What is the size a WT aerial battlefield, in km2 ?

[hemmerling 433]

What is the size a WT aerial battlefield, in km2  ( __ km  x __ km ) ?

The in-game map size is a grid of 11.5x11.5 unities  in overview mode before play, and 10.5x10.5 unities during battle.

Please reason your opinion.. or knowledge :-).

Consider the speed of airplanes, and the time needed to pass the territory, or a single grid.

 

And by this, how is the relation between WT ground and air battlefields

a)technical

The 10x10 / 5.5x5.5 grids of ground warefare correspond to what in the 11.5x11.5 / 10.5x10.5 grids of air warefare?

b) is the techical answer realistic from gamer experience ?

Consider the speed of ground vehicles and airplanes to pass the territory, or a single grid.

Consider your experience of the 60-second airraids with full aerial map, during ground warefare.

I just realize that with some - maybe "modern / lately created" maps, the map style changed from 11.5x11.5 painted map to satellite view map, with no grids.

 

You might tell us also your opinion and a comparison of the size of aerial and ground battlefields of WT versus WT's online competitors ( WOT, AF, H&G ,.. ) or similar legacy single-player war games....

 

So best is to create a list of battlefields, with the estimated or calculated size in real life, in km2.

 

See my question about the size of the ground battlefield , and my question in the German subforum.

Sincerely

Rolf

Edited November 9, 2016 by hemmerling

[hemmerling 433]

at

I was just told, that

ground maps have a maximum size of 4x4km, aerial maps 100x100 km.

The number of grids is always the same, but not the actual scaled landscape, so many maps are "smaller".

[sidchicken 721]

100 x 100 seems way too big for arcade.  That might be the limit in RB, but I doubt you'd ever see an arcade map that large (and even in RB I don't think I've seen a map with that much real estate... maybe Norway?)

[io_i_oi 1,016]

2 hours ago, sidchicken said:

100 x 100 seems way too big for arcade.  That might be the limit in RB, but I doubt you'd ever see an arcade map that large (and even in RB I don't think I've seen a map with that much real estate... maybe Norway?)

Yes. RB maps are HUGE. In AB, when bombers and myself first spawn, I can sight them in for a second at 12.00km add another 1km to end of battlefield both sides and you have roughly have about 14km. But RB can't be much more that triple of that.

Edited November 9, 2016 by io_i_oi

[KillerAce4 845]

The map size supports up to 120 KM  X 120 KM which is what the expanded battle of Britain map is with the french coast, but that is for air battles, and is used in Sim mode (maybe realistic as I don't play it).

 

Arcade air maps would probably be about 20 X 20 at max, there are a couple of them that you can keep flying and will not run into a boundary for quite some time (merchant fleet for example).

 

Arcade tank battles would be about 5 Km X 5 KM at max but most seem smaller.  As you are closer to the ground the level of detail goes up so there is a lot more work to be done to make these maps.

 

I am hoping that when WW mode is finally made that they will have a rolling battlefield and have the landscape based off of army maps that were used during WW2 such as this one (http://www.coulthart.com/134/maps/ams-863-wiltz-n-sheet-122-n-1944.jpg) that shows the roads and buildings, hedges and fields, rivers and forests as they were during that time.  it also shows elevations and many other things.  I think that would be cool to fight on the real battlefields with the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

 

[hemmerling 433]

How does the user experience flying a plane,

starting with pre-WWII biplanes,

over to fast WWII fighters with propellors,

finally to jets,

with the small size of AB aerial maps?

What the real speed the airplanes are flying, especially what is the relative speed difference between a slow WWII biplane and a fast WWII fighter ( so biplanes and fast fighters like ME BF109 and Hurricane meet on low-BR battles, indeed )?

Indeed, AI ground vehicles seem to be very fast in air battles, relative to the speed of airplanes...

My experience is that a fast fighter is just 10% faster than a slow biplane...

 

Flying 20km might be VERY short with planes,

while driving not more than 5km with a slow tank might be ok  ( but remember that some ground vehicles like Panzer IIIF drive as fast as 75km/h on road, and about 60km/h in the landscape...

 

See my German thread

so in a 8.5x8.5 grid, the battlefield is

( 48km / 3600s ) * 16 * 8.5 = 1.8km

wide.

So in 136 seconds, not much more than 2 minutes, you might drive from one end of the battlefield to the other...

This might just be acceptable as there are so many obstacles ( stone hills,.. ) and enemies which might knock you out...

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by hemmerling

[sidchicken 721]

22 hours ago, hemmerling said:

My experience is that a fast fighter is just 10% faster than a slow biplane...

Um... what are you talking about?  The PO-2 is probably the slowest plane in the game, topping out somewhere around 200kph iirc.  The fastest fighters in the game can exceed 1100 kph in level flight.  If my math is correct, that's somewhat more than 10% faster.  Even if you're talking fast props, many can exceed 700 kph at their optimal altitudes and typically cruise at 500+ kph in level flight, which again is significantly better than you're talking.  Even if you compare faster biplanes, like the I-153 to slower monoplane fighters, the monoplanes have a significant speed advantage (usually more than 100kph).

[hemmerling 433]

8 hours ago, sidchicken said:

Um... what are you talking about?  The PO-2 is probably the slowest plane in the game, topping out somewhere around 200kph iirc.  The fastest fighters in the game can exceed 1100 kph in level flight.  If my math is correct, that's somewhat more than 10% faster.  Even if you're talking fast props, many can exceed 700 kph at their optimal altitudes and typically cruise at 500+ kph in level flight, which again is significantly better than you're talking.  Even if you compare faster biplanes, like the I-153 to slower monoplane fighters, the monoplanes have a significant speed advantage (usually more than 100kph).

