Thing is the only awareness you’ll be promoting is moderator actions to close old threads, and suggest you use newer ones.
And the biggest point of all of these spawn camping threads is that if they are already on your spawn, it means you’ve already lost, and if the flanks are left unprotected, of course the enemy is going to waltz right in.
Here is what I think we need from a company, the same old format has gotten boring and too many bugs that are looped around and not actually fixed.
“History. Armor. Air Power. Your Battle.”
The fundamental idea is a historically grounded multiplayer combat game featuring player-controlled tanks and aircraft only, covering the evolution of armored warfare and military aviation from World War I through the Vietnam era.
The game prioritizes historical accuracy, fair matchmaking, accessible hardware requirements, and enjoyable battles over cutting-edge graphics.
The game is built around eight principles.
Vehicles, weapons, ammunition, aircraft and battlefields should be based on historical equipment.
Matchmaking should prevent one team from becoming overwhelmingly stronger simply because players leave.
The game should run on modest hardware.
Player knowledge and ability should matter more than artificial crew statistics.
Tanks and aircraft work together.
The game is strictly:
Tanks + aircraft.
Progression should not require enormous amounts of repetitive gameplay.
The objective is to fight a battle—not simply capture three circles and spawn-camp the other team.
The game covers approximately:
Broken into six major eras.
1914–1918
1919–1938
1939–1945
1946–1953
1954–1960s
1960s–1975
The eras remain separate for normal matchmaking.
The initial nations could be:
WWI → Vietnam
WWI → WWII
WWI → Vietnam
WWI → WWII
WWI → Vietnam
WWII
WWI → WWII
WWII → Korea
WWI → WWII
WWI → Vietnam
Additional nations could be added later.
Fast reconnaissance vehicles.
General-purpose armored vehicles.
Heavy armor and firepower.
Anti-armor specialists.
Direct-fire support vehicles.
Dedicated anti-aircraft vehicles.
Fast reconnaissance/combat vehicles.
Air superiority.
Designed to destroy enemy aircraft.
Anti-tank and close-support aircraft.
Precision attacks.
Large-area bombing.
Where historically appropriate.
Spotting and battlefield intelligence.
Introduced during the appropriate post-WWII period.
A normal battle might look like this:
Players select:
Nation
↓
Era
↓
Battle
↓
Vehicle lineup
↓
Spawn
Rather than forcing players to unlock a huge ladder, players assemble a historically appropriate lineup.
Example:
Primary
M4 Sherman
Secondary
M4A1 Sherman
Tank Destroyer
M10
Fast vehicle
M18 Hellcat
Heavy
M26 where historically appropriate
Aircraft
P-47
Fighter
P-51
The battle determines which vehicles are actually available.
This is the centerpiece.
Instead of generic maps only, the game contains Historical Operations.
Examples:
The exact scenarios would be researched carefully so that vehicle availability matches the historical period represented.
Not every battle is:
Capture A, B and C.
Instead:
Attackers must penetrate defensive lines.
Defenders must hold positions for a specific period.
One team attempts to surround the other.
Control key areas.
Protect or destroy AI-controlled supply vehicles.
Control the skies while ground forces fight.
Attack heavily defended positions.
One side must withdraw while delaying the enemy.
This gives historical battles different personalities.
This is where we directly address your biggest complaint about War Thunder.
The system does not only consider vehicle rating.
It considers:
Instead:
Example:
WWII Late War — 1944–45
The system selects appropriate vehicles from that period.
Specific historical operations can be even more restrictive.
This prevents absurd historical combinations.
The matchmaker attempts to distribute:
reasonably between teams.
Not perfectly.
Reasonably.
This is one of the most important systems.
Suppose:
16 vs 16
Five players leave.
Now:
11 vs 16
The game opens:
Players waiting for a battle can join.
The goal is:
11 → 12 → 13 → 14 → 15 → 16
when possible.
Each team has:
Normal starting position.
Fallback position.
Activated if the enemy pushes too far.
