I mostly agree with you. I think it holds up decent until atleast 9.3, because of the amount of cover it has. My main complaint is that players don’t play it effectively.
I want more variety in map design, and a better matchmaker, because there is no reason why I should get Seversk 3 times in a row.
That’s every map. That also happens because people can’t actually play the map well, and just beeline for the spawn through the “muh brawling” alley.
I agree with that. I have seversk banned because if I dont then I get it at least 3 times for every 10 games I play, meanwhile some other maps you only see once a month at best, even if you are playing in the correct BR bracket to see those maps. (Red desert and Pradesh to name a few)
The map rotation seriously needs work
I actually like Sun City, you just need to know the flanking routes. Sweden isn’t terrible, just mid.
Alaska is okay imo, just don’t try to flank too hard or push too soon. Get into the city and sit in a corner and wait for people to expose themselves. Breslau is pretty fun if you don’t just rush down the main road, idk why you think Breslau is bad. 2271 I agree is a pain to play. And Seversk often trades places back and forth with Vietnam for my map ban. And yeah Holland is a good map, but some of the variants are straight up idiotic.
Seversk just needs to be removed to be honest. No amount of tweaking will fix that map. I remember I once got it for 5 GAMES IN A ROW.
No thanks, I’m rather fond of Seversk.
It honestly depends. Smaller maps like advance to the rine are amazing for lower tier battles like up to 7.7, maybe 8.7. And as i usually play those BRs i love it. I honestly don’t mind sweden or breslau either, but what annoys me in those is that they are way more corridor based, especially sweden and they lack the very intersting complexity of Rhine.
When it comes to bigger maps, they are obviously way more suited for high BR combat, when i get European Province or Fields of Poland at WW2/early cold war i just honestly quit, thankfully they are fairly rare there, unlike Flanders which is perma banned from my rotation.
I believe we should also be able to ban only certain versions of some maps, for example Alaska with 3 points isn’t that bad, but the half red one base variant is horrible. Same with Hurtgen forest, 3 base city version is good, but the river/forest one with 1 cap is as bad as map design in this game gets (a.k.a 1 nearly uncapturable after the 1st minute of the game point totally uncovered to crossfire from all sides in a valley surrounded by a metric tone of hills covered entirely in bushes)
just give us more smaller maps for lower BRs and more bigger maps for higher BRs.
Also 2nd map ban is necessary. If WoT can somewhow manage 3 (iirc, i haven’t played this game for years) with even less maps, WT can manage 2 for sure.
When i play my Sherman or KV-1 i don’t want to get thrown to Flanders or small Fire Arc. When i play my T-80 BVM i don’t want to get Advance to the Rhine or Breslau. It’s as simple as that. There are too many maps in the game for 1 ban (only with premium that is) to be enough.
No one likes to snipe at 1,5km with a 600m/s shell velocity on their sherman, nor does anyone want to spend the whole game covering 1 corner they hear someone behind in their Leopard 2A7.
Im perfectly capable of playing those maps.
Unlike what some people seem to think, when you are constantly shoved those city maps down your throat you very quickly learn the tactics you need to be successful.
But that doesnt mean I enjoy playing that way or on those maps.
Breslau I hate because its a close range city map, with too many narrow streets, intersections, and corners. I hate having to check 3 different directions every time you reach an intersection, you cant point your gun in every single direction to avoid being shot in the side. This applies to every city map as well, not just breslau.
Flanders is one of my favourite maps, its one of the better designed maps in the game imo. Lots of hills and terrain to use and abuse.
The main problem with it is that for some reason everyone just likes to go to C on it, which is a terrible cap and a terrible position that gives you no map control and is completely open to people like me who sit at and around the B cap and farm them with easy side shots.
I got a nuke last night at 7.0 on flanders and won, with the only people on my team who did not go to the C cap being me, my squad mate, and one other. We never lost either A or B cap the entire game, while the 12 remaining tanks failed to cap C until after I had removed all the enemy tanks around C with side shots from B and had already spawned the nuke.
Honestly people in general are really lacking in the understanding of map control, especially on bigger maps, but even on maps like Seversk where holding A and B gives you all the map control to flex and collapse onto C and the enemy spawn to easily win the game, yet everyone still just goes to C on that map too so they can hide behind corners and play peekaboom or something? Which as you said, is even less fun in warthunder than it was in WoT with their corridor maps meta back in the day.
For grinding, it’s more efficient to throw yourself at the enemy and hope for some kills than to play strategically at range or in a vantage point, both of which are all but gone in favour of the former.
Why gaijin make small maps?? Who like small maps? for what reason gaijin make small maps?
Maps, in general, need to:
-Be easy to traverse (why Pradesh and Vietnam are bad)
-Have ample cover (why Fire Arc and Fields of Normandy/Poland are bad)
-Be large (why I don’t like Seversk or 2271, they try to be larger scale maps by having CQC and “long range” areas, but they’re simply too small in total map area to do this efficiently.
-Have CQC and long range engagement areas OR lots of flanking routes (Why I don’t like Rhine, but tolerate Sweden and American Desert).
-Have ways to actually get to good positions (Big Eastern Europe fails at this)
With that in mind here are some of my favorite maps: Tunisia, Big Tunisia, Sands of Sinai, and North Holland
Maps like Fulda need to make a resurgence, it has multiple isolated CQC areas, can be adjusted to fit any BR range with map borders and is aesthetically the best looking WT map to date, we need modularity in maps, not a 1 size fits all solution like gaijin is actively using
Clearly people do what they find enjoyable… which is precisely what you’re claiming you’re trying to do as well. Hardly a surprising thing to find in a video game.
I personally always go for C on Flanders and A on Seversk, they’re easily the most fun areas to fight, for me.
On the topic of fun, in reminding myself which objectives are which letters, I happened across this absolutely hilarious short clip of people dragging train cars around the race track on Flanders:
I could probably do the exact same thing even if i was relegated to just the drivers port or gunners sight engine sounds aren’t hard to hear
Too easy to spawncamp on it takes me about 40s out of spawn to be next to the enemy spawn and killing them, the only good maps at high tier are pradesh, fulda and red desert
No, you inherent cannot “peek around corners” in first-person views.
Hearing sounds around corners is also not the same thing, as that’s how sound works.
There is the issue of the game bizarrely having the option to set your own engine volume lower than others’ in a multiplayer PvP setting(!), but that’s a separate issue.
You can if you sidescrape in the drivers view of most tanks
Red Desert is good, but Lord help you if you don’t have laser rangefinder unlocked yet.
Its not hard to aim without a rangefinder i can reliably hit 1.2km shots on most tanks even with sub 1000 m/s guns
Most people have forgotten how to aim, especially since a lot of new players actually start at top tier with all the premium spam lmao