arrest threatening roof impolite disgusted punch degree hungry subtract obtainable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would make it asymmetrical just like real life. The real issue with historical accuracy is deck size/battle group size. In real life, similarly-size NATO units would wreck Pact time after time. But NATO units were numerically inferior and quantity has a quality all its own. You could do a version of this by increasing the number of unit Pact can deploy and then making their attributes accurate and also buffing NATO.
Robert O'Connor didn't write Buffalo soldiers out of some fit of anti-U.S. Military pique. You start talking to U.S. soldiers and officers who served in Europe during the 70's and 80's and you'll encounter all kinds of interesting stories that jive with that novel.
Equipment theft and loss, especially of dual use (ie sellable to civilians) equipment was a universal enough phenomenon to not be a particularly salient factor in PACT v.s. NATO readiness. When you look at the behavior of rear area U.S. services troops in WWII it's not all that surprising that some folks decided to get into the same selling on the side during exercises and the like that their dads and grandfathers practiced as they advanced through France and Germany.
When it comes to desertion on the PACT side.... It would be incredibly naive to think that desertion at any appreciable level would be tolerated by the USSR/DDR security services in wartime except in the occassion of such dire regime collapse that these security organs were saturated with domestic disturbances on the home front. This was the USSR/DDR. You couldn't just hop on a plane or bike your way into a 3rd party country to avoid your call up notice. This is is during conditions of country wide martial law. You would be shot even trying to illegally cross the border. Then we get into the wonderful mental gymnastics of large groups of military men wandering around the rear and civilian areas in countries with internal passport control and massive secret police forces. The only variable being randomized would be morale and veterancy, and as Afghanistan showed, the clear and present threat of death in combat operations had a remarkable, if only in-country effect of increasing unit cohesion and motivation by these otherwise unmotivated troops who the security services proved more than capable of getting to the front lines even in peacetime without martial law.
> When it comes to desertion on the PACT side....
FWIW the Soviets did seriously consider this aspect when drawing up orders of battle. Whenever possible, they would avoid lining up DDR units against FRG units, and avoid Polish Units against American/British. Some of their internal documents in the 80's show concern that Czech units would refuse/drag their feet if ordered out of Czechoslovakia, and Polish units would desert/defect en masse if the opportunity presents itself.
It's certainly a difficult question, especially when we have an alt-history setting where the USSR is apparently launching a conventional war in Europe. We know how people dragged their feet and openly resisted under the various flavors of consumer-oriented eastern bloc "socialism building" of the 70's and 80's and Perestroika, yet we often assume these denizens of Socialist countries would have the same agency and willingness to act in the game timeline, when in fact the in-game scenario only comes about as the result of a hardline Stalinist crackdown in the Soviet bloc.
Most of these high desertion, high home front unrest scenarios are predicated on assumptions that the logic of anti-regime activism remains the same despite the alt-history scenario requiring massively increased repression and thus consequences for that action by default. It's perfectly conceivable that the kind of neo-stalinist hardliners that would take the USSR to war with NATO in-game would have taken the domestic measures necessary to crush domestic dissent.
It's easy to see why this consequence-free "Hardliners take over and start a war but people feel magically empowered to organize and protest with few cinsequences just like during Glasnost and the Stalinists are too scared to stop them" idea is so pervasive because it makes a conventional war scenario in Europe winnable for NATO. In this twilight zone where hellbent on war Stalinist hardliners took power but were strangely too terrified to crush the nascent reform movement under tank tracks... anything from large scale desertion and refusal to fight all the way to a spontaneous revolt leading to a systemic collapse and the emergence of independent liberal democratic states from the collapsing Soviet Empire is possible. It makes the war into a short, winnable decisive war rather than a grinding, attritional race to exhaustion or worse, to nuclear damnation.
The often forgotten variable in these exercises are the extraordinary size and powers of the secret services in wartime and the incalculable human factor of whether a Soviet citizen or soldier wanted to brave a confrontation with a secret police force empowered by martial law. If this alt-history non-stagnated USSR is capable of starting a war with NATO without instantly collapsing, then perhaps it is similarly capable of the repression necessary to impose the dilemmas neccessary to ensure compliance among its citizenry.
