Self-Centered Gameplay: The game’s reward system prioritizes individual performance (kills, assists, and points) rather than cohesive team efforts. This discourages players from cooperating, coordinating strategies, or supporting teammates.
Few incentives exist for protective roles like SPAA or strategic flanking unless it directly results in personal points.
Limited tools for effective communication exacerbate this lack of synergy.
No Real Roles: In many matches, roles blur because all players prioritize advancing their stats. This leads to chaotic gameplay rather than tactical engagements, especially in mixed battles where air, tanks, and helicopters operate simultaneously without synchronization.
Small Maps: A Hindrance to Strategy
Constrained Engagements:
Small maps encourage close-quarters combat (CQB), which eliminates the tactical diversity of tanks, especially those designed for long-range engagements.
Snipers and tanks with advanced optics often cannot utilize their advantages due to cramped sight lines.
Spawn Camping and Zone Overlap:
With limited space, teams quickly encroach on enemy spawns, turning matches into one-sided slaughterhouses. This reduces the opportunity for strategic retreats or counterattacks.
Tight zones limit the maneuvering space for SPAA and helicopters, which thrive when given room to evade and reposition.
Overcrowded Objectives:
Close proximity of objectives leads to clusterfights rather than strategic capture and defense. This reduces the game to a brawl rather than a tactical simulation.
Larger Maps: The Solution
My proposal highlights several reasons why larger maps would improve gameplay:
Strategic Depth:
Spread-out objectives require teams to plan ahead, divide forces, and cover flanks effectively. This fosters teamwork over individualistic gameplay.
Longer sight lines provide an opportunity for mid- to long-range tank engagements, adding realism and rewarding precision.
Enhanced Role Fulfillment:
SPAA can find safer locations to operate and reposition effectively.
Helicopters can scout and support ground forces with a greater purpose, rather than being fodder for instant AA lock-ons.
Better Combat Variety:
Town areas for CQB, open fields for sniping, and wooded regions for ambushes would create diverse experiences.
Flanking maneuvers and thoughtful positioning would matter more, as players couldn’t simply rush objectives.
Dynamic Air and Ground Interplay:
Aircraft would need to actively search for targets rather than farming spawn areas.
A wider battlefield reduces the effectiveness of “spam airstrikes” and gives ground forces better counterplay.
Adjustments to Improve Gameplay
Your suggestions for improving the balance on larger maps are solid:
Adjusted Zones and Time:
Spreading cap points farther apart, with longer timers and more players per match, would reduce the chaotic rush and reward strategic play.
Enforced Boundaries:
A system where tanks that breach designated zones (like your “purple zone”) face automatic penalties encourages players to stick to their lanes. Introducing emplaced ATGM defenses is a creative touch that mirrors the current SPAA protection on airfields.
Support Mechanisms:
Rearm points give players more reasons to retreat and regroup rather than fighting until death.
Helicopters and aircraft gain meaningful roles by supporting tanks or eliminating emplaced defenses, adding layers of interdependence. Utility Helicopters could Drop Supplys for SPAA and Tanks for re-arming
Conclusion
Small maps and a focus on individual performance detract from War Thunder’s potential as a tactical combined-arms game. By adopting larger maps with spread-out objectives, better-defined zones, and balanced adjustments for all roles, the game could offer a richer, more team-oriented experience. With 81% of voters supporting this vision, the demand for change is clear. *[Would you like to see this in-game?]
voters
81%Yes
19%No
243*
MAP Idea
Enimey tanks cant pass the Purple zone without being forced to J out with a 15-30 second grace time,
or they can have emplaced ATGM troops guarding the purple zone and will damage your tank like the Airfields have SPAA on them.
This will give SPAA somewhere to hide, Caps to rearm at,
Tanks can have Mid-Long range combat,
CQB/CQC in town,
Flanks matter.
Air power has actually to look for targets for ATG.
Large enough for Helicopters to have something to do.
1- Self-centered gameplay is most seen when China’s awake: People stay in matches longer cause it gives them more rewards per minute, and people keep contributing.
a1- Small maps are a minority of the available maps at top BR, which is especially seen when you play during China’s awake hours whom prefer the more plentiful medium and large maps for extended games.
b- Your even larger map idea requires an AI overhaul.
b1- Your suggestion that the zone frags people was already removed from the game because if someone is in that zone in current matches, it removes the crew lock for all members of the team early.
b2- Flanks are far more than distance. A flank can be as close as 10 meters to as far as 2km.
b3- Small maps are not a focus of War Thunder at this time. The average map size today is larger than the larger maps of 2015.
