How about adding in air defense to the heli spawns like they do for the air field
These heli spawns are too close to the battlefield and the helis could just camp at their spawns, killing tanks from there.
Helis are low skill to play so it should be okay that they are low skill to kill, too.
1 Like
what we wanted, nice long tank battles.
what we got. world of tanks on crack
4 Likes
yeah…a lot of maps seem very dull nowadays…meaybe better with the terrain but on a lot of maps that reduced really long sidelines. coupled with all the removed foliage it makes camouflaging pointless and sniping aint happening except for a few maps or very few spots.
Though before the map changes there were maps wher 3/4 of the maps could be controlled and shot at from one or two powerpositions which is also a problem. But instead of reducing the sighlines controlled by these spots or make sniping from there more dangerous and less effective (also by giving people advancing out of the spawn more cover whether that be foliage or terrain so you dont have to cross 500 m to 1 km being out in the open clearly visible from this one spot where theres always 3 ppl sitting) they just flattened the whole map and removed the hills as playable areas (example would be sinai, or normandy)
But the whole tanks are not meant for sniping thing is hilarious. Yeah thats why they put all that money into developing guns that are still accurate over kilometers and ammo which can still punch through insane amounts of armor right? Thats why most tanks are heavily armored short barrel he bonkers because they never have to shoot further than 200 m? or heavily armored autocannon mbts? i wonder i wonder why modern tanks all have one main gun with ever increasing calibers and higher and higher muzzle velocities? Possibly because you dont want enemies very close (and possibly to the sides and back of them)? and if this game is supposed to be somewhat realistic and developers put in all this effort to model all the mechanics, different armor layouts, modules and stuff decently well, why then take the whole “realistic” tank doctrine of how tanks actually fight out of the equation and strictly create call of duty for “semirealistic” tanks? I mean i get it it can also be fun and is definitely more entertaining considering e sports (5 minute matches, just rush across the city and who shoots faster and more precise wins, actual scouting, careful advancing and identifiying tanks then waiting for the right moment to engage most of the time not necessary) but man…theres ppl that also play this because they want to play tanks?
8 Likes
I don’t even blsme the devs on this one, they’re just following the wishes of the majority of the player base, which if you’re a business is a perfectly logical course of action.
2 Likes
Yeah i think they really wanted to eliminate the spots where one tank could just control half the map without being in real danger (well at this point cas would come into the equation but if you can just drive back there completely safe even that doesnt help) like spots at the church on the southwestern hill on old normandy. one jagdpanther sitting there in a downtier being frontally immune, well nothing you can do. on the other hand that really made it necessary for the northern team to push around the hill and capture it which made it kinda interesting. Or the really long sightline on old estern europe. But problem was one team spawned completely open while the other team had hull and tank down positions to shoot them at any path you could take to advance on the map. What you could do as the northern team was insta pop smoke and reverse to get into hull down positions yourself to countersnipe and cover your team advancing, but ive rarely seen people do that. But instead of adding more cover making it possible to advance at least partly in cover they flattened the whole thing. Its got pros and cons imo in that case. More cover and terrain so you dont have to cross 700m without cover is what i would have preferred but they went with this.
2 Likes
This is literally all large maps in war thunder, you are clowning on yourself.
I started playing WT in 2022.
In 2023, I got my longest-range kill shot in WT. I got a T26E5 broadside, on large Fire Arc, at 2700m (give or take).
Today, I could not make that shot, because that map is no longer in the rotation for WW2 BRs. Nor is large Maginot Line.
I cannot remember the last time I’ve had to engage any enemy at these BRs beyond 1000m, unless it was Sands Of Sinai, and even then most players don’t go A precisely so they can avoid the long range engagements.
This is just the change I’ve witnessed myself over the time I’ve spent playing the game. I’m sure it gets worse if one looks further into the past, too.
Maps are getting smaller. The meta is getting narrower. You can claim that’s not true, but you won’t be taken seriously, because I can literally see the fact that the engagement ranges I experience are shorter on average.
9 Likes
You calling the following maps large?
Advance to the Rhine 1km x 1km
American Desert 1.35k x 1.35km
Ash River - except for Skirmish it is 1.1km x 1.1km
Berlin 1.3km x 1.3 km
Karelia 1.3km x 1.3km
Middle East 1.3km x 1.3km
Sweden 1.5km x 1.5km
Additionally some of the “larger” maps have a lot of “red” areas that are no-go areas, reducing their footprint
7 Likes
no im talking about the massive open fields that are cancer to play, poland, red desert, eastern europe, fire arc, pradesh, sinai, magiot
Literally North Holland.
And stuff that has large footprints like Breslau or Sun city, are all urban CQC combat, leading to them feeling small and cramped.
The expanded sim maps should be the default above 9.7 in GRB in my opinion.
6 Likes
Damn missed those day
Nowadays my average long range kill in SCUM with AWM are longer than modern MBT in WT lol
Kinda challenging hitting something that far especially it on the move
Make it 9.0 that BR start to have laser range finder they’ll be fine.
Plus top tier with huge ass SPAA definitely not suit the current map most of them size of a building.
2 Likes
I love spawn camping in SIM its so easy since the maps are not designed to be extended, so in RB it would be so easy to third person camp the spawn. Plus even easier for me to get to your spawn since you wouldnt be able to cover the map in time before I get to your spawn point. This unironically would be great. +1
When I was reading this I was like WTF? Did he ever played a SIM ? And my intuition was right …
1 Like
ground sim is literally exactly the same as RB without third person. Biggest threat is first spawn helis and your own moronic team mates shooting you in the back. TBH why are we talking about SIM, I thought this was RB discussion. I have played SIM thats how I know how the maps are, its not like they have changed in years. What even is this?
Its not only 3rd person view.
Its also:
- accurate gunsight position and gun parallax which has to be remembered especially in CQB
- on some guns smoke after shot obscure target due to gunsight position and its not easy to see where shot landed if you missed
- there are no markers in SBGF
6 Likes
Also at WW2 BRs CAS is actually reasonable. Jets with their automation aren’t reasonable, but WW2 they are.
This has the knock-on effect of making certain map designs much more viable (at WW2 BRs I can observe people parking their bredas and yags and other “truck with gun” vehicle styles up behind crests and making proper use of their vehicles because CAS runs, while they exist, have a nice skill floor that keep the majority off them and even once skill floor is met, lack of markers + cockpit view make them much harder to spot unless you see the muzzle flash at just the right time.)
5 Likes
So what, none of this matters. YOU DONT like not having large maps, the community at large does not agree, thats why the maps are being streamlined for better gameplay. Instead of coping and complaining with other terrible players on the forums you should learn to play the game we have and maybe you’d enjoy it.