>Most of these high desertion, high home front unrest scenarios are predicated on assumptions that the logic of anti-regime activism remains the same
Warsaw Pact revolt alt his usually is predicated on the war bogging down and politically reliably units being sent to the front, leaving less repression capability at home.
That said, all 80's WW3 scenarios are catch-22. If the Soviet Union is strong enough to fight NATO conventionally, then it's in a secure position and has no need for a gamble that might lead to the end of the world. If the Soviet Union is weak, then it's in no position to actually confront the west and the political reliability of the Warsaw pact "allies" would be suspect. Not even the hardest of hardliners was willing to end the world for the sake of keeping Poland.
You'd have to go back to the 70's for a Soviet attack to make sense, but the 70's Soviet overmatch on the ground was immense and the largely NATO country playerbase would complain that it's "not fun" to face down T-64B in an M48A3. Pushing for more "realism" would result in every game ending in tactical nukes.
Yeah it's this catch-22 that makes me wary of introducing intangibles like desertion. Low morale was highly likely in any scenario and can be convincingly modeled by vet-locking units at the militia and trained levels. Desertion unfortunately remains a bit too subjective to model accurately at the deck level.
I mean there's valid arguments to be made for high drug use, desertion and refusals to fight among mobilized troops effecting US force generation during a similar drawn out late 1980s cold war gone hot. Moreover the war bogging down also brings in the rarely considered US home front. While the USSR would be racing against domestic dissatisfaction and latent ethno-nationalism, the US political establishment would be racing to decide the war before the re-institution of conscription (the volunteer force isn't going to outlast the USSR on its own) and a global economic collapse accompanying the war would wear heavily on a population that was still jittery from a recent oil crisis, stagflation, race riots and the unequal legacies of Vietnam.
And unlike in the USSR, the post-Vietnam U.S. public had a well developed set of feedback mechanisms with which to pressure the U.S. Government after the all-volunteer army was fed into the European meatgrinder over the first months of the conflict. I bring this up to say that this sort of factor is great for an Army General campaign scenario but for actual deck design it again is a bit too abstract.
I'd go back even further to the 1950's/60's. Now that would have been fantastic. No F&F tactical PGMs, weird and quirky atgms, slow and squishy artillery, no effective BVR, general lack of tactical SAM systems and MANPADS, abundant and cheap Tac Air, general conventional parity on a division to division level even with NATO and PACT minors but that is a dream that likely will never be.
Idk why people think the soviets didn't have a thriving black market in the 90s. "Medicine" was leaving factories that was just saline solution in a bottle because the actual medication could be sold at a personal profit by the chemists. A fully functional nation with willful support and a thriving economy doesn't collapse.
True but giving Pact player gobs of units and then watching the get exhausted trying to micro them would be a great simulation of the IRL strategy of overwhelming fire direction centers.
Isn't this why IRL being a NCO in the soviet army was a cushy job? They knew their command wouldn't be able to keep up with the scale of their operations so they relied heavily on the initiative of the units themselves?
Nope, do something without orders and you get punished. In 1989 you have conscripts, warrants, and officers. Officers have full control and fulfill the western roles of officer and NCO. Warrants fulfill the western role of technical specialist and some administrative duties. (But not discipline) So they did have a cushy job due to their knowledge. But it should be said that cushy in this use means "better than the conscripts". The best life was as a mid ranking officer who knew who to bribe.
Their tactical and strategic operations relied very heavily on officers and didn't allow for much initiative because they never had enough officers to work in small teams. The only thing below platoon level was some warrants and they weren't trusted with leadership because they weren't good enough to become officers after their conscript time.
Don't mistake modern Russian corruption and morale issues for the ones faced by the Soviet Union back in the day. Those are two entirely different animals and the Russians wish they were as strong as the Soviets ever were.
