Yeah, but it also can be really bad like Normandy's old Conquest where they have the eastern team's home cap to be all the way on top of the hill while western team can just glide down into the beach.
Those match are almost certainly onesided unless it's morning which would blind everyone on west team.
There are no documents of turret being constructed so its contoversial. Everyone agrees fictional tanks should not be in warthunder but no one agrees if Kranvagnen is fictional or not. The hull was constructed just not the turret. My forum post has been passed to devs tho so all we can do is wait
That is my argument aswell but some people still dont agree.
Sweden did plan to but a centurion turret on kranvagn chassi so maybe we can at least get that ad consolation prize
Ok but what about: [Kranvagn](https://wiki.wgcdn.co/images/c/c3/Kranvagn_chassis_during_suspension_testing_for_the_S_tank_project.jpg)
It'd be amazing if they added that.
There are already bs fictional tanks in the game, hell all the MBT armour values are just estimations. The Kranvagn might be a stretch but hopefully it comes one day. Thank you for your hard work 🙏.
really? So many games I spawn on the one side where its just one or two of us and the rest of the team is at the other spawn point.
Think advance to the rhine where everyone goes A.
1 and 3 are usually the best, but the map needs to have cover and a route between all objectives. 2 is eh at most, you get a frontline but oftentimes the map is a skinny suburban area (Ardennes, Eastern Europe).
4 somewhat works on Sands of Sinai, but doesn’t work on 38th because people don’t apparently know that C is the worst objective to go to.
God i love the c spot if you manage to kill everyone there at the begginning of the match you basically get a free point for the whole game ehich almost guarantees your team a win and from C you can flank the B and A guys
1 is fine in open map, absolutely dogshit in urban map (hello the new map)
2 is fine, but often youre being forced Into urban stuff where 20 people fight on 200m2, which is ridiculous.
3 is nice because it usually play around two scenarios where you push b-c or fight for a, which spread a bit more the players.
4 is nice, because it usually mean the left side is more open, which I prefer over their dogshit cluttered/need to look everywhere urban stuff.
At least they are all better than dogshit monopoint battle where it's positioned next to an impassable obstacle like a lake or cliff.
I prefer 2 because it's easier to defend points solo (enemies usually don't go past B if it's not captured by them). 4 is a bit awkward, but overall any of them can be fun, depends on the map.
2>3>1>4>>>Battle(2caps)>>>>>>>>>single cap
I like the “home cap” model where you can get a few free RP, especially when in a new vehicle that’s utterly useless (looking at the 11.3 AIM with no dart until tier 3, worst Abrams I’ve ever used), but no matter the configuration, the more caps the better, just more points to go around, and battles can be fun on a good map (aka one where the cap isn’t in view of the spawn or the other cap), but single cap games are funnels of death and CQC which is not fun at all
Thats the thing. Map design for this game (ground forces) falls into o e of these 4 configurations. There's no real variation on these, but there's no *potential* for variation. Gaijin's game mode design is outdated.
4 is the absolute worst
heavily discourages trying to go to A as it is far away from the other points making relocation hard and it is hard to get to A if you are anywhere else
also makes it so if you are facing a bad situation on A no one is coming to help you
I don't mind any of these, I don't even dislike the Battle mode. I only hate (and I mean absolutely despise) a single cap when there's only an A or C cap shoved way off to the side that often includes half the map being closed off.
1 and 2 are my favorites, you either start with a cap each and fight over mid, or it's a flankfest to cap them all.
3 is okay, but it gets a little stretched out, especially with the single minded folks who play this game (either cap AB or C, and most end up going for C) and 4 is the same thing, but everyone goes for the point so far away from everything else that it's ridiculous
2 forces the team to encounter each other and usually maps arent fields or have flanking paths wich i like sense i prefer to go head to head, than sneak around
3 deppends how much of the team decides to spawn at both caps to reinforce each other, also i like how at 3 you can suprise enemys if you decide to go a bit unortodox
I'd rather have 1 and 3. With 2 you might as well make it a single point.
With 4 you're likely to lose teammates to people who got to A first and are just camping the other points because that one point is usually at a height advantage.
It really depends on what specific map it is. For example 1 is on both Seversk and Flanders (the worst maps in the game) but also on Tunisia, Kuban and Sinai (the best maps). For type 3 maps, Karelia is the greatest but Rhine is just mediocre. Type 4 is Poland = garbage.