This means:
Enemy reaches main spawn
doesn’t automatically mean:
Game over.
The game continuously monitors spawn areas.
If enemy vehicles enter the protected area:
The purpose is not to prevent a winning team from advancing.
It’s to prevent:
“Everyone is trapped in spawn and can’t play.”
The game tracks:
Based on:
If one side begins collapsing dramatically, the game can activate fallback mechanics.
This isn’t rubber-banding.
It is battlefield stabilization.
Aircraft should be powerful but not overwhelming.
Ground players earn aircraft availability through battlefield participation.
For example:
Destroy enemy tank:
+ points
Assist:
+ points
Capture objective:
+ points
Defend objective:
+ points
Then aircraft cost:
Fighter — low
Ground attack — medium
Bomber — high
Heavy bomber — very high
This discourages immediate CAS spam.
A team shouldn’t normally have:
8 aircraft
versus:
1 aircraft
unless the historical scenario intentionally creates that imbalance.
The game monitors air participation.
No traditional health bars.
Damage is calculated from:
Possible results:
Ricochet
Penetration
Partial penetration
Spalling
Crew injury
Engine damage
Transmission damage
Gun damage
Turret damage
Ammunition fire
Vehicle destruction
Crew members exist for realism.
Examples:
But there is no massive RPG grind.
A player’s effectiveness should primarily come from:
their skill
rather than:
Level 150 crew vs Level 12 crew.
Ammunition is historically appropriate.
Players select their loadout before battle.
Different ammunition types have different characteristics.
The game should explain:
What it is
When it was introduced
What it was designed for
This makes the game educational as well as entertaining.
Vehicles should have meaningful physics.
The physics don’t need to be perfect simulations of reality, but they should be credible and historically grounded.
Maps should be designed around actual military problems.
Not just:
Three capture circles.
Maps contain:
And importantly:
I’d target maps that support:
initially.
Then eventually:
and potentially:
if server performance allows.
Don’t start with massive player counts.
Make 16v16 excellent first.
The game deliberately avoids requiring high-end hardware.
Older PCs.
Mainstream PCs.
Modern PCs.
Optional.
The visual quality comes from:
rather than enormous hardware requirements.
A development target could be:
720p / ~30 FPS
1080p / 60 FPS
1440p / 60–120 FPS
These are targets, not final specifications.
Optimization would be part of development from day one.
This deserves serious attention.
A tank game can feel incredible with good sound.
Every vehicle gets historically appropriate:
Aircraft receive:
Aircraft can have:
Historical aircraft should have recognizable cockpit layouts.
Players get:
depending on the vehicle.
I’d avoid the traditional:
Grind 200,000 RP → unlock tank → grind another 400,000 → unlock next tank.
Instead:
Complete historical battles.
Unlock:
Players can progress without feeling forced to buy premium content.
The developer still needs revenue.
I’d use:
Free or relatively inexpensive.
Optional.
Premium could provide:
But:
A paid vehicle shouldn’t simply outperform everything around it.
Players can customize:
But historical battles can enforce:
so a 1944 battle doesn’t become covered in neon anime tanks.
AI isn’t just for target practice.
AI can control:
This can make a 16v16 battle feel much larger.
Strict historical rules.
Broader vehicle selection.
Longer multi-stage battles.
Connected historical battles.
Players create their own scenarios.
Test vehicles.
Players fight AI.
Imagine:
1942 — North Africa
↓
1943 — Sicily
↓
1943 — Italy
↓
1944 — Normandy
↓
1944 — France
↓
1944 — Ardennes
↓
1945 — Germany
You aren’t just unlocking vehicles.
You’re following history.
Every vehicle has a page.
For example:
Country: United States
Introduced: 1942
Crew: 5
Main gun: 75 mm
Engine: Various
Production: Historical figure
Combat history: Historical summary
Players can learn about what they’re driving.
This is where we make the project realistic.
One map
Two tanks
One aircraft
Basic multiplayer
Goal:
Is the combat fun?