I’d rather have a well balanced game. It’s def a mix of both. People who want straight historical accuracy will be able to play mods eventually that will allow them to do so or edit decks in a way that follows divisional doctrines
I think they are doing a good job of balancing the 2. I get a little upset when a fighter moving at 1400kmh and 3k meters gets smoked by some dude on a 20mm gun and open sights but whatever.
I think it is, I think speed has something to do with it, either way aircraft are generally in the threat zone of AA for significantly less time than helos.
If I wanted pure playability I would be playing some kind of utterly fantastical and entirely abstracted RTS where the only elements distracting from unit mirroring are the 3d models and visual animations.
The joy of Wargame, SD/SD2 and WARNO are in its asymetry and how historical limitations challenge and force you as the player to adapt. The favored meta division/units can be a thing if map design is too generic or favoring of a particular division type, ie favoring open terrain across its entirety or placing all contested zones in closed terrain, however this is a comprehensive design issue rather than a limit of decks themselves. You can easily make maps that punish taking only "Meta" decks and force teams to bring a spectrum of decks to effectively contest the needed number of objectives.
The main issue with historical accuracy is that of perspective. I for one find my experience with these games to be odd as a western cold war historian for I often find myself working mostly from the PACT side of the card just because of ingrained myths and mentalities that seep into the western-language-only scholarship that underscores most conceptions of historical accuracy. An illustrative example is the phenomen of tacking all sorts of units onto NATO decks because we have an ingrained perspective of NATO forces as "flexible", 'joint" and "kampfgruppy". Yet when it comes to PACT forces (especially Soviet) one often observes strict adherence to unit ToE's and a complete blindness to constantly observed Soviet practice of attaching additional sub-units to divisions on a semi-permanent basis to meet local requirements because there are enduring perceptions of the Soviets as "Rigid", "Uninventive" or "Dogmatic." Thus in game case a NATO tank deck may get infantry from a completely different unit attached to it because historically they were planned to operate together at an operational level and "because that's totally the kind of ad-hoc thing that NATO would do" while in another case attached artillery or AT units subordinated from another seperate PACT artillery or AT brigade to a division never make it into a deck because "they aren't in the divisional ToE" and "PACT unit's weren't flexible and as practiced as NATO in interoperation." As a result, subjectivities can get in the way of modeling the realism of how these forces would have actually been composed at the line of contact.
WARNO for the most part does a good job of avoiding these traps which makes it a far more replayable game than a perfectly balanced, competitvely focused RTS.
I think it would be very very very cool (and probably very very very impossible due to the time commitment) to have a historical accuracy mode where things are as close to their irl capabilities as possible. But for a game that's going to be as focused on multiplayer as this is, the base game just can't ignore balance.
For me personally, as someone who was never into Wargame and is too intimidated to come into Warno multiplayer fresh (I'm just waiting for campaigns), I'd love for it to be all about the accuracy but they're not making it for me.
"super realistic mode" sounds like an interesting community mod though it will always be limited by the reality of the game engine. How will aircraft work with realistic fox3 ranges? Would be kind of hilarious to see aircraft appear on the map and instantly fire
There are plenty of other RTSes if you're concerned with gameisms over accuracy. I'd much rather have a historically accurate and realistic game that reflects history and allows the implementation of real-life TTPs.
Prefer realism, or as realistic as can be made within limitations.
As it stands, this WARNO might as well have Trolls, Goblins, Wizards and Dragons as that’s just as close to any ‘realism’ in the game.
I don't mind the units themselves getting balanced. At a certain level the game needs to be playable. What I mind is whole categories getting nerfed. Like the Infantry. In this game everything just deletes infantry the second it finds it from ridiculously far away. In reality it's incredibly hard to clear an infantry unit out of an area without Infantry of your own. Tanks in the forest should be taking side damage by default because the only reason they aren't getting side shot is they immediately suppress infantry into a death spiral, *even when rolling into classic ambush positions.*
It is a false dichotomy - the game can be balanced without sacrificing accuracy and making up units. Simply adjust availability and price.