I understand that speed in height ( 4000m and up ) is slower for many planes.

But in low altitutude for ground attacks, even with biplanes ( BR-Reserve - BR1.3) I can catch and bring down

- Messerschmidt

- Hurricane

, so their speed overhead doesn´t count,

just a "fast" airplane is often able to escape, so that the distance ( I am just playing AB ) is increasing slowly, e.g. 0.5km is the  maximum shooting distance for MachineGuns,  a very-fast plane ( even bomber ) may escape from a biplane within some seconds, but just 0.51, 0.52, 0.53, 0.54km distance update, but not 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4km within this time.

 

On the other hand, a ground attack with 1000km/h ( going down, not bombing from high altitude ) must not be easy in WT,

even with japanese heavy attacker planes ( ki-45 ki-102, aka "destroyers" in German terms )  are very slow to go up, after going down for ground attack - they react slowly with delay,,,, remember all the hills and mountains around the ground targets...

[sidchicken 721]

5 hours ago, hemmerling said:

But in low altitutude for ground attacks, even with biplanes ( BR-Reserve - BR1.3) I can catch and bring down

- Messerschmidt

- Hurricane

, so their speed overhead doesn´t count,

Catching up to enemy fighters that are attacking ground targets doesn't mean those planes aren't significantly faster.  A player that is attacking ground targets is likely wasting a lot of energy turning - make a pass, turn around make another pass, etc - thereby dropping their airspeed to the point where they can be caught.  Furthermore, many are heavier than your typical biplane, and especially for planes from the era that biplanes will typically face, that means they also accelerate more slowly, meaning if they want to run away, the biplane will have a window to stay with them, even gain on them.  And unless they want to hope they can tank all the biplane's shots, they'll probably be maneuvering, and all that turning and weaving costs energy.  The bottom line is that a biplane will never catch a monoplane pilot that knows what he's doing and conserves his energy properly.  This is precisely why biplane development ceased pretty much everywhere by the late 30's - biplanes are, by their nature, significantly better turners and significantly slower than monoplanes, and speed trumps turnrate because the faster fighter can dictate the terms of the engagement.

[GregKjr 520]

suggestions have been made to have map scaling as you go up in aircraft tier.  I think that it is not like than now because they would need to remake all the maps so its like 4 times more dev work  than just making 1 map. When that map is ok at tier 2 or 3 and just saying "ok that will make most people happy most of the time lets move on now to more dev work" it gets very difficult to justify the 4x more time to make it work in all tiers well.     

.....if you get what i am trying to say

 

it seems like a work flow priority issue 

job 1 make more                                   ie new content

job 2 make what we have better            ie fix bugs

job 3 make what we have work better    ie optimist content

 

 

also the bf109b and hurricane are on the slow side of the monoplanes

[hemmerling 433]

I realized in the last time,

that if I ask for Artillery support,

the range of the area where I may point Artillery to,

differs from battlefield to battlefield.

 

E.g. Cologne

https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Advance_to_the_Rhine

, I may let point the artillery to any point of the map,

 

while with other maps,

I can just point the artillery to a limited area of the map around me.

 

So is the size of the artillery range, in relation to the total size of the map, a valid indication wether a map is large or small ?

 

Whats your opinion?

 

[GregKjr 520]

because we don't know exactly how artillery is modeled we cant say for sure... the inconsistency in artillery firing range may have some thing to do with crew skill and or artillery placement.

 

possibility 1) if you have low crew skill you have shorter range.

and or

possibility 2) the artillery is placed in a way that limits its firing angle creating dead spaces that can not receive indirect/direct fire based on the artillery that is called from your location.

 

basically if one or both your elevation/azimuth are blocked the artillery can't fire. so the game would need to call a different artillery unit. And changing the distance to target from your artillery will break any calculations you do to determine map scale.

so with out knowing more about how it works it's not a safe bet to think we can use artillery firing range to calculate map size.  

This is all based on the assumption that it is modeled in the first place. Artillery might well even just be explosives from the heavens for all we know

Edited September 26, 2017 by GregKjr
to add a pic

[HochgeborenKlown 1,276]

On 11/9/2016 at 9:21 AM, sidchicken said:

100 x 100 seems way too big for arcade.  That might be the limit in RB, but I doubt you'd ever see an arcade map that large (and even in RB I don't think I've seen a map with that much real estate... maybe Norway?)

The old Spain map used to be that big...It was an RB map used for the Spanish Civil War which meant that the planes of that era took forever to cross the map and frequently ran out of fuel returning to base if you did not take the max amount...Still it was a fun map to fly if you had talkative team mates flying with you...

 

[GregKjr 520]

9 hours ago, HochgeborenKlown said:

The old Spain map used to be that big...It was an RB map used for the Spanish Civil War which meant that the planes of that era took forever to cross the map and frequently ran out of fuel returning to base if you did not take the max amount...Still it was a fun map to fly if you had talkative team mates flying with you...

 

 

I think he is confusing "play area" and "total map size" as well.

I know it has been said if the community make ground forces maps. The Gaijin team want to not be too much bigger than 5x5km in combat area.  but no word about the size of the map it self beyond the 120x120 km tech limit.

 

 

@hemmerling your questions can probably be answered better in the  cdk advice part of the forum. if any one will know it's the guys who make the maps.

[hemmerling 433]

1 hour ago, GregKjr said:

I think he is confusing "play area" and "total map size" as well.

The player talked about AERIAL WAREFARE,

where the maps are of course larger,

I focussed here on GROUND WAREFARE.

And indeed, during the 60 second missions, with AB, GF, the flight maps are larger than the ground battle maps..