But that’s exactly why tanks exist: a long-range standoff weapon with sniping capabilities. Tanks were never intended to be in urban areas or for short-range engagements. Battles in urban areas like those we get in the game have never occurred in the history of armored warfare (tank duels excluded).
Bigger maps provide more maneuvering space, so one can push the enemy from another direction rather than snipe.
5 Likes
And planes exist to fly for hours to reach their targets. But we’re talking about a third-person computer game, and the gameplay on large maps is so boring that half the players quit after their first death — I personally leave right away unless I’m playing with a squad.
1 Like
No, planes exist to attack targets from the air. Flight time has nothing to do with plane’s existence.
Not necessarily on the Eastern Front or the Pacific, which is where most of the game’s original pitch took place.
For the Pacific, carriers rarely deployed their fighters from farther than 200 nmi. Reason is simple: Finding the carrier even with radio navigation is hard and you want excess fuel to avoid sipping salt water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLqI6S2g5LI)
For Eastern Front, again 100-200km flight CAP over the frontline wasn’t unusual. In fact, less was quite plausible too like during the Moscow offensive where frontlines and airfields were quite close together.
In air sim prop BRs, we actually get these kinds of engagements. maps range from 64x64 km to 128x128 kilometer.
I want comparable for GRB (why not GSB? Because whenever I want to play GSB I cant use the tanks I actually want to drive because of the rotating lineup systems).
Comparable as in experience and immersion, not literal 128x128 or 64x64 for GRB.
I don’t think realism is a very relevant argument when it comes to map preference.
And tanks exist to fire at the enemy — at any distance.
I honestly can’t imagine what goes through the mind of someone who picks a 128x128 map just to play on it with piston-engine planes.
1 Like
Maps where is no space for any sort of maneuver, strongly supports passive hull down defensive tactics.
Large battle space allows maneuvering around the enemy, flanking and all sorts of other maneuvers.
Large battles pace gives purpose to fast vehicles and ATGM carries etc.
Problem is that part of the player base is not interested in vehicle combat, they want their counterstrike with tanks, where only reflexes matters.
Other part of the player base wants something what resembles tank combat as much as possible, where other skills like reading the terrain, communication and cooperation with other team mates matters more then quick hands.
1 Like
Fun. Desire for meaningful gameplay.
I quite like flying props on Dover strait (it’s 96 or something). My only real aversion of 128x128 maps is the objective design often causing “Capture A point” to expire by the time I arrive unless I was right next to it and it can be too unpredictable to try and pre-game it. However, I had some of my most fun fights on Smolensk (12x8128 m) in the P51D5 and Bf109F4.
No tanks exist for long range shooting but they can shoot at short range too. That’s different.
The same as snipers can shoot on short range but exist for long range shooting.
This was my thought
For truly large maps, I would like to see a secondary cap system that covers the amount of captured terrain and moves the respawn location further up.
I do not expect the location to be more than 1/4 to 3/8 closer if the team has secured past the midpoint, and it should be only available after a certain level and map size. This could really give scouts and fast strikers better objectives while not leaving slower vehicles out of the game.
I do see many possible issues with teams abusing this strategy while individuals ignore it. Also with players trying to pad their score by camping and completely ignoring objectives the new drop zones could be called air drops that could have security ratings based on the enemies ability to target the area along with physical location.
Today 2500m kill on Fire Arc, is not the longest i ever had but its not far away. On these maps u can use the really strength of ur armor there isnt possible to snipe the tiniest weakspot of ur tank.
Sadly alot of people hate these maps, mostly level 30 with 1-2 hightier premiums in thier statcard
I tend to agree with this, but this is a vehicle centric game, I think one of the most important things should be freedom of movement. When you restrict massive, house size tanks and trucks, it feels like I’m playing the wrong game. But yes, I think map design is quite important as well, look at Attica for example, it’s just awful, aesthetics and gameplay wise.
I think new maps going forward should have more war-grittiness to them, they are too pristine and suck out the immersion out of the game.
It’s sad how untrue this post is.
Red Desert, Pradesh, Sands of Sinai, and Sweden are among War Thunder’s best maps.
I get you prefer maps with dozens of flanking routes, but that’s no reason to call good maps bad because they’re large.
1 Like
personally I hate long maps, I just abandon them, there is no point in playing a map like this in which you have to walk 2 minutes to fight for 30 seconds.
The only way I would play a long map is for the acceleration of the tanks to be arcade style. It frustrates me a lot that a tank that should reach 70km, don’t go over 35 km on a short map, I don’t care, but on a long one ups and downs and poorly designed maps don’t make me want to waste time and
if people like to play long maps they add an option so that everyone can play what they want
Seriously? 😑😳
You’re joking right??
If the map grid is less then 200m I just quit or spawn just aircraft/heli.
To bad that Gaijin tries to a please nainly instant action kids who does not care about the vehicles tactics etc.
1 Like
Outside Sands of Sinai, the other 3 have a lot of flanking routes and opportunities for complex play.