Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
No, it's not irony.
BA still has a ton of Strat Involved; biggest key is the recon; must be closer, but stealth is better.
Units do not go down in one shot either, way too many youtube videos to compare.
So there is Recon outside of drones you just have to know how to do it. Again, they have much better stealth; the way a Recon Unit should be designed IMO---> Less Spammy and More Campy unless detected properly.
---> it's like woa, their Arty is spot on, there must be a recon unit around somewhere and you have to go a hunting. With WARNO it's throwing unit after unit in their; yes Recon has it's benefits but with all the spam involved there is less risk in not detecting as long as you win the numbers battle.
I get it, I am stretching my frustration with WARNO with my wording but still not off base in terms of experience and I know I am not alone.
I see a lot of new comers so frustrated and rightly so---> WARNO is too unforgiving with less strategy & more Spam when there should be more less Spam and more strategy.
This goes back to Eugene's Design goals with SD 44 and SD 2; they even admitted the design goals were different---> (44) More Expensive Units but More Health vs. (SD 2) Less Expensive Units and Less Health.
The Core Fan Base clearly likes the latter better and hey, have at it, to each their own. I am happy many enjoy this game because it helps the genre. For me I have to stick with the Mods which means less MP & that kinda stinks.
Thanks for sharing Ahriman. :)
Agreed, as I said to Ahriman---> I am happy people are enjoying WARNO.
It helps the genre.
The Foundation & Core Game-play is Awesome, just some design & balance issues that are too frustrating for me to enjoy the Vanilla experience.
I would take a DIet Mountain Dew any day even over the Regular Stuff. ;)
Cheers and Happy Gaming.
Not a bad pick at all, great game that one, waiting for the British with mighty interest.
Very optimistic take to think BA will launch in June. This is the annual reminder that the devs have pushed the game back 3 times by now, and in one year's time when they previously pushed the game back, they had managed to add 2 additional battlegroups, and new maps, as well as the first iteration of the Scenarios from the previous test. At that point, they still lacked 4 additional battlegroups out of the promised 10 (5 unique for both sides), the Editor itself, Campaign, and by far the biggest and most vital part of the game, a proper infra for their servers.
If it takes them 1 year per 2 battlegroups, you are looking at another 2 more before they reach that goal, and that still leaves us with the vital server infra to do, alongside the myriad of bug fixes and an absolutely horrendous pile of balancing problems to address.
Just highlighting this because if you think WARNO is bad right now, then you'll most likely have a heart attack when BA one day comes out, probably in '26-'27 with their current development rate.
I also like broken arrow but the number 1 thing i do not like is that the demo campaign we played is 100% the same everytime you start a new game. The enemy units are always the same and always located the same location, and even patrol along the same path.
Just saying though the campaign is good then the replay value might not be the same experience when you know what is waiting around every corner.
I did not try multiplayer and i dont know if there is any skirmish in singleplayer or something like that either.
But els i think the game is great.
regarding warno then you have several dynamic campaigns and they do play out a bit different BUT still the campaign start with the same units, but how the war evolve will change the movement of the enemy on the campaign map.
Personaly i have suggested that campaigns get more random that every time you start a new campaign there is a random chance that x units might be missing or is replaced with other divisions ect.. maybe sometimes enemy have more tanks, other times more planes ect.
it would just be great if things where less predictable.
I know they want to be historic accurate but still its just a game ;-)
But els the units are great, sound is awesome and the battles them self is great and maps are great. But sometimes the campaign battles are kind of unfair.
Example the enemy quite often can bring planes to the battle while you already used yours and well the west air defences are not that many so it kind of unfair sometimes. Also the east just have such a huge amount of tanks it also feel a bit unfair sometimes.. but ofocurse that is to simulate that the gigantic red army have arrived and you need to make a hastly defence with what you have and wait for reinforcement or regrouping of units to come to the aid kind of thing. Well long story short i think warno is great, and i hope for a warno 2 and that we might get sea battles ;-)
To each their own in what they enjoy; game on fellow gamers.