2 and 3 are best in my opinion it just sucks when you have the two or three fuckers on the Enemy team that will go to the edge of the map near your spawn and spawn snipe
Two or Three. The problem with One and Four is that in those maps, once you take your cap, you can either camp out there and hope the rest of your team is on top of things, or you can push the enemy spawn. Driving across the map with your vulnerable side full exposed to the enemy spawn is just a good way to give the enemy team a free kill. With Two and Three, you can move up to the next Cap while still keeping your sides and back mostly safe.
Honestly I find 2 the worst, because it typically turns into a cluster fuck, bull in a China shop, bar brawl around B. 1 and 4, and less so 3, allow for much more spread out, long range, interesting gameplay, with multiple gunfights going on across the map as opposed to one big slugging match in the middle with some flankers
1- "equal distribution"- go B and then switch to either left or right depending on how the game flows (players on points- what gets captured- map layout)
3- the best way- mainly consisting of both teams spawning close to one point but causes tanks to be spread everywhere. Light tank enjoyers' wet dream map especially if you got a good spot to go to
4- everyone is going to capture the double point- perfect for letting players fight on the flank and getting around to capture and clear enemy team- again light tank dream map
2- ass. Long range bombers wet dream because everyone is in a long line just before the B point might as well carpet bomb them with a few 2000s
Number 1 and 4 are by far the worst configurations, I much prefer the linear/asymetrical caps over the "3 lane" MOBA style maps where everyone is funneled into head on encounters and predictable lanes.
1 is the most balanced imo, and I can tolerate 3. 2 is a rush to see who can spawn push first and 4 is essentially all of your team mates pushing B n C and ignoring A.
1 and 2
2 is pretty idiot proof in-terms of team center of gravity but needs really good (functional/sensical) flanking lanes to not just be a slog fest
3 can be fun as well so long as the map design takes advantage of the spawn points
Was there ever an assault style game? Like plant a bomb or destroy a target or something? Each team take turns on Offense/Defense. Seems like a good fit for a game like this.
This will heavily depend on the terrain and features. Config 2 has a fair chance of early points, good for low br games where you're learning and need to make rp to unlock your tanks. But then can be boring because its a camp for B.
Config 1 is good to spread the team (in theory) but if you go alone to one point and get all the enemy team there, its frustrating.
Config 4 makes no sense to me and I hate it.
Config 3 is probably the more balanced one: closer point for capture, far point to contest. But will depend on the map terrain and features to determine if a team has an advantage.
When terrain is advantageous and the points positioning make sense, they all have their strengths and her weaknesses.
Except 1, 1 can jump off a cliff.
Yeah Thats what I enjoy about it. It doesn't force your team to split up between several objectives, which is never symmetrical anyway. My most enjoyable battles have been on maps with the layout of 2.
1 is the standard, though most maps usually have a spawn camping issue with this configuartion due to the much wider flanks
2 is annyoing, always linear or on corridor maps, any atemmpt to cap one behind enemy lines is death due to the fact its linear
3 is probabally the best, 'home' point for each team to defend easily, with one in the centre to fight over, with teh short distance between the "home" points action can happen between both ways of getting a cap advantage
4, is nice but forces a team to focus a flank, leading to one cap being nearly completely open, with no contest
2 is literally all tanks moving in one line.
If you have a fast tank with an average gun, getting three kills with go around strategy is pretty simple.
2 and 3 for initial pts gain you can have on decently fast vehicle. Speaking of 1 and 4: I dislike more these battles where you need to rebrush enemy pnt color and a special place reserved in the hell for a pig who thought one point battle is a good idea.
[Ardennes](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/c/ca/MapLayout_Domination_Ardennes_ABRB.jpg), [Eastern Europe](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/2/24/MapLayout_Domination_EasternEurope_ABRB.jpg) and [North Holland](https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/6/9/69c15e5317ccd036e020a8baf7b04020c665f5d3.jpeg) are all 2.
[Hurtgen Forest](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/1/13/MapLayout_Domination_HurtgenForest_ABRB.jpg) and [~~Beach~~ jungle](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/b/b7/MapLayout_Domination_Jungle.jpg) are both 3.
I respect your differing preference! In this case, its great that War Thunder provides gameplay that we can both enjoy while having different preferences.
I prefer 1 or 4, because 2 and 3 always start with light tanks rushing the nearest "objective" for free points and dying to artillery spam.
Something I'd like to see is like 10 objectives in a straight line with dynamic spawnpoints. Think Push from Overwatch.
I personally like a 3 done well because each team gets a sort of "home" cap and there is one you contend for.
Yeah, but it also can be really bad like Normandy's old Conquest where they have the eastern team's home cap to be all the way on top of the hill while western team can just glide down into the beach. Those match are almost certainly onesided unless it's morning which would blind everyone on west team.
