Why is this game so much more fun than Warno?

[Hungry Joe]

Played both recently, tried Warno again last week with army general, which is a good idea. But the tactical gameplay itself, for me is just not as fun. I can't really put my finger on it but this game seems like a better balance of micro and macro? What do you prefer and why?

Looking forward to see where they take it, because it's quite smooth and polished IMO. Warno looks better and maybe the scale is better, but this is the better game I think.

[Un-Kool Breeze]

i feel like warno and wargame red dragon just have way too much micro going for it to be honest, you would have like 15 ground units active at once and its just really hard to manage all of them efficiently

[Mango]

I didn't play warno, but I did play its predecessors wargames and to me the biggest issue is all the pretty graphics and "realism" mean nothing in the face of frantic micro APM based gameplay that requires you to babysit individual vehicles.

[EngineeringDIver]

Originally posted by Hungry Joe:

Played both recently, tried Warno again last week with army general, which is a good idea. But the tactical gameplay itself, for me is just not as fun. I can't really put my finger on it but this game seems like a better balance of micro and macro? What do you prefer and why?

Looking forward to see where they take it, because it's quite smooth and polished IMO. Warno looks better and maybe the scale is better, but this is the better game I think.

Micromanaging fest. With you controlling platoons instead of individual units it reduces your need to babysit every vehicle present in the battlefield.

[DeciNinja]

I think the mission design (including the skirmish modes) in Regiments are a big part of the appeal. In Warno you always drive forward as fast as possible to set where the front line is, then spend the entire game trying to attrit the enemy enough that you can push forward a little. There aren't a lot of big, bold maneuvers. In Regiments, there's more variety and the front lines are usually not static. You're usually either pushing hard to seize your objectives in time, or scrambling to respond to the latest crisis; I feel that I have more agency than in Warno.

Of course, there's also the lower micro ceiling which makes Regiments more relaxing as well.

[JuBa/ obelix11111]

Exactly, that is what I like about Regiments. I pushed yesterday to far with my scouting units, because I wanted to take the last enemy's occupation. But they hat an ambush prepared, I acted like a fool (I ordered them to drive back, not to drive backwards and did not turn on shooting at will, so they got wiped out). Then I had to take defensive posture and got lucky I did it, as the enemy lunched an attack by himself. I defended it and tried to push myself, which then was successfull.
I like also that you have like fixed reinforcements and cannot buy too much stuff, like you have yout starting battailon and then can select from some reinforcements with pro and cons. There you have to think what you might need, not that you bring the wrong reinforcements in.

And the biggest point for me is the lower micro managment. I played Steel Division some time and gave it up because of the high grade of micro managment. Also the smaller scaled maps I like, there is still much to do but you/I can handle it better. Also the changing of day and night and the weather are nice features.

[vyrago]

WARNO requires crazy micromanagement. You have to constantly use active pause and control your units. In Regiments, you can focus on your plan or zoom in an enjoy the battles. While the Army General campaigns in WARNO are pretty cool, I find myself using autoresolve more & more. Cant wait for Winds of Change.

[NorowaretaTenshi]

Warno seems like StarCraft with modern units. I enjoyed Steel Division 2 (still am but playing only against AI). Back to topic Warno is really fast paced game, tanks are unrealisticaly fast, you're supposed to like turn off some weapons like ATGM on tanks or SEAD units when there is plane above. There is so much micro managing in fast pace that it's simply not pleasant. Regiments feel way more realistic and slow paced.

[dumba]

Warno is an inconsistent mix of elements of varying quality, which often don't fit together well and/or are just poorly made. Regiments looks more like a well-rounded effort with consistent production values.

[SKL-1]

This very much stem from spam vs micro, sadly for Eugene they took the spam route, increasing the size of playing field, increasing income/resources and gave the player more units too, in such instance process allocation is thinned to the limit where you can't handle any piece of the map and the correct answer to issues is just sending more and more units. This is one aspect.

The other aspect is that when comes to the campaign missions, they are handfully created as oppose to procedurally made, thus the missions feel like playing a good old days RTS campaign missions rather than a skirmish match.

[tvanscoy]

I am a Boomer noob to these types of games but I have played both and have to say WARNO presents itself well with the music and graphics but I can see how it would be insane with all those units.

[Rommelstiltskin]

Ai can't handle warno. The multiplayer is great if you like that

[Hungry Joe]

Originally posted by tvanscoy:

I am a Boomer noob to these types of games but I have played both and have to say WARNO presents itself well with the music and graphics but I can see how it would be insane with all those units.

Yeah, the Warno vibe and production is just great.

yeah I agree with everyone elses comments, you articulated my feeling well!

[DeLastOne]

SD2 is way better than WARNO to that perspective, less micro stuff. And yea Regiment is fantastic as well :)

[S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 LIGHTSABER MOD]

Originally posted by DeciNinja:

In Warno you always drive forward as fast as possible to set where the front line is, then spend the entire game trying to attrit the enemy enough that you can push forward a little. There aren't a lot of big, bold maneuvers.

This is why I would always host 2v2 games using a big 3v3 or 4v4 map. Plus, I would make it a low point game (tactical). The combination of the low points and the big map would make it much easier to flank and break through somewhere, even in games which have dragged on for a long time.

Still, I have a lot of games where both sides still end up carpet bombing each other with arty to try to create a gap that they can break through.

[Spiderman4000]

i cannot get the game to run without it crashing my pc. I can play warno and skull and bones for hours with no problem