Ignoring facts makes for a less built suggestion.
I’d get more facts and then amend your suggestion with the new facts in mind.
Those maps are all older than 2016, and effectively none of them are available in the top BR rotation.
Hearing engines requires there to be no other sounds or attention seeking activities going on.
The mythical “silent engines” when the replay clearly shows engine sound.
Using 225m/grid of Absolute WW2 Stalingrad as a standard
Tunisia, Japan, Alaska, 38th, Carpathians, also very ww2 Novorossyisk & Mozdok, the new Iberian, Abandoned Town, Sun City, golden quarry
Are all there for top map rotation
Not even counting a few well designed CQCs such as Rhine or Sweden lol
Tunisia, Carpathians, Mozdok, Iberian, Abandoned Town, Sun City, and Golden Quarry were all designed for modern tanks.
On top of that, all but Abandon Town are medium or large maps, all amazing well designed maps too, including Abandoned Town one of the only small maps in that list of newer maps.
You cited mostly non-small maps, where the only small maps you did cite were legacy Novo which was removed from rotation entirely, and Japan which is the actual small legacy map you listed.
Stalingrad is oriented diagonally, like Abandoned Town, which makes it smaller than the minimap suggests.
Not sure why you’re attacking people that want more medium to large maps though.
Abandoned Factory was released at the end of 2016 and still has ~1.2x1.2km playable area.
Old map like Kuban (7.7 BR max) has like ~1.5x1.5km playable area.
New map like Flanders (12.0 BR max) has like ~1.75x1.75km playable area.
New map like Holland (12.0 BR max) has like ~1.75x1.75km playable area.
Most maps are very similar in size, with outliers being Red Desert, Big Fulda, Big Poland, Big Maginot, Big Volo and Big Kursk, all with 3x3km and more of playable area.
Carpathians was not designed for “modern” tanks, no way, never was. It was one of the very first ground maps implemented into the game. We played this map(early variant) in CBT where no one knew anything and it was quite fun(and still can be) for a long time. That map, because of it’s topography more than size, is really only good for game play at certain BRs. Early on I think 6.7 BR may have been “top tier”, but I can’t remember, and even some of those tanks have too much “range” to work properly on the map. It does not matter where the spawn points are, the map’s “dynamic” of how much size is used for the caps and engagement areas is the key. Just moving spawn points back doesn’t make a map larger(Go play some Air AB & the new “world sized”/jet spawns in your mid tier piston engine planes and tell me that is in anyway a good idea, because it’s not, it’s horrible) it only increases “dead time” getting to the action/engagement area. This is a pretty big problem on a lot of maps in all the modes really.
Gaijin, for some reason, keeps the number of maps in the “rotation” at a smaller available number than there are maps that we could play. And has always tried to put vehicles of BRs on maps that simply should not be there, they do not fit the map’s “dynamic” and this affects game play in a negative way.
Crew lock was “gifted” to us because players would see maps they did not like and just return to hangar long before they became prophets and decided a game was not worth playing because of some “uptier” notion came to the game.
I think many maps, as they are, could be altered/adjusted slightly(variations in cap/spawn point layouts) to accommodate a wider variety of BR’s( there are more BR’s now than ever, why the same maps all over the place) and improve game play and player(customer) satisfaction/enjoyment a great deal . . without even making any new maps(bring back old maps in all modes!)
It would be less work than creating new maps I am sure and we get more “variety”. I think everyone would like that very much.
Ash River is another map not mentioned that was one of the first “new” maps to be added, and it regularly gets BRs that are too high for it’s layout as well. Both Ash River and Carpathians have been modified to remove high ground “sniping spots” that weren’t too bad, for the older/lower tier’d vehicles, but once you got to a certain point, made the maps pretty bad to play for those BR ranges, while the maps themselves were not bad.
A lot to consider, and map design is one thing, map design to suit game play can be another altogether . . . seems like to me anyway.
And with BVR, does it really even matter how big a map is?
The Carpathians we have in game is so far removed from the original that it’s night and day.
The original was a rather flat map with little cover as well as being rather tiny.
Carpathians today gained a few hundred meters of engagement ranges as well as becoming larger overall.
Just cause they share the same name doesn’t make them the same map.
Also players aren’t “Gaijin”. Players vote on maps they prefer, and that impacts the map selector within the match maker, which is entirely automated.
