Division vs Deck System

[Savage_912]

Have the developers already answered the reasoning behind why they decided to go with the divisional deck system instead of the national deck system WGRD had?

Was there a community poll or test group that assisted in this decision or was this just a choice made despite popular demand? I'm genuinely curious. I have an idea of why this decision was made but I'd like a rational answer as why this change was made.

I can't imagine it being too difficult to give players the option to play PVP using both deck systems. Or before final release making the change to the national deck system all together. For single player purposes the division deck system works; however, for PVP it just seems to limit player creativity and choice.

[151]

Originally posted by Savage_912:

I am very glad to see that "some" of the WARNO community understands the point of this thread.

As you've stated, players are customers. As paying customers, it's not insane to request the most from the developers for our money. I also purchased WARNO day 1, knowing and accepting the "early access" tag. I was sincerely hoping that it being an early access launch, the developers would highly consider player feedback and criticism. From my perspective, the developers had a clear plan for WARNO; despite what the majority of the community wanted. Why they chose to limit the game to the 1989 Cold War era and why they chose to limit the game to "divisions only" I honestly wish I knew the answer. It truly seems they want to mirror the paid DLC format from SD2 and charge players over $200.00 for content that was worth less than $50.00 in WG:RD.

It is our responsibility as paying customers and players who enjoy this franchise to criticize the development direction of a game that's strayed off the path. It doesn't mean we don't support the game or don't support the developers. It means, we simply want the best experience for the money.

Precisely.

[Alpha2518]

Originally posted by 151:

What's the point of making a TO&E when not following the division's actual TO&E in real life? Historically the 82nd AB only received detachment from the 73rd Cavalry Regiment and the 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment as it was and still is a light infantry division that is created for rapid deployment. It's literally going against the division's purpose to have heavy cavalry units in its TO&E. Just as I've said, they could get armored support from the 194th Brigade or even from the 1st Armored, IN THE CAMPAIGN. But the Abrams and Bradley shouldn't be always available for them, as if they have been integrated into the division, in multi-player mode. Not even to mention the ridiculous mix of units from two completely different branches in the 35th Air Assault.

If things are "fictional", then why doesn't the French 11th Para get armor and mechanized support? And WGRD is fictional as well, then why couldn't players make their own deck and say it's 1st Infantry Division with detachments that are needed for operational requirements? Double standard it is. "Fiction" is not an excuse to make things that go entirely against real life history.

For a game, especially for RTS which are born to be PVP focused, active player count tells its quality and it matters a lot. No matter how great or innovative the game mechanics are, if people don't like it, they don't adopt it. And the game becomes a dead game fast. Now the game is neither historically authentic, nor is it creative and entertaining; It can neither please the hardcore players, nor can it please the casual players. That's why changes are needed so that the game doesn't end up being as dead as Regiments.

I'm amazed that you cannot arrive at the point simply due to one being a vast armory and one being TOE restricted so now I will explain it in the next sentence to you like a child. WG force composition is a sandbox. You use whatever is available in the sandbox's armory. WARNO you are restricted to the what you have to use like a real commander.

Now that being said you completely ignored my point as to why they don't use the 73rd which is in the plans that we know of. Answer the question, what is stopping a NATO commander from using another unit like in the game if it is operationally required? Because at the end of the day the military will default to what wins. If that means having to detach Abrams from one unit and attach it to the 82nd because that is what they need in that moment they will do that. This is not hard to grasp.

The plans are just that plans, useful for organizing and making sure you got the logistics set, and making sure you have the forces you need to achieve your objectives. But useless once you get punched in the face. Even Eisenshower the Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 that he found plans are uselss, but planning is essential. That is an actual quote you can look up.

Now as to WGRD, you can do that if you so choose to recreate a division. I've done that. You will find yourself at a disadvantage from people don't follow such restrictions because it's a sandbox of force composition. You are only limited by the settings of the type of deck (mechanized, armored, etc) and if it is a coalition or not. Big difference.

And just because it is a work of fiction doesn't necessitate throwing out the TOE restrictions. We can't see the writing for the scenarios were Eugene determined these attachments/detachments reasonably make sense, not from a planning requirement, but from a operational requirement with how they structured their campaigns with how they think it might've played out. That means there's a whole bunch of other possible scenarios that might exist were 82nd gets attachments and detachments from a whole bunch of other units.