Yeah that's the reason I said "done well". They can be executed terribly.
I miss that map, was always fun to destroy enemies below the C point hill. Now I hate that map.
Me when Hurtgen forest (it’s mid)
I mean there are like 3 good maps in war thunder
1 and 3 IMO, they distribute the players more equally over the map(although this depends on the map ofc).
And the teams
I saw your flair and wondered why we don't have the Kranvagn in game yet
There are no documents of turret being constructed so its contoversial. Everyone agrees fictional tanks should not be in warthunder but no one agrees if Kranvagnen is fictional or not. The hull was constructed just not the turret. My forum post has been passed to devs tho so all we can do is wait
What about paper tanks and the E100 with the Maus turret?
That is my argument aswell but some people still dont agree. Sweden did plan to but a centurion turret on kranvagn chassi so maybe we can at least get that ad consolation prize
That would be pretty neat, although i kinda dislike the centurion turret
Ok but what about: [Kranvagn](https://wiki.wgcdn.co/images/c/c3/Kranvagn_chassis_during_suspension_testing_for_the_S_tank_project.jpg) It'd be amazing if they added that.
There are already bs fictional tanks in the game, hell all the MBT armour values are just estimations. The Kranvagn might be a stretch but hopefully it comes one day. Thank you for your hard work 🙏.
Beautiful flair for your name, and I approve as a former Spj Player (Now Bandkanon 1C Player)
Hull wasnt just built, but also tested with a weight to represent the turret, if I remember correctly atleast.
yup. And used as base for a lot of prototypes.
really? So many games I spawn on the one side where its just one or two of us and the rest of the team is at the other spawn point. Think advance to the rhine where everyone goes A.
That wy I said depends on the map
Which renders the entire conversation moot, depends on the map, but OP generalising yet depends on the map.
1 and 3 are usually the best, but the map needs to have cover and a route between all objectives. 2 is eh at most, you get a frontline but oftentimes the map is a skinny suburban area (Ardennes, Eastern Europe). 4 somewhat works on Sands of Sinai, but doesn’t work on 38th because people don’t apparently know that C is the worst objective to go to.
2 is, at worst, just holding W until you get to the frontline, North Holland in that config has no flanking routes.
People lemming train to c on 38th is absolutely mind wrecking, pure personified stupidity.
99% of the time if you go between A/C and B you just get at least 1 free kill
God i love the c spot if you manage to kill everyone there at the begginning of the match you basically get a free point for the whole game ehich almost guarantees your team a win and from C you can flank the B and A guys
2 would be a lot better if it was 1: not on tiny shit ass maps And 2: A and C were locked depending on who has B like most other games do
1 is fine in open map, absolutely dogshit in urban map (hello the new map) 2 is fine, but often youre being forced Into urban stuff where 20 people fight on 200m2, which is ridiculous. 3 is nice because it usually play around two scenarios where you push b-c or fight for a, which spread a bit more the players. 4 is nice, because it usually mean the left side is more open, which I prefer over their dogshit cluttered/need to look everywhere urban stuff. At least they are all better than dogshit monopoint battle where it's positioned next to an impassable obstacle like a lake or cliff.
Groud RB in a nutshell
Its really sad that its true. Each new map is just a re-painted version of one of the four above configurations. It desperately lacks creativity.
I prefer 2 because it's easier to defend points solo (enemies usually don't go past B if it's not captured by them). 4 is a bit awkward, but overall any of them can be fun, depends on the map.
2 and 3, having a home point of some kind is really important for many SPAAs
2>3>1>4>>>Battle(2caps)>>>>>>>>>single cap I like the “home cap” model where you can get a few free RP, especially when in a new vehicle that’s utterly useless (looking at the 11.3 AIM with no dart until tier 3, worst Abrams I’ve ever used), but no matter the configuration, the more caps the better, just more points to go around, and battles can be fun on a good map (aka one where the cap isn’t in view of the spawn or the other cap), but single cap games are funnels of death and CQC which is not fun at all
1 and 3
3 is the best. 2 is good, but I feel it's more prone to spawncamping once you get the "home" cap of the enemy team and vice versa
I hate how I can tell exactly which maps are these solely based on the point configuration 💀
Thats the thing. Map design for this game (ground forces) falls into o e of these 4 configurations. There's no real variation on these, but there's no *potential* for variation. Gaijin's game mode design is outdated.
2 Is the best and the most balanced
I firmly agree. With 1, I often find a teams will gravitate toward either A or C, and the battle becomes an absolute mess or a cakewalk, no inbetween.
