I’m not convinced that the appeal of game modes like this is as niche as you suggest. Either way, having this thread is one way to find out. I think the game needs new game modes for both air and ground regardless.
There’s also a difference between self-imposed handicaps (like taking low BR vehicle to intentional uptier), and that being an integral gameplay mechanic which creates interesting asymmetrical scenarios for all players.
Maybe you get killed more often in cheap vehicles, but guess what? They’re cheap. You can just grab another 75mm sherman and try again. If you kill just one Tiger every 3 deaths or so, then you’re doing just fine. The Tiger player however wouldn’t be able to get a replacement as easily…
In a regular ground RB battle however, the Sherman 75mm you brought takes up the same amount of crew slots and roughly the same SP as the enemy’s Panther. So clearly the mode isn’t designed for this approach, and actively discourages the player to do this.
As for vehicle selection, you’re right that some would be less viable than others. The Churchill GC is a good example, but it was never deployed, so it wouldn’t be in an event like this anyway. I can’t think of another vehicle deployed in Normandy (for example) that bad.
I was hoodwinked into War Thunder believing it to be realistic in its gameplay and not just having factual vehicles, so I am up for it. It was only as I got to about 4 BR that the game became WoT which is a shame.
I don’t seek nor have I ever expected perfect balance and I do get a little bit tired with the self-appointed dictators …er … dictating. Shouting down anybody who dares to suggest some form of change seems to be a habit on this forum lately and we should rebel against it, it’s tiresome.
To me personally I can see no reason why anybody would go so far out of their way to recreate vehicles in such detail to throw them into a random runaround.
Let’s have more era specific challenges with limited vehicles. It may encourage people to stop “maining” single nations and get into other Nations. Doing the same not just for WW2 but for Cold War or Modern eras may also encourage the WW2 posse to press on and go beyond their safe place.
Gaijin can help by offering better incentives for joining in.
I’m not sure if this is what you mean but I’d want this proposed mode to be across all BRs and eras, including alt history stuff (for Cold War/Modern stuff, because otherwise the teams would be more limited or unbalanced than WWII). Ardennes is just the December conflict with which I am most familiar with so that’s the one I chose as an example.
I was thinking there could be a system where if your spawn is overrun, then it is moved a couple kilometers back. The enemy team’s spawn also moves forward the corresponding distance.
This affords the retreating team an opportunity to attempt a counterattack, this time with some breathing room so they can get organized again.
The map should be very long in depth, so advances and retreats are possible over several hours.
Sure but this will require very big maps and tanks arent as fast as helicopters/airplanes. Naval EC can be boring sometimes where you are moving from spawn to somewhere where action is…
Gaijin should do some test event with ground EC to see how it would work with real players
It’d be a challenge to get working, sure, but if it works then the payoff would be great!
I’d gladly take part in any such test.
As for increasing travel time between locations, I think it largely depends on BR. Modern tanks are generally very fast, but earlier ones tend to be slower.
I also think spending more time on the road increases immersion, and provides interesting opportunities for ambushes and strategic obstacles like rivers and bridges.
Of course, rewards should be higher to compensate for longer downtime between actions. I’m against anything that slows player progression more than it is now.
I think I agree. That’s why the parameters of the map (like distance from spawn to objective) should change according to BR.
As for wheeled vehicles, you might have a point. They can use their mobility better on large maps like this.
On the other hand, using WW2 as an example, light tanks and wheeled vehicles tend to be heavily limited in weaponry and protection. Think Puma or M8 Greyhound. The idea is to have a era appropriate selection of vehicles at different SP costs. There shouldn’t be any cold war era recoilless rifle cars in WW2 EC games.
In other words, against Tiger 2 for example, the only asset of M8 Greyhound/M5 Stuart/M18 Hellcat is it’s mobility. That is a balancing factor that could make certain low BR vehicles relevant in this mode, since they fought tougher opponents historically.
That’s a really cool idea for larger, more dynamic maps!
I think it’s beyond the scope of this proposal (I’m mainly looking for sim battles based on historical/near historical events with EC style SP costs for balancing) but it’s certainly interesting as a future expansion of the idea.