Is this basically Wargame 4?

[Green Raven]

The sequel to Red Dragon, as it were?

[Sirius]

No. Yes. Maybe.

It isn't really, technically.

More like WarSteel DivisionDragon 2.5.

[Hexagon]

It is, but with more modern mechanics from SD2

[Ainar Suleimenov]

I would personally not say that it is

[HELLCAT]

Waro has the same vibe as RD, so I guess u could say that it is Wargame 4 in some way

[DanTheMan]

No not really. This is Steel Division '89. The units are similar to Red Dragon, the gameplay and scale is similar to SD2. Red Dragon has much more direct look and feel to gameplay and scale. While this WGRD has it's spammy moments, this is just as spammy, especially with infantry. The game play is very numb and its kind of a rush units to the front game, unless you are playing 50 pieces of artillery. I play both, but going back to RD after WARNO is kind of a relief.

[Aegmar]

In a way, but its more restrictive with the Division System (which is a good thing imo) and doesn't allow for the wild (and often exploitative) Deckbuilding common in WGRD.

Each Deck will have a more narrow (and historically mostly accurate) selection of units, no T-34 spam acting as meat shields for a 2005 Prototype Super Tank on the same Battlefield, which was always one of the more goofy and annoying aspects of Red Dragon.

It looks much better (of course) and featured much more complex maps and terrain, but its basically the same concept of a game. It takes as much (if not more) from Steel Division as it does from RD.

[SaxonRaider]

Its a completely different game to me. Not a bad game. Just a lot different from WG series.

[Groucho]

I mean, basic formula is the same, just more polished and with divisions. Then again we can pick on the minor differences, but overall same formula