After all what do you do as the NATO commander if you can't get your detachments from the 73rd CR and attach them to the 82nd? The answer, you probably have to draw them from somewhere else because that is what you have to do even though the plans say otherwise because it is operationally required.

That should literally be the end of why they don't use the 73rd because for whatever reason in the setting, it couldn't be done and we don't know why because the games not released and that doesn't guarantee the reasoning of why the 73rd couldn't reach the 82nd will be covered. Could be a myriad of reasons, all we know is that for some reason it can't be done.

[Abashed the Devil Stood]

Originally posted by Alpha2518:

Originally posted by 151:

What's the point of making a TO&E when not following the division's actual TO&E in real life? Historically the 82nd AB only received detachment from the 73rd Cavalry Regiment and the 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment as it was and still is a light infantry division that is created for rapid deployment. It's literally going against the division's purpose to have heavy cavalry units in its TO&E. Just as I've said, they could get armored support from the 194th Brigade or even from the 1st Armored, IN THE CAMPAIGN. But the Abrams and Bradley shouldn't be always available for them, as if they have been integrated into the division, in multi-player mode. Not even to mention the ridiculous mix of units from two completely different branches in the 35th Air Assault.

If things are "fictional", then why doesn't the French 11th Para get armor and mechanized support? And WGRD is fictional as well, then why couldn't players make their own deck and say it's 1st Infantry Division with detachments that are needed for operational requirements? Double standard it is. "Fiction" is not an excuse to make things that go entirely against real life history.

For a game, especially for RTS which are born to be PVP focused, active player count tells its quality and it matters a lot. No matter how great or innovative the game mechanics are, if people don't like it, they don't adopt it. And the game becomes a dead game fast. Now the game is neither historically authentic, nor is it creative and entertaining; It can neither please the hardcore players, nor can it please the casual players. That's why changes are needed so that the game doesn't end up being as dead as Regiments.

I'm amazed that you cannot arrive at the point simply due to one being a vast armory and one being TOE restricted so now I will explain it in the next sentence to you like a child. WG force composition is a sandbox. You use whatever is available in the sandbox's armory. WARNO you are restricted to the what you have to use like a real commander.

Now that being said you completely ignored my point as to why they don't use the 73rd which is in the plans that we know of. Answer the question, what is stopping a NATO commander from using another unit like in the game if it is operationally required? Because at the end of the day the military will default to what wins. If that means having to detach Abrams from one unit and attach it to the 82nd because that is what they need in that moment they will do that. This is not hard to grasp.

The plans are just that plans, useful for organizing and making sure you got the logistics set, and making sure you have the forces you need to achieve your objectives. But useless once you get punched in the face. Even Eisenshower the Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 that he found plans are uselss, but planning is essential. That is an actual quote you can look up.

Now as to WGRD, you can do that if you so choose to recreate a division. I've done that. You will find yourself at a disadvantage from people don't follow such restrictions because it's a sandbox of force composition. You are only limited by the settings of the type of deck (mechanized, armored, etc) and if it is a coalition or not. Big difference.

And just because it is a work of fiction doesn't necessitate throwing out the TOE restrictions. We can't see the writing for the scenarios were Eugene determined these attachments/detachments reasonably make sense, not from a planning requirement, but from a operational requirement with how they structured their campaigns with how they think it might've played out. That means there's a whole bunch of other possible scenarios that might exist were 82nd gets attachments and detachments from a whole bunch of other units.

After all what do you do as the NATO commander if you can't get your detachments from the 73rd CR and attach them to the 82nd? The answer, you probably have to draw them from somewhere else because that is what you have to do even though the plans say otherwise because it is operationally required.

That should literally be the end of why they don't use the 73rd because for whatever reason in the setting, it couldn't be done and we don't know why because the games not released and that doesn't guarantee the reasoning of why the 73rd couldn't reach the 82nd will be covered. Could be a myriad of reasons, all we know is that for some reason it can't be done.

And more importantly so they can sell DLC.

