I really dont understand why people have problems with long range maps except maybe on low tier where the game would be a lot longer than it is now.
Tanks even in IRL were designed to fight at long ranges or at least longer than rifle ranges.The average ww2 tank fight would take place between 0-500-600m and later on 600-1000-1000+ with a few tanks being able to kill at 2000m but fights rarely took place at such ranges.Cold war-Modern tanks are made to fight at 2000-3000m and they are also made to do that EASILY.Rangefinders and “darts” are what allowed this.Just like going from muskets to rifles basically changed how combat took place along with the tactics that would be used.War Thunder aims to be realistic and due to that maps fitting to each br should be created.To be honest for most cases whats needed is to start allowing players to use the big version of maps like Poland-Eastern Europe and or Maginot and that would suffice.In certain scenarios thought maps from scratch would have to be created.
No,long range maps wont give a magical advantage to anyone having a “camping spot” that will allow them to use it to “camp” and kill everyone.The game gives you plenty of tools like smoke shells for most tanks and calibers that can effectively be used to blind said camper and force the pushing at closer distances and possibly the relocation of the “camper”.Smaller BRs like 2.0-4.0 dont really need that bigger maps since the vehicles dont have that much speed and or range for the most part and most tanks apart from some TDs and certain SPGs would need to get up close to do anything to each other but it would still give a lot of breathing space and open possibilities for the use of different tactics.Anything above 5.3 should not fight in small maps that regularly,anything beyond 7.7-8.0 should fight on really big maps and anything beyond 9.3 should fight on the biggest maps possible.
For br 1.0-2.3 most maps are ok.For 2.7-4.7 maps could get bigger but not too much,like 3-4 km from one side to the other.For brs 5.3-6.7-7.0 maps should get a lot bigger like 5-6-7km between the spawns.For br 7.3-9.3 7-8km between the spawns and for 9.3 and up 10-12-14kms.For anything beyond 9.3 i think even 16km would be ok.You are so fast and have so much range in 9.3 + that in just a few minutes (1-2-3 minutes) youll end up spotting and fighting people.
In one word,tank maps should mimic air RB maps.Theres the spawn from which you start and theres a lot of space until you meet the enemy.You have a lot of space to move around and utilize the tactics that you like and fit your vehicle while also being very hard to end up getting spawncamped.Of course the size of air RB maps is really big and in some cases too big for a quick tank game.But even there i would say that the AI tank units on the ground dont really fight on huge expances but rather on some very specific patches with the rest being usually wilderness or not important.Even those patches of land though,where the ground AI fight,are sometimes bigger than certain GRB maps.Anyway its getting late and i think youre getting the point.
Also if i could i would either remove planes completely or add multiple airfield like AA batteries across these now bigger maps to help ground units,just like in irl,stand a chance against the totally broken CAS that we have.
This is a half-truth.
Tanks were designed to be effective OUT TO ranges.
That does not mean they were designed only to fight beyond say 1km, otherwise Abrams wouldn’t be as heavy as it is.
Modern tanks are designed to fight 0m - ~4km.
WW2 tanks were designed to fight 0m - ~2km.
The minimum range didn’t change, only the maximum.
Though I believe some tanks were every much designed to operate as part of a combined arms operation, supported by IFVs and infantry, like a lot of NATO tanks, and many NATO tanks were well designed for the fields of Germany, meanwhile Soviet tanks were very much designed to operate independently of infantry support and to fight in the more densely urban areas of the east. Its a subtle difference, but does lend a minor advantage to some nations.
There was a really really good reddit post that broke it down, but for the life of me, I cant find it anymore.
I dont think this is the same article, but sums it up well
"First is engagement rules: IRL, most tank fight at very long ranges (kilometres) with your tank retreating after every shot fired. In War Thunder, tanks are mostly forced in close quarters, meaning rushing the enemy is a good tactic as you won’t get sniped by someone you can’t even see (most of the time). Since War Thunder needs you to capture point, you are forced to push points (This helps Russia’s doctrine heavily).
Design: Russian tanks are made with the doctrine of pure assault in mind, and it shows. They’re smaller and have a better profile thanks to their autoloader and have great frontal armor. NATO MBTs were made to counter those tanks but were expected to be used in entrenched, hull down position. They’re larger and usually have weak hull armor compared to their godlike turrets. They’re still very much capable of attacking thanks to their great mobility, but their weaknesses are easily exploited at short ranges when attacking since the enemy just has to aim center mass most of the time while you are forced to aim at specific weakspots to kill Russian MBTs."
It’s only because T80s can simply press W and win. Russia players uses this huge advantage for killing more effectively in CQC, while others are forced to fight them at close range.
Check most battles, in any nation, on the road up to higher tiers and you will see most players do this regardless (or some teams sit miles behind waiting to try and farm defensively).
It starts at 1.0, as does 1DL. There is nothing to persuade the majority sadly; join in or move on.
The main issue with long range maps is this; people will complain about enemy tanks flanking and Gaijin will remove all cover which turns the map into a Normandy landings style rush to the center to get to cover.
This is what happened to fields of Poland. People complained about how the sides of the map allowed for flanking and Gaijin responded by removing the cover between the caps and spawn. Now, it is a mad rush to the cap points with a large, open field between spawn and the caps. This has made the maps so unplayable that I just leave whenever I get it. It is really sad to see because I used to enjoy the map and now it is pure luck if you will get focused on your rush to find cover.
I think large maps would benefit top tier gameplay but only if they create maps with cover to allow people to safely get to the center for CQC. This is a hard thing to do because a large portion of the top tier player base just wants some quick “CoD” gameplay and, just like in CoD, they will complain if anyone decides to play a tank as a tank. ex: firing from cover and not just blindly rushing forward.
I think its funny that everyone’s worried about the tanks with the worst gun depression being hull down. You’d think it would be the opposite everyone would be concerned about.
İn stat cards it says T72-80 series tanks does have minus 5 degree depression while in reality they do have 7 degree depression which equals to Merkava 4 series and almost equal to Leclerc series.
This claim is proved on old forum.
So once again gaijin made them better compare to real life.
While you are using some couple of photos which doesnt show or proves anything people actually proved that by using mathematic on old forum.
İ specifically mentioned this was proved on old forum but you simply refusing to read, dont do that and dont start another pointless conversation unless you have solid proof rather then some random screenshots.
I know, I however used Type 10 explicitly cause I could make its gun axis point the same height as T-90’s in the test drive.
This proves it mathematically as well.
The triangle is longer, but the height remains the same.
İt proves nothing, you decided to chose spesific angles in order to show T90 has worse depression while having no solid proof, not to mention suspension height wasnt even clear on Type-10 so even this shows you dont know how to create solid proof with proper evidence.
On other hand people did this with proper tools and proper evidence on old forum, again you’re doing the same thing and this is not your first time having wrong claims or sources on something so dont do that.
Now that is just a temper tantrum.
Just cause you posted wrong information without evidence doesn’t mean you get to dismiss screenshot evidence.
Sorry, but T-90A does not have 7 degrees of gun depression.
You have no evidence and never will.
Not sure why you’re defending Soviets so much when you don’t even have the evidence to back it up.
Hes not defending the soviets. He saying that they have 2 degrees more gun depression than they should have according to the stat cards and that its another example of soviets being buffed
What 10 degrees of gun depression looks like from one of the tallest tanks in the game compared to 7 degrees from the same height as a T-90’s gun laying drive.
