On the other hand, during campaigns, a person always had only one map to choose from. And for example, the Japanese still have only one map until now.
1 Like
I don’t disagree. I just think that in the US market, if something in Europe is not a part of the deal for weeks or months of the grind, it’s relatively doomed.
However, the new maps are also part of the reward for that grind. Along with higher tiers of weapons come new battlefields. If all battlefields come in the low tiers, then the player won’t see anything new by the end of the game, just changes in weapons and squads.
Berlin?
All I can say is that no Normandy or Ardennes maps for US until BR4 was a disastrous choice, in my opinion, and the change is a very wise move.
Yes I understand that from this point of view Normandy is important for new players.
But so is Berlin (and I would say for me personally much more important than Normandy), yet it is rightfully only available with late war equipment.
Don’t get me wrong, Stuart vs Pz III is not as bad as T-26 vs Pz 38t would be in Berlin, but early war British tanks only ever seen in Tunisia like A13 and Crusader, as wall as water based planes pike Seagull, are really weird…
Also as bullshit I was referencing Tiger 2 vs Pershing in Tunisia.
2 Likes
Better fix would be to allow british tanks only in tunisia and navy planes only in pacific
1 Like
Yes I suggested quite a few times that if my us br2 lineup has LVT and Seagull, I should get Pacific maps more often. If Crusader and hurricane trop then Tunisia. If Stuart and Scott then whatever.
1 Like
The possible maps for allies BR2 says only Tunisia and Pacific - however I’ve also seen a lot of Normandy and Bulge even at BR2.
Not a complaint - I actually prefer it this way - however unless something changed with this patch, the info displayed is not accurate.
khalkhin gol and Manchuria would be nice.
But you overlooked the fact that if Soviet BR3 can’t get into Berlin maps than it will basically hardlock them to downtiering in Moscow and Stalingrad.
I’m going to be completely honest I really dislike the mapping changes that have been put in recently. I miss being able to choose the general campaign of what maps I’ll play on. For example I absolutely despise playing on pacific with the Americans maps but I love playing on Tunisia and Normandy. Same deal with The USSR I love Moscow and Berlin and am not the biggest fan of the Stalingrad maps but still enjoy them but will now have to completely change everything I use to play on them. The BR standard for maps does lend itself well for the historical accuracy of the game but to me it makes it much more repetitive playing in the same few maps over and over again. If I were to add a possible solution it would be to remove the BR attachment to the maps and make all maps available to all BRS and possibly add a feature to allow players to within the separate armies to choose specific campaigns of which they can load into. For example I am playing the Germans and only like the Normandy, Berlin, and Moscow campaigns, I would go to a little UI area and click the specific campaigns I would like to load into. To me this would make the experience better. But if historical accuracy is the be all end all for this game then that’s what the Devs will do.
2 Likes
I believe the majority of Americans really only associate WWII with western Europe and the pacific. If they literally are stuck in the Pacific (which is not great) and Tunisia (which is not great) then it’s basically of very little interest.
Normandy and Ardennes maps are fun at low BR. There’s nothing bad about it and many positives.
I’ve played around 100 matches after the merge Germans BRII. Toolbox says possible Mosow and Tunesia - I get only Stalingrad and Normandy, sometimes Moscow. For over 100 matches I got 2-3 Tunesias
1 Like
You are probably correct about most Americans in 2024. But there are those of us old enough to know the story of the Battle of Stalingrad. The sacrifices the Russian people made for the war effort were monumental and should never be forgotten. It’s a shame our governments were able to make us treat each other as enemies when we should have been brothers.
Agree
2 Likes
I’m really generalizing here but I believe that’s reasonable. I don’t think Darkflow is targeting 50 - 70 year old players so I think it’s fair to assume that many of their target market won’t immediately think of North Afrika when they think of WWII. Certainly it’s not iconic.
Well. I’m 40, so you overshot me in your age range
You think the Battle of el-Alamein isn’t iconic?
2 Likes
Well they got me, i def in those brackets 
I didn’t say that. I just think most American people likely to play video games won’t be very familiar. Everything in western Europe was more significant and iconic.
Well Seagull + A13 vs Italian Semovente + biplane from Moscow… At the battle of the bulge 
Does that sound iconic for US audience?
1 Like
Most people who aren’t history nerds wouldn’t know the difference. You have the curse of knowledge, most Americans know only as much about WWII as they’ve learned from movies and games