Number of minimum and maximum players in Simulation Battles

Please…, there are waaay too many players in Simulation Battles. You actually cannot enjoy any simulation air battle missions because each team can have up to 16 damn players. Way too much. 16 vs 16 is a lot.

So Gaijin, please, can you make it available in the future to have 1v1, 2v2 or maximum 4v4 players in Simulation Battle? That would be less frustrating and lovely to play, otherwise on these small maps it’s just an intoxicating feeling which makes you rather delete the game and play something else. Seriously, a 4v4 maximum players option, starting from an available 1v1 would bring your wonderful masterpiece, War Thunder, where it’s suppose to be, otherwise it’s like a masquerade, especially as you already know well how many players use visual hack cheats to see the other players like a red box or something from high distances and abuse that to unimaginable levels. So please, limiting to just 4v4 will also greatly reduce the chance of cheaters and radically recover the appreciation of the game from loyal and serious players.

I wait for your point of view on this.

Cheers and wish for the better!

The beauty of sim is the agency it gives its players. You have a wide variety of maps to choose from. If youre struggling on a small map i say its 100% your fault for playing that map.

Just join a bigger map.

I disagree with ALL your points, most fights are 1v1’s anyway even with 16 players on the map. In 4v4, even the tiny maps will be a ghost town

7 Likes

They are probably talking about ARH tier

Where a fight on Winter Stalingrad is basically one map-wide large fight

For props 16x16 is amazing, but optionally smaller lobbies for top tier would be nice

1x1 is lol
2x2 and 4x4 is also unrealistic to ever come

But having the ability to choose 8x8 and 16x16 would be nice.

More lobbies, more variety

At toptier the problem isnt the number of players, its the map.

You cant see 30 players playing Winter Stalingrad and be like “Yeah let me get in on that” and complain the map is too small.

As i said above:

You have a wide variety of maps to choose from. If youre struggling on a small map i say its 100% your fault for playing that map.
Just join a bigger map.

The sim community is bipolar asf. People will advocate for larger maps and more objectives, but only choose to play denmark, stalingrad or tunisia, and then complain the gameplay on those maps suck.

The solution is right there: Afghan, Rocky, Spain, Sinai, Vietnam. Those are the kind of maps fit for 16v16

1 Like

It is more likely that they just want to do PvE and keep getting attacked by players.

2 Likes

That’s exactly the point: Why would you chose a map like this (which is a quarter of the size of the large maps) for ARH tier?

For me personally 9.0, maybe 10.0 max is the absolute limit for the small maps…

3 Likes

Very apt observation that I always make as well: People tend to like Denmark, Sinai, it’s rare to get Afghanistan or Vietnam running. Almost forgot about Spain and Rocky Canyon, they’re so rare…

  • Denmark: Flat, zero possibility for use of landscape defensively. Issue with bases protected from airfields SAM’s if you spawn in the south.

  • Sinai: Quite flat, but less so than DK, buggy ground battle events and bases (underground), killer convoys, also often underground.

Afghanistan and also Vietnam are seen much more rarely, even though those maps (especially Afghanistan) offers topography that allows to use the terrain defensively and offenisvely, and makes it much more exciting for hide and seek…

Frankly, I don’t understand why we can’t get more large Sim EC maps. Considering how much love, effort and resouces they put into polishing tank maps, all air maps seem very low effort, and I fully believe it would be a simple effort to create new, interesting maps with a fraction of effort needed to polish a ground map.

Especially considering how poorly made the air maps are in regards of landscape, textures, assets, targets and scripted events and vehicles (I’ve stopped using the term AI assets in this context, as those kamikaze fighters slamming into mountainside have zero to do with AI or any I…).

4 Likes

We already have too few players at times where I see no point logging on since I’ll just fly around for 30 minutes then land.

You need a 8 vs 8 at bare minimum to have a fun and competetive lobby.

16 v 16 can get crowded, sure. 8 v 8 to 12 v 12 is where I’d place the sweet spot personally for 64x64 maps.

However for 128x128 maps? Could honestly go beyond 16 v 16.

4v4 is unrealistic? Dooh boy=))! IRL almost always it was like that in the 70s and more like it in the modern era. 1v1 and 2v2 were very often, but yeah, you should do some research!

PVE should actually be integrated also. The rewards for killing PVE are already small like crap, so the players would have to work their ass much longer and much more to obtain the same score, but PVE would be a good implementation also in RB and SB! Anyone else would agree?

More fun and more competitive would be 4v4. 8v8 is more a furball, the real tactics vanish quickly.

Its an issue of map density and not necessarily player count.

At lower BRs, 128x128km is massive, and you’ll spend a long time going from point to point, weapons also limit engagements to point blank range.

At higher BRs, the travel time drops and engagement ranges increase. 128x128 feels small by the time you get to 11.0 ish.

At top tier… With engagement ranges of 50-60km in some cases and jets that can travel 100km in 3 minutes… You are basically in combat the second you retract your landing gear