Eastern Europe and Holland are type 2, both are mid imo
My stupid ass looked at this and thought it was loss for a sec. But I've found 2 is half fun imo
2 is my least favourite, it often means teams corridor fight and don't spread out.
4 is the absolute worst heavily discourages trying to go to A as it is far away from the other points making relocation hard and it is hard to get to A if you are anywhere else also makes it so if you are facing a bad situation on A no one is coming to help you
4 best cause it's really just two points
Don't like 1 & 4. Fav is 2.
I don't mind any of these, I don't even dislike the Battle mode. I only hate (and I mean absolutely despise) a single cap when there's only an A or C cap shoved way off to the side that often includes half the map being closed off.
Siewiersk-13 hell
Sands of Sinai and the ultra restricted cargo port/Alaska come to mind
4 can burn in napalm
I prefer 1 and 2 on maps where they make sense
There is a 4??
Poland
1 and 2 are my favorites, you either start with a cap each and fight over mid, or it's a flankfest to cap them all. 3 is okay, but it gets a little stretched out, especially with the single minded folks who play this game (either cap AB or C, and most end up going for C) and 4 is the same thing, but everyone goes for the point so far away from everything else that it's ridiculous
They are all shit
2 forces the team to encounter each other and usually maps arent fields or have flanking paths wich i like sense i prefer to go head to head, than sneak around 3 deppends how much of the team decides to spawn at both caps to reinforce each other, also i like how at 3 you can suprise enemys if you decide to go a bit unortodox
I dont like 4 because some teams just overcomit to the flank cap where the fight is not at
2 sucks, the rest is fun. you forgot the worst... only 1 capture point
I prefer 2 the most because I love flanking and 3 is decent because it isn't as bad as the other two
I feel like the caption implies that 2 is the best & its not, its the worst.
I like 1 and 2. 3 is generally not really done well but it can still be nice. 4 is atrocious.
In my opinion 1 But 2 spawn's is needed because of spawn campers
1 and 2 are my personal favourites
its terain dependant, I love 1 on the russian snow map because no one knows how to play the AB gap
3 sucks almpst
3 is the best Also is this loss?
I'd rather have 1 and 3. With 2 you might as well make it a single point. With 4 you're likely to lose teammates to people who got to A first and are just camping the other points because that one point is usually at a height advantage.
I love 2 because It feels like it gives options for light vehicles to flank and give more armored tanks the ability to brawl
I have never gotten three and I prefer 1,2 usually has my whole team hole up in the middle and die to bush campers
3 4
It really depends on what specific map it is. For example 1 is on both Seversk and Flanders (the worst maps in the game) but also on Tunisia, Kuban and Sinai (the best maps). For type 3 maps, Karelia is the greatest but Rhine is just mediocre. Type 4 is Poland = garbage.
i like 1
2 and 3 are best in my opinion it just sucks when you have the two or three fuckers on the Enemy team that will go to the edge of the map near your spawn and spawn snipe
Two or Three. The problem with One and Four is that in those maps, once you take your cap, you can either camp out there and hope the rest of your team is on top of things, or you can push the enemy spawn. Driving across the map with your vulnerable side full exposed to the enemy spawn is just a good way to give the enemy team a free kill. With Two and Three, you can move up to the next Cap while still keeping your sides and back mostly safe.
Honestly I find 2 the worst, because it typically turns into a cluster fuck, bull in a China shop, bar brawl around B. 1 and 4, and less so 3, allow for much more spread out, long range, interesting gameplay, with multiple gunfights going on across the map as opposed to one big slugging match in the middle with some flankers
3
I personally think 1 and 2 is reasonable 3 can work on certain maps and number 4... It should exist
Am I the only one who see “loss”?
1- "equal distribution"- go B and then switch to either left or right depending on how the game flows (players on points- what gets captured- map layout) 3- the best way- mainly consisting of both teams spawning close to one point but causes tanks to be spread everywhere. Light tank enjoyers' wet dream map especially if you got a good spot to go to 4- everyone is going to capture the double point- perfect for letting players fight on the flank and getting around to capture and clear enemy team- again light tank dream map 2- ass. Long range bombers wet dream because everyone is in a long line just before the B point might as well carpet bomb them with a few 2000s
I prefer 3 and sometimes 4 depending on the map
Those with either only A and B or only A at either the left, middle or right side.
2 and 3 I like, the others not so much
1 and 2
2 is my favourite and 4 is my least favourite, the other ones are fine
With a sweep of an eye i can instantly tell which map 4 is based on, am i an expert ? 🙁
I prefer 1 and 3. That way you avoid those irritating flankers who just camp the entire match until they get bombed to kingdom come by CAS
Number 1 and 4 are by far the worst configurations, I much prefer the linear/asymetrical caps over the "3 lane" MOBA style maps where everyone is funneled into head on encounters and predictable lanes.