One of the biggest Issues with these types of games is the Range of Units.
SD 44 max was about 1600.
SD 2 was a glass cannon unit spam fest, so honestly range did not matter as much because it was more a numbers game of advancing properly at the right time.
WARNO---> it's modern day, so the range is significantly increased.
For me, the maps are still not big enough for this game to be enjoyable in comparison to the deadly range of the units.
Some Controversial Statements for the Hardcore WARNO Fans:
Half the Range (about) of all Weaponry and Double the Health of all Units.
Ground max range being about 1600 to 1800 (not including Arty.)
More Arty Suppression & Less Immediate Deaths.
More Building Health / More Defensive Bonus for building & forest concealment.
More Heli Suppression (giving a chance to retreat & Less 1 shot 1 kill Deaths.)
Huge Increase in Stealth for Recon units and even regular infantry units in buildings & forests (recon more of course.) The detection range is "STUPID" & ruins any sort of recon activity enjoyment.
Limit the Immediate Detection Range of Recon Units; allow the detection to be more in line with BA.
Only allow certain vehicles with the right front end equipment to go through forest; huge slow penalty if not; aurora bonus speed if right vehicle is present.
No Airplane attacks on Low Altitude Heli's (easy counter if fast enough / pay the price if not paying attention but rewarded if you are.)
You will get a much more enjoyable experience IMO.
As it is now, you have the hardcore fan-base that love the game and take it very serious; not so welcoming to new players due to the unforgiving environment of Unit Range Interactions.
Broken Arrow---> It's more a balance between long range and short range.
Most Recon units have to get up close and this is a good thing if you like a more focused tactical (from one small map section to another) experience.
I found this "shorter range experience" to be so in SD 44 , but not in SD 2 (too spammy) and only in WARNO when it first came out; a lone AA unit would suppress an Air unit causing retreat when WARNO first came out. More than one AA unit depending on the price would be more deadly & that had to be strategically accounted for in your decision making. Now it's a one shot one kill spam fest or should I say 1.5.
-----> The fan base for this series love the AA Units, and they will Cry a River if their precious 2 man squad cannot punish Heli's in seconds- wa wa wa wa wa.
-----> The hard core fan base philosophy is regardless of the unit (type, trait, cost, etc.) if positioned properly, you should be able to take out that 3 more times expensive unit in every instance; yes they have influenced the decision making of the Devs in balancing WARNO over time.
With BA you have to get closer with most of your Recon Units and then your longer range weaponry can be more effective. You will have a chance to retreat as well in most cases.
So basically it's harder & more strategic IMO with BA than WARNO.
It still takes effort in WARNO, more than one type of recon unit is available (different traits) but again it's such a spam fest with such long range it turns into a slug fest that is not enjoyable for some.
--------------------------------My Summary--------------------------------
WARNO: Slug Fest (longer range) that's not enjoyable.
Broken Arrow: Slug Fest (shorter range) that is very enjoyable.
There was a Warno MOD that doubled the health of all units and it was more enjoyable but due to the frustration of Warno's Updates & their prior modding tools (just recently updated for the better) forcing a lot time needed for modders to update their work, it is no longer being supported.
SD 44: Higher Cost - Higher Health Units (smaller army focus) to reflect WW2 Western Battles.
SD 2: Lower Cost - Lower Health Units (larger army focus) to reflect WW2 Eastern Battles.
WARNO: Higher Cost Units that die like glass cannons (minus the tanks) to reflect the consistent crying of the hard core fan base.
Broken Arrow: More of an overall Balanced Cost vs. Effectiveness Approach that has a system where the units will replenish over time (smaller focused battles for each player but on decent sized maps.)
There are some aspects I really like about WARNO; I am very thankful for this game.
I will continue to support Eugene and buy all the DLC coming out.