Add:
Build:
Build:
Let players test it.
Collect:
Expand:
WWI → WWII
Add:
Korea
Add:
Vietnam
For a modern development project, I’d investigate:
for:
But the engine should be configured around performance first, not graphical spectacle.
A serious commercial version eventually needs people in areas such as:
You wouldn’t need all of these people on day one.
I would not start with WWI.
I’d actually start with:
United States vs Germany
Why?
Because it gives you:
USA
M4 Sherman
M10
M18
M4A3
P-47
Germany
Panzer IV
StuG III
Panther
Tiger I
Fw 190
Then:
One Normandy map.
16v16.
If that is fun, you’ve proven the core concept.
I’d want the first test to answer five questions:
Are the tanks fun to drive?
Does armor/damage feel believable?
Are aircraft useful without dominating?
Can a losing team recover?
Can a player with an older PC get a good experience?
If the answer to those five questions is yes, then you have something worth expanding.
And this is the part I think is most important.
Don’t advertise it as:
“The War Thunder killer.”
Build its own identity.
Something like:
Tanks. Aircraft. History.
Or:
Or:
Those are just working names—we could develop the actual name separately.
If I were pitching this to a developer, I’d put these on the first page:
Fight battles using historically appropriate vehicles and aircraft.
Dynamic matchmaking and reinforcement systems prevent a five-minute collapse from becoming an unwinnable spawn massacre.
The game is deliberately optimized so players don’t need an expensive gaming PC.
No artificial grind designed to make the player miserable.
No requirement to buy a premium tank to enjoy the game.
No deliberately frustrating progression.
No endless “play 100 hours to unlock the vehicle you actually wanted.”
The player should be thinking:
“I want to play another battle.”
—not—
“I guess I need to buy something.”
What you mean cant shoot back- is this new?
I didnt mind if being spawn camped as you can usually get 1- 2 easy kills. Its just a trade for some rp. Dont care about deaths so whats the issue (unless u cant shoot back now)
That comment is over 2 years old so chances are it’s a flash-in-the-pan of hot rage and isn’t accurate.
I have been guess I need to start teaming up with some players because trying it alone it is always the same thing, I take my time watch the flanks scout out but my team just ignores scouting rushes cap die then leave.
Even just viewing that replay of that match is horrific…
What are you claiming was the reason you lost?
I wouldn’t say just increase the radius, I would say more precisely place it. It might sound like the same thing, but possibly instead of removing positions where you can see the enemy spawn, make it visible to them that you’re there. You’re smart enough to dodge, or they’re dumb enough to not see you, you’ve earned a couple kills. On the other hand, you play it wrong, or there’s somebody who knows how to snipe on their team? You’re cooked.
I take my time I do not rush, I also watch the flanks which my teams ignore and most of the time my team rushes cap dies fly’s then leaves so not really one thing why I am on the losing side you have to ask gaijin why that happens. my last 13 I have played 3 wins the rest same ole thing. Even the other team didn’t have a single player quit and we only had 5 left so that is another question for gaijin.
There are other solutions, including ones this game has the component tools for already.
This solves the majority of the intentional spawn camping, while giving flanking parties the ability to shut down reinforcement flow to protect their own rear ends from being shot when they try to flank around the enemy front line. Many maps unfortunately are so cramped that they basically demand you spawn camp to keep the caps secure.
I have already tried Suggesting this in the past and it never got approved.
That is absolutely not what you were doing…
I’d actually be concerned that the ‘tactics’ you used in that match I refer to, that you seem to know EXACTLY what I mean, are your common go-to.
That was genuinely worse than passive behaviour… You literally did nothing, played an SPAA and didn’t look up once, other than when a bomb landed near you.
You hid behind a building, huddled in a corner, after having rushed to the point to cap.
And then every time you died after, you were calling people hackers, when you weren’t even looking at the enemy.
Like, that was absolutely abysmal, so much so I’ve not seen anyone play that horrifically, whilst complaining about the game itself being the issue.