Gaijin has nothing to do with it other than setting up the thumb up and down system.
I like this idea a lot, but I feel like players must meet certain requirements for this game mode to work, it should be 8.0+ BR only where fast and mobile Cold War era tanks begin to become common and having a couple dozen hours in the game before people can join, it should be a separate game mode that could replace current ground sim that’s severely lacking.
As an SPAA main, this is all I ask for, give me the space to move and reposition so base spawns aren’t RP piñatas for CAS.
Carpathians has undergone a great many changes(I loved capturing the D point there!) it still has the same basic “dynamic” as far as the cap points go. There have been a good amount of spawn variations, but the two main ones have always been there and remain unchanged. The “bowl” we get dumped in(the biggest cause of “spawn rage” there ever has been) on the one side and the similar opposite at the base of the “corridor”(that has always been there) are still the same. But be that as it may, I see no reason not to bring back some of the older variations of this map into the map rotation from time to time, just for variety’s sake.
And the map like/dislike feature does not influence what maps a player will/will not see, this is merely there for Gaijin to gather data on player’s preferences. Heck it is even possible, tho highly unlikely, for a player to catch a game on his banned map selection. As far as I know and unless that has changed.
I would say that I believe the like/dislike data has greatly influenced the maps that have been pulled to get “reworked”, that and data on how many players return to hangar when they get some maps . . . seems likely.
The spawning system as a whole has been long overdue for a complete overhaul, imho.
Besides adding variations of cap/spawn points to the individual maps, they could make sure no map has less than 2 spawn points per side. Remove the spawn markers for the red team from the mini map, just show your friendly spawns.
I’d even go so far as to suggest removing the giant floating letters about cap points in RB & Sim modes . . . that would make it more “realistic” to me anyway.
Giving players a little less “information” at the start of the match and going into engagements areas would add a great deal of excitement and give those that actually read/use the minimaps some strategic advantage over those that do not use the feature to it’s fullest. Adding true “recon”, map knowledge/reading and scouting . . heck even “Use your binoculars!! . . it costs nothing!” would come into play more in ground battles. I think some little things like this would enhance game play a great deal . . but again, that’s just me
I’ll let you in on a little secret I’ve been doing on Carpathians.
When I get north spawn… I rush B. I don’t capture B, I sit at the rock just above B but below the lower road… and I intercept everyone going to B and C from that position.
They don’t expect someone to be there cause B isn’t captured, and B can get captured later for ticket drain.
It’s not who captures first that wins, it’s who captures last.
lol . . we all have our little ways and routines for each map. Adding some of the variations I have mentioned would not stop that, but maybe encourage us all to find more new ones! As I mentioned, the most fun I remember playing tanks(and naval as well) was playing CBT and the early parts after. When no one knew where to shoot or where to go, no “known routes/chokepoints”. A more reactionary game style . … think on your feet, react/respond to every situation.
Pray to the almighty Snail your teammates can work with you & each other well.
Seems like everything came together for more fun & exciting game play more often in those scenarios. . . . good ol’ days . . . I mean it still happens, just not as often with static maps/caps & spawns. A little “tweaking” could go a long way . . . if they only listened . . … lol
improving rewards for base capturing will turn GRB into mariokart because the BTR, and fox will become the meta even tho their PvP performance is pretty mediocre. and any game with PvP will get non team players that prefer to camp and top frag over PTFO.
rewards suck for killing planes and you don’t have very good anti CAS options unless you’re playing USSR, and American CAS obliterates all to the point I sacrifice my games to just fly fighters to keep them at bay to stop every match becoming Passchendaele with the craters from American bomb spam
Buff the scouting ability, give mediums a less powerful scout ability and give heavies artillery too wont exactly help but it will give more value to lights and more utility to heavies.
perhaps if lights captured points slower and heavies faster it would help
small maps arent inherently bad, neither are large ones WTs main issue is that maps are not fair on both sides and flanking is either too reliant on enemy skill issue (whole reason why the fox is seen as OP) or taking half the match to position outside of enemy spawn to camp.
Its quite hilarious that World of tanks has maps with more variety and better flanking routes than WT nowadays.
make enemy spawns out of bounds to players so they cant stay in them for more than a few seconds before exploding
if points are close then we need a D point
More varied landmarks and terrain so there’s more main routes and flanker routes that arent an open field or random farmhouse would help
Every map needs an actual rework and BRING BACK WHITE ROCK FORTRESS
