It’s not a joke.
Largest maps in 22015 were 1.8x1.8km.
Largest maps today are 4x4km, that’s 4x the size.
@Renamed83048
lol Not sure how easier kills is ruined.
2 Likes
No it’s not.
He is wrong because maps were smaller than when they were released apart some of which cannot get any smaller.
All these maps are smaller since their initial release: Kursk (or whatever it is called now), Sands of Sinai, Fields of Normandy, Hurtgen Forrest, Mozdok, White Rock Fortress, and probably some more I cannot remember right now.
I believe he is referring to:
- Enlarged Tunisia (a very, very nice map for high tier GRB - and very large with both long and short range engagements)
- Pradesh (another fairly large map with many areas that allow for multiple kilometer sniping - but there’s also a lot of verticality and some short range areas available)
- Red Desert (the quintessential large scale map)
These 3 maps are relatively recent additions (recent being from 2020 onwards, but Pradesh and large Tunisia are newer than that) - and they’re very large, and very well balanced. With many long range sniping zones for all sorts of modern vehicles.
And they’re also some of my favorite maps at top tier. And all of them are relatively recent, at least compared to the maps you mentioned.
1 Like
4 divided… 4… Uh… 4 / 1.8…?
1 Like
4x4 / 1.8x1.8.
You’re doing area math, not perimeter math.
2 Likes
There were more than a couple of map versions of Kursk back in tank CBT that were much bigger than 1.8x1.8. The “Fiery Arc” variant we have now is like 75% - 80% smaller than the early variants. And some RB maps have always been fairly big, especially compared to the AB counter parts. And I think map sizes have always been pretty relevant to the tanks, and their “roles”/attributes for the most part all along as well. Players that want to sit back and “snipe” want larger maps, and those that like to “brawl” want the smaller maps . . seems like any way. Just another reason to make and bring well “balanced” line ups into battles, so a player has more/better options to be “productive” regardless of the maps they get.
I agree maps wise.
The maps have become smaller, flatter and and the amount of cities maps in increasing.
EVRYTHING i hate in a map.
It honestly feels like Gaijin are sad that war thunder isn’t counterstrike, since they are trying to shoehorn every bloody map into a close combat nightmare, where only some vehicles gets to shine, while others gets a huge fat stick.
You can get 4 (FOUR) 2kmx2km squares into a 4kmx4km square
12
34
If you double the size of THE SIDE of a square you actually increase its AREA 4x TIMES.
3 Likes
uwOH
Something something ghost recon wildlands?
Enlarged Tunisia existed for a long time but only in SB so its not new.
Pradesh is quite new but not big map at all. Play area is just over 2x2 km. So nothing special at all.
Red Desert is a big map but even that map is rather small for high BR.
Big Fulda is similar to Red Desert in size and also rather small.
This is Fulda Gap as it should be (6x6 km) and we get only portition of that 3,6x3,6 km with fictional castle in it.
In fact any map under 5x5 km is too small for high BR games. 10x10 km would be optimum for balance of air and ground at high BR.
When it comes to maps WT is really on bottom for that type of game they are offering.
2 Likes
No? Even at 60km/h on-road, it starts becoming absolutely tedious to drive to caps in the middle of the map or further away if the map is over 4x4km.
You want the maps to be 10x10km? I sure as hell wouldn’t. Do you even understand what a 10x10km scale is in the context of War Thunder?
No? It’s already big enough that I start seething whenever I die at the thought of driving all the way to the objective from the spawn. And you’re saying that’s small.
4 Likes
I do because I played Arma on 200 sq km maps and longest travel time wasn’t that long.
Better objectives placement, better spawn placement can go a long way.
Also its not only about ground forces. On smaller maps CAS has much easier job. On bigger maps one should do more effort in finding his target.
If it was only about ground forces than yes 5x5 km should suffice.
1 Like
A completely and utterly different game in every possible way, other than the fact that there are vehicles in both games.
3 Likes
Its not that different in terms of maps or objectives context. In fact Arma is leaning even more towards mil sim and big maps are not an issue. Driving through forrest is more difficult due to barrel being physical object while in WT its not. Not having multicrew to communicate with also makes WT easier to play. So even with all arcade simplifications WT has you think 10x10 km is too big.
Again its not only about ground forces. Air assets are having much easier job on smaller maps.
1 Like
10x10km is more than 2x the engagement ranges of modern tanks.
So no, we should never have maps that exceed at most 6x6km, ideally 5x5km is maximum.
Maps are not flat so 2x engagement range is irrelevant.
More reason why 5x5km should be the maximum.
1.5x1.5 - 5x5 is a good range of map potential.
No its not. Modern tanks are all about positioning and manouvering thus 5x5 km is too small. Putting modern tanks on such small area is the same as putting 16vs16 snipers on football stadium.