Like, hell, at one point I was considering you were using some special controller considering there seems to be a full ‘lock’ at just under the horizon… It was that questionable.
That won’t work for ground battles, what would come close is the advance gamemodes methods, where the spawn moves up as you cap.
I have mentioned though that those who are being pushed into their spawn should have another spawn turn up behind that so they can be put back a bit so they’re not as camped as what they have ended up being.
Or they could just reset the spawn protection countdown when you getting shot during protection period
Naval EC has caps that double as spawns. Literally copy that and change the vehicle spawns from ships to tanks. Done.
The purpose is not to push people back, but to enable flanking parties to complete their flank and encircle the opposing team who was not paying attention.
That does not change how maps operate. That does not change the current inability to shut down reinforcement flow to keep caps secure without spawn camping. So no, that fixes nothing.
Spawn camping is a symptom of bigger problems.
The angle you’re looking at is the trouble. People complaining of being spawncamped don’t want it to be such an objective.
If they’re being spawncamped and the spawns moved further back into roads and accessways into the map, then that’s another barrier to be behind for the team who needs to get out of spawn.
Dynamic and changing spawn points could be a good thing in wider application.
I mean literally I took direct inspiration from OG Star Wars Battlefront II on PS2 with their Command Posts. Years later I realized Naval EC already has the same concept with how its cap zones are linked to spawns placed basically on top of them.
Correct, that is why when a flanking party captures the rear spawns of the opposing team, it does not affect any mid-map forward objectives that team may have still under their control, other than now having to be concerned with opponents spawning both in front of and behind them precisely because they got careless.
The people doing the complaining are intentionally left only to answer for their own actions and those of their team under such a system. It effectively operates under a “Make. Their. Whining. Their. Fault.” philosophy. Instead of trying to argue with perpetual complainers, the complaints are directly reflected back on their source with intelligent game design.
It is undoubtedly one, because it allows maps to get much larger and more varied without adding 5+ minutes of meaningless driving time only to be one-shot and then asked to spend another 10 minutes driving carefully back to action. It solves the game’s large-map paradox where large maps get simultaneously asked for constantly yet universally get downvoted and thus rarely appear in the matchmaker.
I was camping because I had my daughter whom called.
This is a very good point. Especially as people dislike sniping, the natural evolution of large maps in WT is that long sight lines are removed, so the time elapsing between spawn and first contact gets much longer because now you have to drive for a long time in order to have the same 400m-distance engagement you would have on a smaller map anyway.
The next step once this inefficiency settles in is that people get understandably bored of the driving heavy map, so it either disappears or is downvoted to all hell.
European Province is a great (terrible) example of this paradox.
I have noticed, since I started playing it’s gradually turned from “20 minute battle with 5 clutches and a close win” to “5 minute steamroll where one team gets absolutely destroyed”, and I HATE it. I like playing long winded games where you actually have to do something to stay in the battle, and it doesn’t fit that anymore because one M18 starts spawn camping, takes out half the team, and when the rest of the enemy breaks through that same guy holds all the friendlies in spawn until the rest of the enemy shows up. Watching near or at a spawn exit is a valid tactic, and I consider it different from spawn camping because it’s more plausible that you escape and break past them. And I have wanted for AGES for caps to be a respawn point, it allows for better teamwork and defence and also emphasizes playing the objective much more effectively, and makes it matter more if you don’t. Also, rather than just having a giant circle of spawn detection, make it precise. let somebody be able to hide behind a hill, ambush once, and reveal their position and have to run, and instead of making certain map spots off limits, make them detection spots. You can be up there, but the entire lobby will know you are, significantly weakening motivation to take those positions. It would take balancing, but it needs that already. We don’t need more maps, we need them to be better.
And that is precisely what the OG SWBF2 Command-Post-style objectives replacing spawns and caps aims to solve. Map remains large, but has lots more objectives spaced throughout it, so there isn’t excessively long distance between engagements to frustrate the goldfish-brained average player.
