I usually play Simulator mode, but even on “sim” ground, the maps to me just feel far too small. I really don’t understand the logic behind it and it has been the reason I have found myself putting the game down over and over again as it feels like I’m being pressured into using tactics and strategies that are decidedly unrealistic and frankly ridiculous.
Gaijin have spent years adding hundreds of different ground vehicles, most of which are designed as ambush tank destroyers, fast tanks designed to flank enemies, and scout vehicles, and yet the maps are often so small and so built up, that heavier armour almost always comes out on top.
I get having smaller maps in the arcade mode and even on realistic battles to a degree. But having the same small maps on what is called “simulator” just feels constraining.
I’m wondering, why can’t we have something like an Enduring Confrontation game mode, on one of the huge air simulator maps, with rolling spawn points. So for instance, if your team loses a capture point, your spawn point gets pushed back. If you capture it back, your spawn point gets pushed back up.
In theory you could have a 50vs50 battle that lasts all day and so there would be some feeling of purpose behind doing it. I get that Gaijin may not see the business potential in doing that in arcade and realistic, but for simulator mode specifically I can’t see how this doesn’t make sense, seeing as the sim players will end up gravitating towards other more simulator orientated games if they don’t.
Technically, simply widening them would suffice, without, of course, widening the spawn points and capture objectives. That way, you’d have sections of the map on the left and right that are quickly accessible only to fast light tanks, specifically designed for flanking. As things stand, these tanks are forced into head-on engagements with medium and heavy tanks battles they have absolutely no chance of winning. Meanwhile, players using medium tanks wouldn’t be bored by having to travel 900 km just to reach the objectives. This would be handy in realistic battles, too.
It actually favours light tanks to an extent. Because maps have got smaller and smaller they’ve lowered the BR of certain light tanks to make it “fair”. So now we have light tanks launching HEAT-FS and HESH at WW2 heavy tanks.
So now the only advantage tanks like the Tortoise and Jagdtiger have (armour) is now completely useless as a Mario Kart with a HESH launcher pops around the corner on two wheels and ammo-racks you.
You can see this throughout most BR ranges. Even reserve tiers aren’t safe thanks to the Puma reversing at 40mph and one-shotting everything it sees with the pure power of autism.
No example stated…
I’d assume you’re talking about Berlin or Karelia, since small maps are locked out of higher BRs in realistic battles, & I’m unaware of simulator map lockouts.
@Tastiera322
All the small maps are from 2014 - 2017 when ground was first getting off the ground.
The standard I use is the same standard used by real-life militaries.
So if you have an issue with it, go complain to tank command.
“Um, actually. 4km isn’t long range, it’s standard. 8km is long range cause I was able to do it in a video game.” Something like that, they’ll love you for sure.
Literally just got back from 2 hours of touching grass.
Posting is a few minutes, hardly any time at all.
@AelfwineOfEssex
The average map at the high end is 2.5x.2.5km, which is average engagement range for modern tanks.
Average for WW2 tanks was like 500 - 1400 meters.
It’s not about the engagement range. You need additional space to set up an attack, scout ahead or lay an ambush. It’s no good having a map where everything is within range the second the match begins. Then it becomes more about who knows the map better, rather than who is able to coordinate a proper strategy.
To be fair, this is also a problem with the game mode in general, where everything still relies on a capture the point mechanic rather than something like say, escorting APCs from one side of the map to the other or something. There is so much Gaijin could do, but they seem reluctant to spend the money or effort to do so.
Personally I’ve found myself coming back to Warthunder from IL2 Great Battles because most of the servers have died in the last few years, so for me it’s super frustrating to go back to such tiny maps whereas before you could physically drive 20miles to an airfield if you wanted, lol.
Thing is, the average engagement range in WT is below 500m even for modern MBTs when the average engagement range which is trained for IRL is around 1.5 to 2km. Tanks don’t just move in a 2.5km x 2.5km square. For a 2.5km average engagement distance to work, you need a map like 5 to 10km in size.
Similarly for a WWII style map you need around 3 to 5km for it to work. Its the same with air maps. Yeah planes can potentially hit eachother from 100km away with their missiles but planes need much, much more space to set themselves up for that. A modern air theatre can be anywhere from 300 to 500km in diametre.
You need sight breaks to set up attacks.
You can flank from 20 meters away better than you can 500 meters away if there’s a building in the former.
It’s why Sweden has the most flanking routes for any map in the game. 2nd place isn’t even close.
Iberian Castle has more flanking routes than the largest forest maps.
@SirinKaslana
Players choose closer engagements because it’s easier to nullify heavily armored MBTs at closer ranges.
You don’t need 4x the engagement range for map size… you don’t get score for driving for 20 minutes.
Here’s the thing. I don’t play a game to score points. I’m really not interested in that.
I play simulators because it is more mentally stimulating than knowing what hill you can fire over into the enemy spawn point within the first minute of the game starting.
You can flank anything better if there’s a building as cover.
You can also flank from 500 meters away better than you can 20 meters away if there’s terrain or building in the former. They won’t hear your engine
The complexity is why sweden and rhine are bigger in the sense of tactical depth than red desert, yet complexity and engagement range is not related. The game simply does not feature a map with long engagement range and complexity - maybe due to lazy designers idk.
The engagement range still affects tactical depth by engine sounds, driving distance etc. and this part is what essex is actually talking about.
I think it’s meant to help the heavy vehicles traverse the map a bit faster, but I hate it too. Most heavy tanks like the Tiger 2 or IS2 with the kind of mobility that it’s meant to help are perfectly capable and in the case of the Tiger 2 excellent at sniping, as that’s sort of what they were designed for. It’s meant to make it so you can steamroll the other team and spawn rush, but it results in heavies with 5 degree a second horizontal traverse being forced to brawl with stuff like M18s. Most of the maps need serious reworking, I HATE how many hull down positions are on some maps that make it IMPOSSIBLE to fight german or russian teams because of TDs like the Jagtiger and Object 268.