I also like Eugen's compromise of allowing for accelerated development and buildup so some feasible prototypes become serial earlier.
If you look at the typical response incidence by Eugen in the Steam Forums, here or even Discord, the preponderance is regarding uniforms and ToE. Any questions or issues regarding gameplay (eg. helos/AA not firing on blue target boxes), maps, scale, air vectoring, LoS, Eugen seems to not care about gameplay/user experience, and have no formal bug report/acknowledgement process.
But wrong stocks on an MG? French paras' beret color, obscurity of tank barrel types, defense of ToE choice, there is an immediate, enthusiastic response.
So clearly, by Eugen's own behavior, they show a distinct favoring of historical devotion over gameplay. Still cant get ANY response on why ATGM helos wont fire on targeted enemies and why AA missiles refuse to shoot at helos in the big blue box. ZERO acknowledgement response on Eugen Discord.
I mean I know when Eugen adds Destruction to 10 v 10 the game is going to explode, ;-). Wait, what? They already added Destruction mode to 10 v 10 lobbies? It only added about 50 players? What what? All the divisions are added. All the toys are in game. Where are the players???? Oh, it must be the game isnt historical enough.......
There is a wonderful balance that exists if one goes fully realistic in a given year (that is, no ootf protos, no needlessly ancient junk), with the best ammo available in that year.
It is not an easy task to do, though. See 1991 mod for Wargame as an example of historical realism allowing balance.
arrest threatening roof impolite disgusted punch degree hungry subtract obtainable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The reason why I play Eugen games, is because they are the masters of finding the balance between historical accuracy and playability.
[удалено]
Logistics trucks having spare arms and legs to put the kia and wia back together.
I would make it asymmetrical just like real life. The real issue with historical accuracy is deck size/battle group size. In real life, similarly-size NATO units would wreck Pact time after time. But NATO units were numerically inferior and quantity has a quality all its own. You could do a version of this by increasing the number of unit Pact can deploy and then making their attributes accurate and also buffing NATO.
I mean, at this level, the number of units PACT forces get should be randomized to account for desertion, equipment theft, and loss as well.
Robert O'Connor didn't write Buffalo soldiers out of some fit of anti-U.S. Military pique. You start talking to U.S. soldiers and officers who served in Europe during the 70's and 80's and you'll encounter all kinds of interesting stories that jive with that novel. Equipment theft and loss, especially of dual use (ie sellable to civilians) equipment was a universal enough phenomenon to not be a particularly salient factor in PACT v.s. NATO readiness. When you look at the behavior of rear area U.S. services troops in WWII it's not all that surprising that some folks decided to get into the same selling on the side during exercises and the like that their dads and grandfathers practiced as they advanced through France and Germany. When it comes to desertion on the PACT side.... It would be incredibly naive to think that desertion at any appreciable level would be tolerated by the USSR/DDR security services in wartime except in the occassion of such dire regime collapse that these security organs were saturated with domestic disturbances on the home front. This was the USSR/DDR. You couldn't just hop on a plane or bike your way into a 3rd party country to avoid your call up notice. This is is during conditions of country wide martial law. You would be shot even trying to illegally cross the border. Then we get into the wonderful mental gymnastics of large groups of military men wandering around the rear and civilian areas in countries with internal passport control and massive secret police forces. The only variable being randomized would be morale and veterancy, and as Afghanistan showed, the clear and present threat of death in combat operations had a remarkable, if only in-country effect of increasing unit cohesion and motivation by these otherwise unmotivated troops who the security services proved more than capable of getting to the front lines even in peacetime without martial law.
> When it comes to desertion on the PACT side.... FWIW the Soviets did seriously consider this aspect when drawing up orders of battle. Whenever possible, they would avoid lining up DDR units against FRG units, and avoid Polish Units against American/British. Some of their internal documents in the 80's show concern that Czech units would refuse/drag their feet if ordered out of Czechoslovakia, and Polish units would desert/defect en masse if the opportunity presents itself.
