Supertest- Pilsen Changes

28

Good day everyone,

A while back you may remember that WarGaming had started testing out a few changes to the Pilsen map. Well a few more changes have been made. While some changes are consistant, such as changes to the map size to 1000×1000m, WG is playing around with several ideas for the eastern portion of the map. Here are the ideas…

#1- Bridge Variant

pilzno_1

The open area of the map is now dominated by a small river with a bridge. Overlooked by too small hills with bush cover and additional areas toward the north and south edges of the map for TD (or more likely, heavy tank) sniping.Along with scattered hard cover.

#2- Railway Variant

pilzno_2

Similar to variant #1, but with the bridge/river area replaced by a more exposed, and flatter railroad with small houses in the center and more building to the east.

#3- River Variant

pilzno_3

Much more drastic change. A river looping in from the east surrounding a few small houses, hills, and a large elevated area to the east. The rear sniping hills are a bit smaller.

 

More testing will be done hefore it’s decided what variant will be brought to the game. What do you lads think? Any particular version striking your fancy?

Liked it? Take a second to support DecoNoir on Patreon!

28 comments on “Supertest- Pilsen Changes

  1. whitebaron777 says:

    The river variant could make for an interesting assault map




    0



    0
    • jesusvsainz says:

      who da fuk still plays assault?




      0



      0
    • JohnJr_1 says:

      It could be very interesting for assault mode. But I personally like the Bridge Variant, the most of them all.




      0



      0
    • eidoss843 says:

      Sand River completely ruined assault for me, it’s so hard to win when you’re attacking because there’s no cover, you only get 10 minutes and the average passive shitter usually just sits behind a rock because he doesn’t know that he has to attack to win. So yeah gg.




      0



      0
      • IndygoEEI says:

        Sand River was the reason I turned it off… I got tired of it being imbalanced and the noobs refusing to get into position…




        0



        0
  2. Stephan says:

    They should make changes to the Paris map, it is far too small. Most suitable for heavies and armored td’s nothing else in particular. One of the worst I think.




    0



    0
  3. Super_Noodle says:

    They’re just funneling people into a single choke point again. Why does WG think this is good map design?




    0



    0
  4. Tom Johnston says:

    I’m inclined to favor versions 2 and 3 and lean toward Number 3. We have a lot of “flat” maps, something with rolling terrain offers hull-down opportunities for non Russian tanks. Often hills are too inclined to really take advantage of hull down tactics.




    0



    0
  5. U12D13 says:

    Im leaning towards no1. It seems balanced for most tanks to make use of terrain and still have sightlines for TDs. Plus spotting opportunities for LTs, both passive (bushes) or aggressive rushes (into river low ground).
    No2 looks like another deadzone in the middle and very static, distinct camplines on both sides, with pushes on the new flank made worse with open areas to cross and train tracks adding to the difficulty of crossing quickly.
    No3 somehow strikes me like the exact copy of prok/fiery salient. Especially the top right corner. Middle high ground and two rounded camp corners that is near similar to the flank of prok. It might turn into another stalemate arty-strike zone similar to that of prok.




    0



    0
  6. darkduke says:

    i dont like more river cuz my teamates always drown in game start




    0



    0
  7. StyleZ says:

    In first two variants the field part is changed to something similar that now is present on Paris field or Westfield south east part – small simetricall hills with bushes on both sides.
    I don’t know, is it good or bad yet, as it opens up some possibilities for light tanks and TD’s, but at least on Paris those two little hills with bushes are quite awkward to play most of the times.




    0



    0
  8. Oskar Sibeck says:

    First two are shit because it will no longer be possible to rush that side with only a few tanks without getting shot by campers in the mid/rear.
    Pilsen (for me) is one of the maps with least fixed positions for fighting and there’s possibility for weird maneuvers on both sides and in mid. There are so many other maps that are worse, plz WG don’t destroy this one.




    0



    0
  9. Shrike58 says:

    If anyone of these maps fires my imagination it’s the third option…just a hot take.




    0



    0
  10. Mike-T 2016 says:

    #3- River Variant
    Then it would be a ‘new’ map different to the other corridor maps the high ground to the east looks good, of course 3rd river variant now its more of a ‘thinking’ more open than brawling Heavy tank only map.
    so WG never use it as thinking is so bad in a game




    0



    0
  11. Anonymous says:

    It will not make any difference whatsoever ever if they leave the cap zones in their current locations. The issue with the field is not the terrain, it’s that winning the field literally gains no significant advantage.




    0



    0
  12. Steelrain97 says:

    These changes won’t make any difference. Unless they move the cap zones, there is still no reason to play the field since the west side of the map will still control the both cap zones. The issue with the field is that winning the field gains no advantage in winning the game.




    0



    0

Leave a Reply