tanks are not supposed to go head first into engagement but to shoot while staying at a distance, for example german and italian tanks after ww2 were designed to be “defensive” aka to stay put in a sniping spot and shoot the enemies (for example leopards) (that’s why they also didn’t have stabilizers until the '80s)
only soviet tanks are for the doctrine of “hurrah!!!”
NATO tanks are for the doctrine of “hulldown sniping”
removing sniping spots that allow for spawncamping min 1? very good
removing all sniping spots ? not good
we need bigger maps with better elevations and design.
All things said, i still love the game and i want to see it prosper more than is prospering now, also because is the game i played the most, with almost 5k hours. That’s also why i, and people like me, are sometimes very ““angry”” when changes that can harm the fun of the game are implemented
i suggested a US East coast Map based around the City of Roanoke, Virginia a WHILE ago.
Or maybe one based around Pittsburg, During WW2 so you have all kinds of random intermediate production tank’s and stuff that are half built. since that was the headquarters of Baldwin Locomotive works, Who built ALOT of Sherman’s and stuff, they even designed the M6 heavy.
on the Roanoke map, Its a Railroad town, it has a MASSIVE railyard and such, But also is in the mountains of Virginia, It is quite rual, and in the 40s and 50s wasn’t that built up, so it would make a great Rural City combo map.
How about some battle zones that were actually battle zones like Arnhem. Imagine trying to push yourself over that bridge
Im tired of battles set in places that never saw a days fighting It will be Disneyland next I am sure the kids on here will love that.
How about Normandy where we land on the beaches?
or Baghdad for top tier? Places that were battle zones and make them relevant to the tier that is playing them.
I would love a map that has a large bridge as a feature, large enough for tanks to fight it out with each other trying to get across, as opposed to the dinky doo bridges we have now that barely fit 1 tank abreast.
Any map based on actual terrain would probably be better than most of the maps we have right now.
Maps also need a remote probability of a tank battle occurring there. On many maps, tanks wouldn’t even get near the objective without heavy infantry support.
Think u get sniping bonus after 1km range… in game technics… but most maps even high tier struggle to have even that distance from spawn to spawn if i color story abit. Not far fetched. Its kinda sad… Specially very small maps are usually so sad.
I thought it was proven that both of those were like some weird russian mock up of an American town, at least that’s the case for AD, not so much alaska
just imagine that if you are using those spot, the same unkillable russian bias T55 can use those spot as well. so yeah while I must admit that getting killed because you can’t snipe isn’t fun, but i can assure you that getting killed by a T55 that has a beautifull 180° view on your spawn while he can’t be killed due to his totally balanced armor is almost as not fun. (im not saying that the map change are great, actually i just want more flank route and less camping map).
you can have small map with flank routes, for example advance to rhine have flank routes. bigger map don’t have flank route, its just a open field where you just wait till you get shot from the other side of the map by a guy camping.
Advance to Rhine is urban map with buildings. Those are not really flanking routes but different streets.
Bigger maps do have flanking routes. Bigger map doesn’t need to be flat and open. Mozdok is big map and it has numerous of flanking routes. SB Mozdok is even bigger and more versatile. Big Tunisia also has lots of flanking routes. Much more than smaller version.