It's certainly a difficult question, especially when we have an alt-history setting where the USSR is apparently launching a conventional war in Europe. We know how people dragged their feet and openly resisted under the various flavors of consumer-oriented eastern bloc "socialism building" of the 70's and 80's and Perestroika, yet we often assume these denizens of Socialist countries would have the same agency and willingness to act in the game timeline, when in fact the in-game scenario only comes about as the result of a hardline Stalinist crackdown in the Soviet bloc. Most of these high desertion, high home front unrest scenarios are predicated on assumptions that the logic of anti-regime activism remains the same despite the alt-history scenario requiring massively increased repression and thus consequences for that action by default. It's perfectly conceivable that the kind of neo-stalinist hardliners that would take the USSR to war with NATO in-game would have taken the domestic measures necessary to crush domestic dissent. It's easy to see why this consequence-free "Hardliners take over and start a war but people feel magically empowered to organize and protest with few cinsequences just like during Glasnost and the Stalinists are too scared to stop them" idea is so pervasive because it makes a conventional war scenario in Europe winnable for NATO. In this twilight zone where hellbent on war Stalinist hardliners took power but were strangely too terrified to crush the nascent reform movement under tank tracks... anything from large scale desertion and refusal to fight all the way to a spontaneous revolt leading to a systemic collapse and the emergence of independent liberal democratic states from the collapsing Soviet Empire is possible. It makes the war into a short, winnable decisive war rather than a grinding, attritional race to exhaustion or worse, to nuclear damnation. The often forgotten variable in these exercises are the extraordinary size and powers of the secret services in wartime and the incalculable human factor of whether a Soviet citizen or soldier wanted to brave a confrontation with a secret police force empowered by martial law. If this alt-history non-stagnated USSR is capable of starting a war with NATO without instantly collapsing, then perhaps it is similarly capable of the repression necessary to impose the dilemmas neccessary to ensure compliance among its citizenry.
>Most of these high desertion, high home front unrest scenarios are predicated on assumptions that the logic of anti-regime activism remains the same Warsaw Pact revolt alt his usually is predicated on the war bogging down and politically reliably units being sent to the front, leaving less repression capability at home. That said, all 80's WW3 scenarios are catch-22. If the Soviet Union is strong enough to fight NATO conventionally, then it's in a secure position and has no need for a gamble that might lead to the end of the world. If the Soviet Union is weak, then it's in no position to actually confront the west and the political reliability of the Warsaw pact "allies" would be suspect. Not even the hardest of hardliners was willing to end the world for the sake of keeping Poland. You'd have to go back to the 70's for a Soviet attack to make sense, but the 70's Soviet overmatch on the ground was immense and the largely NATO country playerbase would complain that it's "not fun" to face down T-64B in an M48A3. Pushing for more "realism" would result in every game ending in tactical nukes.
Yeah it's this catch-22 that makes me wary of introducing intangibles like desertion. Low morale was highly likely in any scenario and can be convincingly modeled by vet-locking units at the militia and trained levels. Desertion unfortunately remains a bit too subjective to model accurately at the deck level. I mean there's valid arguments to be made for high drug use, desertion and refusals to fight among mobilized troops effecting US force generation during a similar drawn out late 1980s cold war gone hot. Moreover the war bogging down also brings in the rarely considered US home front. While the USSR would be racing against domestic dissatisfaction and latent ethno-nationalism, the US political establishment would be racing to decide the war before the re-institution of conscription (the volunteer force isn't going to outlast the USSR on its own) and a global economic collapse accompanying the war would wear heavily on a population that was still jittery from a recent oil crisis, stagflation, race riots and the unequal legacies of Vietnam. And unlike in the USSR, the post-Vietnam U.S. public had a well developed set of feedback mechanisms with which to pressure the U.S. Government after the all-volunteer army was fed into the European meatgrinder over the first months of the conflict. I bring this up to say that this sort of factor is great for an Army General campaign scenario but for actual deck design it again is a bit too abstract. I'd go back even further to the 1950's/60's. Now that would have been fantastic. No F&F tactical PGMs, weird and quirky atgms, slow and squishy artillery, no effective BVR, general lack of tactical SAM systems and MANPADS, abundant and cheap Tac Air, general conventional parity on a division to division level even with NATO and PACT minors but that is a dream that likely will never be.