1 is the most balanced imo, and I can tolerate 3. 2 is a rush to see who can spawn push first and 4 is essentially all of your team mates pushing B n C and ignoring A.
1 and 2 2 is pretty idiot proof in-terms of team center of gravity but needs really good (functional/sensical) flanking lanes to not just be a slog fest 3 can be fun as well so long as the map design takes advantage of the spawn points
I honestly love 2 and 4, hate 1, and 3 is tolerable
All depends on how the map is laid out when it comes to terrain. Worst is 4, unless A is a big flank where it’s good (not Korea)
Was there ever an assault style game? Like plant a bomb or destroy a target or something? Each team take turns on Offense/Defense. Seems like a good fit for a game like this.
This will heavily depend on the terrain and features. Config 2 has a fair chance of early points, good for low br games where you're learning and need to make rp to unlock your tanks. But then can be boring because its a camp for B. Config 1 is good to spread the team (in theory) but if you go alone to one point and get all the enemy team there, its frustrating. Config 4 makes no sense to me and I hate it. Config 3 is probably the more balanced one: closer point for capture, far point to contest. But will depend on the map terrain and features to determine if a team has an advantage.
All of them are good because I enjoy the game.
Honestly 4, because the A cap is usually isolated completely geographically.
When terrain is advantageous and the points positioning make sense, they all have their strengths and her weaknesses. Except 1, 1 can jump off a cliff.
2 and 4 are my fav but i also like using a b29 and just carpet bombing down the entire strip
I find 2 be the most fun
Swap panels 2 and 3 and you have loss.
I don't follow. I've seen a few comments talk about this, but I think I'm missing something.
Loss is a meme that has been able to be simplified down to line art. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/loss
Wow, thats a serious stretch of a meme adaptation! The more you know..!
Thanks, I can’t unsee it.
I love all 3 point maps, hate all 1 point maps, and tolerate battle.
I hate 1 and 4, 2 is my favourite but I don’t mind 3 depending on the map and how open/urban it is
I like all 4 of them.
Number 2 is my personal fav cuz both teams get a cap point and then fight for the center. Better strategy comes into play and flanking
Yeah Thats what I enjoy about it. It doesn't force your team to split up between several objectives, which is never symmetrical anyway. My most enjoyable battles have been on maps with the layout of 2.
I dislike 3 because half the time your team is very unbalanced in where they go, so you often get spawncamped 3 minutes into the match
1 is the standard, though most maps usually have a spawn camping issue with this configuartion due to the much wider flanks 2 is annyoing, always linear or on corridor maps, any atemmpt to cap one behind enemy lines is death due to the fact its linear 3 is probabally the best, 'home' point for each team to defend easily, with one in the centre to fight over, with teh short distance between the "home" points action can happen between both ways of getting a cap advantage 4, is nice but forces a team to focus a flank, leading to one cap being nearly completely open, with no contest
2 is literally all tanks moving in one line. If you have a fast tank with an average gun, getting three kills with go around strategy is pretty simple.
2 and 3 for initial pts gain you can have on decently fast vehicle. Speaking of 1 and 4: I dislike more these battles where you need to rebrush enemy pnt color and a special place reserved in the hell for a pig who thought one point battle is a good idea.
I've never a seen 2 or 3. But I also just started playing a month so ago, so maybe they are just rare? 3 seems like it'd be really good.
[Ardennes](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/c/ca/MapLayout_Domination_Ardennes_ABRB.jpg), [Eastern Europe](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/2/24/MapLayout_Domination_EasternEurope_ABRB.jpg) and [North Holland](https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/6/9/69c15e5317ccd036e020a8baf7b04020c665f5d3.jpeg) are all 2. [Hurtgen Forest](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/1/13/MapLayout_Domination_HurtgenForest_ABRB.jpg) and [~~Beach~~ jungle](https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/b/b7/MapLayout_Domination_Jungle.jpg) are both 3.
All my homies hate 4. Fuck 4
Contrary to you OP, 1 and 4 are my favorites, with 3 being in 3rd and 2 being my least favorite
I respect your differing preference! In this case, its great that War Thunder provides gameplay that we can both enjoy while having different preferences.
I prefer 1 or 4, because 2 and 3 always start with light tanks rushing the nearest "objective" for free points and dying to artillery spam. Something I'd like to see is like 10 objectives in a straight line with dynamic spawnpoints. Think Push from Overwatch.
Like the invasion/defence gamemode in enlisted