World of Tanks – New Berlin Map (PvE and Random battles!)

Last Friday afternoon, the almost final version of the Berlin map got released. Map name: 105_germany.

The map will be in the Random and Encounter map pool as well as for the special PvE event in 2020 (against bots). This PvE mode will be a continuation of the “Last Frontier”, which was released in 2019.
Visually it turned out pretty well, but the gameplay, there are already questions. Berlin is a mixture of Widepark and a bit of Minsk and Paris. Some issues are caused by the territory in the north of the map, which is fenced off by the river (you can get there exclusively through bridges).
A huge number of planes fly in the sky above the map. Although it’s beautiful, but by about 10 battles it begins to get annoying. Also, we note that on the low chart the card is saturated with very strong orange, bright colors, which is also unpleasant.

Now Berlin is already in HD and almost ready.

We also note the uniqueness of the Encounter battle mode on this map. Almost the entire circle of the base is occupied by one large building, similar to a bunker. However, you can roll into the building itself and it is imprevious to any artillery as the roof can’t break.

Source: WoTExpress

19 thoughts on “World of Tanks – New Berlin Map (PvE and Random battles!)

  1. Some PVE predictions:Supposed to be fun? You with tier 5 against 7 tier 7 bots. You have 120 tanks in your garage? Here a “special” tank, must suck. You need to earn gold, silver or experience? Here you earn Yen or Pounds or some other “special” crap, lucky if you get some silver after. You know WOT game mechanics and rules? “Special” here too. Main reward – button of shame to put in front of your name. Maybe some unhistorical emblems and camo. And the peasants rejoice!

  2. That bunker is a mistake.
    Get a tank in to cap, get a superheavy to block the entrance, and congrats you just forced a draw or a win.

  3. Seems like WG level designers are more interested in creating visually appealing maps rather than maps that provide good gameplay. This is yet another map with forced close-quarters corridors providing nothing but a clown shotgun fight. Once again, heavy tanks will play out great, while light tanks and tank destroyers will wonder what they’re supposed to do. And even though I don’t like artillery, I have to say, if WG insists on keeping it in the game, how about allowing it to actually participate in the battle rather than constantly putting it in city maps with tall buildings.

    1. Heavy tanks are the line of choice for newcomers/bad players as often they have the most HP/best gun.

      Thus it isn’t any wonder why new maps are designed with HT in mind. After all bad players are the majority of players. So if WG creates a open map with long range fights the map will be unpopular as 1. Arty is more effective
      2. Players will be killed by invisible enemies
      3. The enemies are to far away to kill them.

      1. But the FL map design (specially the original map) is exactly what WG can use a template for random map designs. That map is open, yet not just for one kind of tank. Yes, slow tanks mostly suffer, except in certain situations (defense or a slow/solid push into a circle drawing fire), but the map is far better than numerous corridor maps in the game.

      2. Bad players will still be bad players regardless of the map. On open maps they will get killed by “invisible” enemies, on close quarters maps they will not be able to penetrate enemies. Thus that is not a valid excuse to create bad maps that only favour one class.
        Then again I keep fogetting that WG has managed to attract a whole bunch of players that play a tank game but doesn’t want it to play out like a tank game. They would rather have a silly slugfest in the middle of a city than to experience what a real tank battle is like.

        1. “Heavy Tanks, brawl here.
          Tank Destroyers, camp there.
          Light Tanks, run around like headless chickens in a shot of vodka
          Mediums and Clickers do whatever the fudge they want.”

          Yep, pretty darn familiar. Another “new” map that brings absolutely nothing new. gg wp.

          On a more important subject, Hi there, Falcon)))

          1. Out of curiosity

            What would bring something new to the game?

            An open map? – Already there
            A semi open map? – Already there
            A map of a historical place? – Already there
            A map with lots of cover? – Already there
            and so on.

            1. It’s not so much about bringing something that isn’t already there, but rather about bringing something that offers good gameplay for all classes. Classes in games are usually designed to complement each other, i.e. they’re good at different things and bad at other things. If you then create a map where one class can go completely solo without any problems, that defeats the entire purpose of the other classes. And then players blame HTs for being OP because of their parameters and not the maps…
              These maps are basically tailored for HTs. No need for LTs, because the short ranges allow HTs to spot for themselves. No need for MTs, because the corridors prevents flanking. No need for TDs, because once tanks have to go into the open, the battle is most likely already determined. No need for SPGs, because there’re tall buildings in the way everywhere.