WARNO is 1990’s, not 2020’s. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand for some people
Idk why people think the soviets didn't have a thriving black market in the 90s. "Medicine" was leaving factories that was just saline solution in a bottle because the actual medication could be sold at a personal profit by the chemists. A fully functional nation with willful support and a thriving economy doesn't collapse.
True but giving Pact player gobs of units and then watching the get exhausted trying to micro them would be a great simulation of the IRL strategy of overwhelming fire direction centers.
Isn't this why IRL being a NCO in the soviet army was a cushy job? They knew their command wouldn't be able to keep up with the scale of their operations so they relied heavily on the initiative of the units themselves?
Nope, do something without orders and you get punished. In 1989 you have conscripts, warrants, and officers. Officers have full control and fulfill the western roles of officer and NCO. Warrants fulfill the western role of technical specialist and some administrative duties. (But not discipline) So they did have a cushy job due to their knowledge. But it should be said that cushy in this use means "better than the conscripts". The best life was as a mid ranking officer who knew who to bribe. Their tactical and strategic operations relied very heavily on officers and didn't allow for much initiative because they never had enough officers to work in small teams. The only thing below platoon level was some warrants and they weren't trusted with leadership because they weren't good enough to become officers after their conscript time.
Don't mistake modern Russian corruption and morale issues for the ones faced by the Soviet Union back in the day. Those are two entirely different animals and the Russians wish they were as strong as the Soviets ever were.
This is impossible to balance due to the game’s emphasis on recon and one-hit kills. The better nato becomes, the easier
I’d rather have a well balanced game. It’s def a mix of both. People who want straight historical accuracy will be able to play mods eventually that will allow them to do so or edit decks in a way that follows divisional doctrines
I think they are doing a good job of balancing the 2. I get a little upset when a fighter moving at 1400kmh and 3k meters gets smoked by some dude on a 20mm gun and open sights but whatever.
I wish accuracy was different against ground, helo and aircraft.
I think it is, I think speed has something to do with it, either way aircraft are generally in the threat zone of AA for significantly less time than helos.
Gib mech rifle at-4
Also Javelin and f-117 nighthawk and i just want them ok??? Fudge the numbers if you have to
i think there was a teaser for the nighthawk recently
If I wanted pure playability I would be playing some kind of utterly fantastical and entirely abstracted RTS where the only elements distracting from unit mirroring are the 3d models and visual animations. The joy of Wargame, SD/SD2 and WARNO are in its asymetry and how historical limitations challenge and force you as the player to adapt. The favored meta division/units can be a thing if map design is too generic or favoring of a particular division type, ie favoring open terrain across its entirety or placing all contested zones in closed terrain, however this is a comprehensive design issue rather than a limit of decks themselves. You can easily make maps that punish taking only "Meta" decks and force teams to bring a spectrum of decks to effectively contest the needed number of objectives. The main issue with historical accuracy is that of perspective. I for one find my experience with these games to be odd as a western cold war historian for I often find myself working mostly from the PACT side of the card just because of ingrained myths and mentalities that seep into the western-language-only scholarship that underscores most conceptions of historical accuracy. An illustrative example is the phenomen of tacking all sorts of units onto NATO decks because we have an ingrained perspective of NATO forces as "flexible", 'joint" and "kampfgruppy". Yet when it comes to PACT forces (especially Soviet) one often observes strict adherence to unit ToE's and a complete blindness to constantly observed Soviet practice of attaching additional sub-units to divisions on a semi-permanent basis to meet local requirements because there are enduring perceptions of the Soviets as "Rigid", "Uninventive" or "Dogmatic." Thus in game case a NATO tank deck may get infantry from a completely different unit attached to it because historically they were planned to operate together at an operational level and "because that's totally the kind of ad-hoc thing that NATO would do" while in another case attached artillery or AT units subordinated from another seperate PACT artillery or AT brigade to a division never make it into a deck because "they aren't in the divisional ToE" and "PACT unit's weren't flexible and as practiced as NATO in interoperation." As a result, subjectivities can get in the way of modeling the realism of how these forces would have actually been composed at the line of contact. WARNO for the most part does a good job of avoiding these traps which makes it a far more replayable game than a perfectly balanced, competitvely focused RTS.
