9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison


As things today been slow, I’ve made a comparison between the 9.15.1 and 9.16 minimap changes for you:

-I haven’t decided if I like these or not, you can see clearly that WG is trying to simplify the minimap for the pubbies as much as possible but some of these feel excessively washed out (example Westfield).

What do you think?







Fisherman’s Bay








Artic Region




El Halluf










For those who prefer sliding pictures (also you can enlarge these):


Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison

73 thoughts on “9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison

  1. Nya-chan Production says:

    Think it’s a big improvement. In the old maps lots was uselessly lost in some uninteresting graphical details. Now you see the important stuff – which building is breakable, elevation, inaccessible spots – without having to search it in map for too long.

  2. Easier to watch the enemies. Cleaner, and without unnecessaries layers. I think that the differents terrain depressions or bushes or details in the map you can see them while playing.

    But, PROKHOROVKA and EL HALLUF look pretty much the same 😉

  3. naughtydog29 says:

    Not a fan to be honest. They are bland and not nice to look at.
    Doubt it’ll make poor players suddenly map-aware, do you?

  4. sir_novicius says:

    Call me a noob, but I like the new maps. Now they are maps that focus on information instead of satellite photos with to much clutter.

  5. Love it!!!

    you can easily see the terrain elevations (check MUROVANKA, ERLENBERG), the breakable buildings that you can turn apart, and amazing clear view…

    what we do when designing UI’s is… look at a glance and you will understand the minimap much easier in the new version than the old version… you get lost looking at the minimap in some maps, like MUROVANKA and ERLENBERG, to much colors and to much things going on those maps…

    I have 40k games, and I must think for players that are new… I’m to used to the old versions, but this is a clear upgrade.

  6. Katyusha454 says:

    The old ones may be prettier, but in general the new ones are easier to read. I think some of the new ones could do with some color correction but other than that I’d say they’re an improvement.

  7. DoctorBest says:

    This is objectively better, it actually shows informations about the maps like the terrain and destroyable buildings. We need clear and useful UI like this.

    1. Ragnarokbazil says:

      You would rather see what areas are arty safe over places that have hills I like the new maps. If you don’t like em ask a mod to be made so you like the old maps but in seriousness the new maps help alot

      1. SMGJohn says:

        I did not make a comment saying the maps are bad I just pointed out they seemed like they have cancer spots you know like when you see a reversed x-ray image.

  8. zombietropa says:

    OK, here are my two cents. For the most part, the maps are easier to read, terrain features are clearly readable, and it’s easy to distinguish between destructible and permanent buildings (I wonder if the map will show real time destruction of buildings, which will be a bad thing imho).

    But to make the maps even easier to read will be to get rid of the satellite style maps, and go with topographic maps, even easier to see buildings and much easier to see changing terrain elevations.

    1. Dunbar1 says:

      I agree with zombie. Easier to read ,but a little too washed out on many. And as stated above, I dont see how washing them out so much will make pubbies suddenly map aware. Thats something that just comes with playing the game over time.

  9. Until I see it at ground level, I really can’t judge. The older maps look more “real”, the new maps look more “game” … but until I’m on it in a tank, I don’t know what that means in terms of player experience.

  10. Deano says:

    i like these changes they are far cleaner and far more functional and id say its much easier with these changes to judge where enemy tanks actually are.

  11. James k says:

    Looks like a proper map with one only three needed stuff not all this extra graphical junk.
    Maps are there for specific information not for “looks” try to plan a movement or battle with those complex maps.
    It’s much easier on a simple map.

  12. nemokeine says:

    I like them a lot more, they are maps, not airial recon photographs of the battlefield. The thing I like the most is a clear indication as to what buildings are destructible, so when seeking hard cover it is easier for myself, and also knowing when to load HE and blow away someones cover. Elevations and impassible areas of the map are also more clearly picked out with these new mini-maps as well.

  13. KCHoB says:

    People want real tanks that drove on the battlefield and no paper design stuff. People want real guns that were used and no inventions from wargaming. People want real speed tanks ran and no Russian OP upgraded stuff. But people do not want real maps but just arcade style drawings from the eighties. Oh yes, I know why. Since we have GPS and smartphones, people can not read maps anymore. This new style maps are just shit.

  14. Definitely like the new minimaps. Much more readable.

    However, I prefer the ones they added in 9.15.1 over these ones. For exemple in El Halluf : the buildings on bottom left look good currently but seem like big white flashy squares with the 9.16 version.
    Same for Cliff : hills are way too dark, current rework is good enough.

    If they do go for the “too much black/white saturation” I’ll rather use a mod for HD minimaps of old versions. But if they keep the style they tried for some maps in 9.15.1 I think its best.

  15. Uggala says:

    I absolutely love the new minimap style.