          2. Hello WindSplitter1 😀
            Yeah, I agree. The problem with WG creating maps is that they already build up a “scenario” of how they want the battle to play out. This results in stupid things such as brawling zones, sniper platforms and overpowered bushes. Instead they should create a map inspired by landscapes in real life with natural cover and let players figure out themselves where to go as the battle moves on. For example, LTs and TDs should be useful throughout the entire battle and not only at the end when the enemy team starts to move out of the “protected brawling zone”.

        2. It is a valid argument because “i was killed by someone i couldn’t see” leads to the feeling that you didn’t had a chance.
          If you can’t penetrate the enemy you still had the chance.

          to the 2nd Part I just can tell you that this is an issue in every Videogame as soon as it leaves a niece market.

          1. Bullshit. In many other games you can get killed by people you can’t see and I don’t see people whining that they “had no chance”. With that logic we might aswell skip any type of spotting/viewing mechanics althogether because using the machanic to your advantage (not being seen) will result in the other player “feeling” that he had no chance. Maybe that’s how you feel but I don’t think that applies to players in general.
            And I don’t agree with your second part either. It’s completely possible to make a game realistic and fun at the same time, and I don’t see any reason why “casual” players wouldn’t enjoy a more realistic tank game as long as the games complexity stays somewhat the same as WoT.

          2. Not true. In many other games you can get killed by people you can’t see and I don’t see people whining that they “had no chance”. With that logic we might aswell skip any type of spotting/viewing mechanics althogether because using the machanic to your advantage (not being seen) will result in the other player “feeling” that he had no chance. Maybe that’s how you feel but I don’t think that applies to players in general.
            And I don’t agree with your second part either. It’s completely possible to make a game realistic and fun at the same time, and I don’t see any reason why “casual” players wouldn’t enjoy a more realistic tank game as long as the games complexity stays somewhat the same as WoT.

            1. Could you please name me those games with a similar audience (Size, Age and “sort of players”)

              If you check out other games with a Tank focus as soon as they have a more realistic approach they have a small percentage of the playerbase of WoT.

              And no I don’t have any issues with the mechanics of the game as a matter of fact I use to help newcomers/ bad players on a daily basis with these mechanics. Thus I see what their issues are. Most of them are just “overloaded” when on an open map. Even after 5-9K battles there are players who simply do not know what to do when on e.g. Proko. When they play Himmelsdorf however they kinda know what to do.

              And as I said it isn’t about all players but the majority.

              1. Doesn’t have to be a similiar audience since it’s about the principle. If players thought that they “had no chance” just because they couldn’t see their opponent, then all games that rely on the player to spot enemies on the screen by himself (Battlefield, for example) would be highly unpopular.
                Those other tank games you talk about also look different, feel different and play out different. There’s much more into it than just “realism == boring”.
                You need to realise that the playerbase adapts and gets used to whatever silliness WG puts into their game. If WG creates maps with corridors, then of course players will get used to that and after a while wonder how to play on a non-corridor map. If WG creates a spotting system that basically highlights where your enemies are, then of course players will get used to that and feel cheated when they can’t see their opponent. If WG creates tanks full of frontal weakspots, then of course players will get used to that and when they encounter a tank without frontal weakspots they will wonder how to penetrate it.
                The fault here is which design direction that WG has taken, and not that there’s something “wrong” with the players playing the game.

                1. I have to heavily disagree with you

                  Firstly the audience matters as the principle is tied to it. An audience of casuals has other principles than competitive or historical players.

                  Secondly it doesn’t apply to all games and Battlefield is a really bad example as one point of critic the playerbase had since launch of BF V was the visibility. It was graded as very poor thus Dice had to make several adjustments. In the previous versions of the game there were mechanics put in place so that others could spot or stuff like the 3D spotting.

                  Yes the playerbase adapts but WG also adapts to the playerbase. This is something you need to realize. The same applies to nearly every company in the world. If you have a small but dedicated part of your base that would prefer to have certain things and a bigger more popular opinion that is contradicting most of the time the decision will be to follow the more popular opinion as long as it doesn’t mean loss of money.

                  1. While casual players might have other priorities for a game, it isn’t that the game must be unrealistic. They might want a game that is simple to play or simple to understand or a game that is relaxing, but none of those things prevents realism. It’s entirely possible to create a realistic game that still is simple to understand and relaxing to play.
                    Regarding Battlefield, you have to be joking. I have played Battlefield since Battlefield 1942, and no, they don’t have any “spotting system” at all. What you see is what you spot. This is how it has been in every single one of their games. What you talk about is a marking system, not a spotting system. It is more about sharing spotted enemies with your team, but it doesn’t help you to spot anyone and it doesn’t help you to see who’s shooting at you.
                    WG adapts to the playerbase? Are you trying to say that WG listens to their players? ROTFLMAO. WG does whatever they want to do, sometimes it just happens to overlap with what the players are asking for.

Leave a Reply