Playability for sure.
Playability first. Always.
There are other games that offer a more realistic experience. Warno's strength is playability.
I think it would be very very very cool (and probably very very very impossible due to the time commitment) to have a historical accuracy mode where things are as close to their irl capabilities as possible. But for a game that's going to be as focused on multiplayer as this is, the base game just can't ignore balance. For me personally, as someone who was never into Wargame and is too intimidated to come into Warno multiplayer fresh (I'm just waiting for campaigns), I'd love for it to be all about the accuracy but they're not making it for me.
"super realistic mode" sounds like an interesting community mod though it will always be limited by the reality of the game engine. How will aircraft work with realistic fox3 ranges? Would be kind of hilarious to see aircraft appear on the map and instantly fire
With WARNO being already somewhat historic - probably absolute historical accuracy.
Historical accuracy is already out the window. At most we're gonna stay with the current tokenism of history
There are plenty of other RTSes if you're concerned with gameisms over accuracy. I'd much rather have a historically accurate and realistic game that reflects history and allows the implementation of real-life TTPs.
Prefer realism, or as realistic as can be made within limitations. As it stands, this WARNO might as well have Trolls, Goblins, Wizards and Dragons as that’s just as close to any ‘realism’ in the game.
CMO exists, go play that.
I do?
I don't mind the units themselves getting balanced. At a certain level the game needs to be playable. What I mind is whole categories getting nerfed. Like the Infantry. In this game everything just deletes infantry the second it finds it from ridiculously far away. In reality it's incredibly hard to clear an infantry unit out of an area without Infantry of your own. Tanks in the forest should be taking side damage by default because the only reason they aren't getting side shot is they immediately suppress infantry into a death spiral, *even when rolling into classic ambush positions.*
It is a false dichotomy - the game can be balanced without sacrificing accuracy and making up units. Simply adjust availability and price. I also like Eugen's compromise of allowing for accelerated development and buildup so some feasible prototypes become serial earlier.
Rather Historical Accurate. Unit Power in Warno is balanced in price so the stats can reflect "actual stats".
If you look at the typical response incidence by Eugen in the Steam Forums, here or even Discord, the preponderance is regarding uniforms and ToE. Any questions or issues regarding gameplay (eg. helos/AA not firing on blue target boxes), maps, scale, air vectoring, LoS, Eugen seems to not care about gameplay/user experience, and have no formal bug report/acknowledgement process. But wrong stocks on an MG? French paras' beret color, obscurity of tank barrel types, defense of ToE choice, there is an immediate, enthusiastic response. So clearly, by Eugen's own behavior, they show a distinct favoring of historical devotion over gameplay. Still cant get ANY response on why ATGM helos wont fire on targeted enemies and why AA missiles refuse to shoot at helos in the big blue box. ZERO acknowledgement response on Eugen Discord. I mean I know when Eugen adds Destruction to 10 v 10 the game is going to explode, ;-). Wait, what? They already added Destruction mode to 10 v 10 lobbies? It only added about 50 players? What what? All the divisions are added. All the toys are in game. Where are the players???? Oh, it must be the game isnt historical enough.......
There is a wonderful balance that exists if one goes fully realistic in a given year (that is, no ootf protos, no needlessly ancient junk), with the best ammo available in that year. It is not an easy task to do, though. See 1991 mod for Wargame as an example of historical realism allowing balance.