But the balance is such a huge turn off; it's just not enjoyable anymore for me (attempting to mod myself if I get the time and waiting on another to come along to spark back the interest.)
So since these two games are two different animals when you open the hood & look inside, it is not irony to say "I am so looking forward to Broken Arrow" being released.
To each their own and Happy Gaming.
Clusters kill infantry in buildings. Mortars being totally useless unless used for smoke screen.
Stealth of recon units looks lacking even if exeptional. Scout heli with just good uptics can spot anti tank infantry in woods from more than 1.5 km.
And the most retarded decap mechanics with smoking the angle of zone to put CV inside for few seconds to decap and than move it back.
Price balance of 40% units is retarded, some units are overpriced, some have 12 anti tank missles with 26 pen and cost 80.
And I really miss old battlegroup building system. Plus some tweaks-variants of same unit like in Broken Arrow would be nice.
Thing is, warno is simply worse than red dragon.
This is just short list of most frustrating stuff one by one.
BA provides simply better experience instead of wall on wall of dozens units you don't even give a damn spending, since you you have fixed stable income tick.
On the other side BA arti is crap, and anti overkill system needs to be tweaked.
Do you really enjoy watching team of elite snipers shooting enemy infantry 50 times to kill 2-3 guys?
But... BA doesn't even have an AI, only a script that runs the pre-set waypoints for the scenario. Once you figure out what those pre-routes are, and memorize all locations of enemy units which never move, or where the script gets stuck, you can just Cruise Missile them to death and win that way.
While WARNO AI is not even close to great, at least the game has one.
BA AI is utterly brain dead. Like you said the scripting is much more simple.
Actually that's the thing, it doesn't have an AI in the same vein as it usually is in RTS games, such as WARNO. That's why you couldn't play against one in MP, nor did it replace a player if they dropped, even if you 'assigned' one through editing the map file. Caused a few funny moments, such as narrow victory on the Scenario Attack at the last point because the AI spotted 2 of my 3 Infantry units that had sneaked in, and the second it had finished killing them, it returned back to the original pathway it had been assigned to, leaving the point despite me still being there, and attempting to cap.
In my experience, most of the players that are making up these claims about the state of BA do it with a heavy dose of cope about what they wish the game will be, not focusing even remotely on what has been shown so far, or the fact that the devs have not spoken a word about the pipeline beyond a few vague comments. Among them is of course pricing and DLC policy, both of which are unknown beyond the fact that they will be introducing new battlegroups and nations as part of the DLCs, and have made no mentions about them being free, yet I have seen a fair share of comments making funny claims that because the devs have not given a price on anything, they must be free, because they aren't Eugen.
It's the same reason why the devs of BA are most likely extremely scared to actually release their game until it is in effectively flawless state. They have seen the level of coping their community is suffering from regarding the devs, ignoring the most critical detail about the devs themselves. This is their very first game. These people are genuinely expecting a first-time developer to deliver a Game of the Year quality title as their first ever game, on the scale that BA is, using an era of warfare that is well known for its "unbalance" due to technology which already demanded that they artificially limit what US is allowed to have while stacking the Russians with unicorn units the latter can't even produce in this day and age to ensure that Russia even gets a chance.
I feel so bad for Steel Balalaika because of this expectation.
At least BA devs listeen to wargame pro players and fixed some of ciritical issues including balance and they will continue. BA devs have a long way to improve their game, but at least they are trying.
What do we have in warno? :D
I guess we all know the answer)))
"historical realism" from the point of view of (looks like) zero history compentent devs.
I would really love to sit down in a house with rpk74, line up devs 400 meters away in the open field, and let them try to charge me in open field.
Or let them board a truck/sit inside the house and let me fire full pack of zuni rockets on them.
Oh yeah and decap mechanics...
What about single player? some scenarios, with 1-2 being somewhat good, arny general could be good but it's basically dropped half way, Red Dragon campaings look better.