    Really don’t understand all the bitching about how “bland” the new ones look. They have to be bland if you want to see the elevation shading (especially the finer details that you don’t see at all in the old satviews), and they have to be bland if you want a good contrast between terrain and buildings/ridges as they do have it now.

    These are minimap pictures – The job of a minimap is to convey information about the battlefield you take place in, not to look gaudy. The old satviews are an complete fail in that regard, as all the relevant details are cluttered with utterly useless visual information.

    And the more i look at the new ones, the more i hate the old designs.

  16. CelticArchangel says:

    LOVE THEM!!!
    They look like MAPS… not satellite pictures. Maps are suppose to give you information of the terrain and make adjustments and plans accordingly. The old ones look like a bird with a GoPro.
    Straight up, anyone who says they are a downgrade need to do their research. These are proper maps.

  17. QBiN says:

    I like how they’ve highlighted permanent vs.destructible buildings. However, a BIG negative is that I think the new shading has made it much more difficult to see elevation changes in the minimap. For example, the mid-ridges of Prokhorovka and Fisherman’s Bay appear flat in the minimaps. I think it will actually be less useful to players overall than the old versions for that reason.

  18. qbin1976 says:

    I like how they’ve highlighted permanent vs.destructible buildings. However, a BIG negative is that I think the new shading has made it much more difficult to see elevation changes in the minimap. For example, the mid-ridges of Prokhorovka and Fisherman’s Bay appear flat in the minimaps. I think it will actually be less useful to players overall than the old versions for that reason.

  19. wheeledtank says:

    They aren’t as pretty as the “old” ones, but they are much more descriptive. The more saturated (and somewhat lack of) colors makes it pretty easy to actually analyze the map more effectively. Kinda reminds me of Topographical Maps (with added details with building and a different color scheme), which fits in the game more than just aerial pictures of the map.

    1. wheeledtank says:

      Curse the lack of no edit button. This addition is somewhat similar to the Console’s Mini-maps, though with added terrain color

  20. bobo says:

    I like the new ones because they are cleaner and easier to read during battle. The fact that the old ones are “prettier” when viewed on the web outside of gameplay is irrelevant.

  21. David says:

    Personally, I like them and have no prblems whatsoever. Most experienced players already the know maps backwards and if it helps novice players I’m all for it.

  22. ステトガイ says:

    I think these new maps are great! Especially for me, I play on some tiny screen, so a more simpler map makes the map much more easier to read, as I can barely make out where some tanks are on more complex areas.

  23. wolvenworks says:

    IMHO the new maps are immediately more informative, and easier to distinguish the terrain, but it’s really dreary to look at. the old maps are very artistic, but on maps like Swamp the minimap does get a bit chaotic. my opinion is for WG to strike a balance between aestheticness and clarity, an in-between of the 2 minimap styles

  24. Anonymous says:

    I’d rather have the in-game option of switching between “pretty” and “informative” maps, so i could actually test both in game and decide which ones i ultimately like better. But it’s probably hard to code.

  25. Kurzz says:

    Cartographic mapping is art and therefore you will always have different opinions about the design.
    Imporant for cartographic maps are:

    – degree of generalization
    Do the make it simpler, but you do not see anymore the object shape, length, location and content well?

    – measering/evaluating data
    Can I see how much the elevation changes. Will I see now better or worse if I can drive through an area. Can I see the terrain type still in the same way and therefore can I calculate if I will be faster drigin this or that way

    – Visibility/readability
    If I let 100 people look at the map. What will they see? What will they all miss? Hope they did this check and found out, that the important things can be still seen (or better seen)

    Personally, Cliff, Swamp, Prokorovka maps are a little bit less informative than before. City maps clrealy improved. I will see and observe the open maps where terrain type and elevation change information is important.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Don’t like them at all. There was more information in the old maps; the new ones seem like a step backwards.

    In addition, I could understand if they developed simplified maps to start and then added detail. However there are many more things to work on with the game besides “simplifying” mini-maps.

    If there was a concern with readability, I would suggest going an “architectural graphics” route and just adjusting the line weights hierarchically. For example, cliff edges, or buildings would be the heaviest line, while contours would the lightest/thinnest.

  27. These maps are much better in my opinion. No, they do not look as “real” as an overhead satellite view like from Google Maps, but they give the best information needed in battle in the easiest to decipher method.

  28. still_guns says:

    This is a downgrade, plain and simple. The ‘new’ maps look like the maps WoT had when it was new in 2011. If those old maps were superior, WHY did they change them? Because they WEREN’T superior.

  29. Tanker says:

    Better than the old, some of the old minimaps have very poor contrast, offer less into than general location. New maps allow better determination of passable area and permanent structures.

Leave a Reply