I’ve been making a point, where the opportunity arises, to highlight maps I found I enjoy playing as 4.7-6.3 Britain. Second Battle of Al Almaein tends to be something I enjoy in multiple variations. Voloklo sth I also found I enjoy as it provides similar gameplay (albeit with flaws) as Al Alamein (notice enemy has locked down a route? Simply move around using the hills to get a jump on them).
Maybe these two maps fail when brought to higher tiers. I can definitely see el alamein being a struggle with lower tier tanks due to all the hills and low mobility. I’ll also concede that Russian tanks probably feel unfun on the maps I enjoy the most (I’ve been playing some russia for sake of battlepass tier 3 lineup objective and I keep messing up overestimating gun depression on tiny hills…)
“Simulation is when things are clunky. The less realistic it is by being more clunky, the more realistic it is. The less trained my soldier is with guns, the more realistic its gunplay.” - Other people that share your claim.
War Thunder is a simulator, as realistic as DCS.
War Thunder just isn’t clunky, and DCS is far less clunky today than it use to be.
Simulator =/= real life.
Realistic =/= need to breathe.
Yes, I am impatient with those takes at this point.
One thing people need to understand is that different simulators have different goals.
Some simulators are specialized in IFR training so you get very detailed instrument panels that all work, with all kinds of knobs and buttons. They may end up having no or minimal mission design outside of “take off at airport A and go to B using only your instrument display and studying the landing plates and frequencies and such.”
Look at this PDF to get a glimpse of the obsession IFR-replication people can go to. It’s a lot of fun!
DCS has none of this.
Is DCS not a simulator then?
Nope. DCS focuses on the tactile aspect of flying a plane (how to start up a plane, how to manage its systems) and mission design.
What does Warthunder focus on?
Well, flight models (at least for prop era) are comparable to Microsoft Flight sim X: Steam Edition. In some places, it’s even better than what’s available in stock. In some places, it’s worse.
I’d say WT focuses on accessible simulation of the experience of flying and maneuvering a very high variety of planes.
Tank-wise, it’s way more arcadey but theoretically, it still tries to deliver on the feeling of how these steel beasts perform. Some tank sims go further and make you be part of the crew - but it has an obvious drawback: Tank driving is a team effort. Replicating that in an accessibility focused simcade like WT is going to have issues without dedicated squadrons and whatnot.
I do wish ground sim would get stuff like cupola/commander modelled at least with the benefits and drawback of either. I also wish ground sim was like air sim in brackets because most of the time, the line-ups are never compatible with my choices lol.
Yeah I miss the smaller maps as well
Training simulators will give up physics and other battle-related mechanics simulation.
Steel Beasts for example uses basic data for its ballistics, and has the worst physics simulation in all tank software.
That’s okay though since its primary purpose is to train people in a digital area.
War Thunder’s not here to train people, so it doesn’t need the training features of Steel Beasts and can instead simulate what really matters: Crews, battle, and physics.
You don’t play Squad if you want realistic gunplay, you play Squad to communicate with others in a realistic manner. It’s a communication simulator with combat, similar to Arma.
Whereas if you want realistic gunplay you go play STALKER 2 or CODMW2019 or even recent Battlefield titles, where you will not simulate communication or movement as well. Then again, in game development it’s always better to be too fluid than too clunky in terms of inaccuracy.
Sounds like something arcade player would say, not surprised tho.
Cargo port, Mozdok,Normandy ,Tunisia, Sinai, Eastern Europe,Poland,Jungle map,Korea and American Desert,basically the ones they have touched recently.The rest I think they have left alone
Sorry for the edits I just keep thinking of all the maps they butchered.
This entirely depends on what different people mean by what the game is simulating, and how far they want to take realism. If you want to argue semantics and try and dismiss things because you are using the word with or without the context that it is used in, or that the statement that i was responding to has, then at least explain what you mean by things, instead of just blankly stating what things are not. You have a real problem with playing with words in basically every post you make, sometimes it does make sense, and other times you get completely lost. I see what you are saying, but it does not fit well with the context of this discussion, especially since you have taken something someone else has said and are argueing against that quote, not what I actually said.
I have heard people saying that the game is going downhill, or the game is dying, or some other derivative for over 7 years now. Needless to say, the game is not dying, and if people think it has gone downhill, then that is opinon, and no more. In case you are not aware, there is a common saying in english that often goes something like “If I had a nickel for every time X happened, I’d be rich”, im sure you can see where i was going with the comment now.