[151]

Originally posted by Alpha2518:

I'm amazed that you cannot arrive at the point simply due to one being a vast armory and one being TOE restricted so now I will explain it in the next sentence to you like a child. WG force composition is a sandbox. You use whatever is available in the sandbox's armory. WARNO you are restricted to the what you have to use like a real commander.

Now that being said you completely ignored my point as to why they don't use the 73rd which is in the plans that we know of. Answer the question, what is stopping a NATO commander from using another unit like in the game if it is operationally required? Because at the end of the day the military will default to what wins. If that means having to detach Abrams from one unit and attach it to the 82nd because that is what they need in that moment they will do that. This is not hard to grasp.

The plans are just that plans, useful for organizing and making sure you got the logistics set, and making sure you have the forces you need to achieve your objectives. But useless once you get punched in the face. Even Eisenshower the Supreme Allied Commander of WW2 that he found plans are uselss, but planning is essential. That is an actual quote you can look up.

Now as to WGRD, you can do that if you so choose to recreate a division. I've done that. You will find yourself at a disadvantage from people don't follow such restrictions because it's a sandbox of force composition. You are only limited by the settings of the type of deck (mechanized, armored, etc) and if it is a coalition or not. Big difference.

And just because it is a work of fiction doesn't necessitate throwing out the TOE restrictions. We can't see the writing for the scenarios were Eugene determined these attachments/detachments reasonably make sense, not from a planning requirement, but from a operational requirement with how they structured their campaigns with how they think it might've played out. That means there's a whole bunch of other possible scenarios that might exist were 82nd gets attachments and detachments from a whole bunch of other units.

After all what do you do as the NATO commander if you can't get your detachments from the 73rd CR and attach them to the 82nd? The answer, you probably have to draw them from somewhere else because that is what you have to do even though the plans say otherwise because it is operationally required.

That should literally be the end of why they don't use the 73rd because for whatever reason in the setting, it couldn't be done and we don't know why because the games not released and that doesn't guarantee the reasoning of why the 73rd couldn't reach the 82nd will be covered. Could be a myriad of reasons, all we know is that for some reason it can't be done.

Clearly you are just another person who didn't the the full thread before jumping to a false conclusion. I've stated like 3 times under this post, that if Eugen purely just wants to limit the strength of players' decks, fine. Do it the Broken Arrow way or simply by limiting the WGRD style decks to themed decks only. But not making a cringe division system that doesn't follow the real life battle order and equipment used. What is the point of making a system that provides neither immersion nor fun at all?

"If the commander needs attachments from other units for the operation, he gets whatever is needed in order to win" ; "A commander in real life doesn't get everything, so the choices of unit should be restricted" You are literally contradicting with yourself. Or is it just double standard that you think it's okay for Eugen to stick attachments into a random deck, but not okay for the players to do so?

Besides, the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment is made for airborne rapid deployment. And it's officially in the order of battle in the 82nd Airborne Division. If the 82nd Airborne is sent to Europe, so would the cavalries, as light armor support. It has nothing to do with planning, it's how the division is composed and how it works. And you are making up a story of which the cavalries can't reach the 82nd AB? Such argument won't stand. Another thing is that the Sheridans of the 73rd Cavalry are actually in the game. So obviously you have a poor understanding of the TO&E and the game.

In WGRD, no one is forcing you to form a restricted deck. Nor could you force anyone to play with a restricted deck. But you have opportunities to play with themed decks, meme decks or meta decks for every single faction. In Warno, everyone is forced to play restricted decks, yes. Yet while all divisions are restricted, in terms of unit and tactical availabilities, some are even more restricted. Just look at the 8th ID then compare it with TerrKomSud or the 11th Para. So, in terms of balancing, the division system is not any better than the deck system. And what the division system cannot offer, is the choices for players. If you hate to let players have choices, then division system isn't the thing you're looking for. What you're looking for, would be the unit system of traditional RTS games which players are given a fixed set of unit selection, like that in MOW and COH.

[Mighty-Python-20]

Go play the mods

[Mighty-Python-20]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2804602249&searchtext=freedom

[Alpha2518]

Originally posted by 151:

Clearly you are just another person who didn't the the full thread before jumping to a false conclusion. I've stated like 3 times under this post, that if Eugen purely just wants to limit the strength of players' decks, fine. Do it the Broken Arrow way or simply by limiting the WGRD style decks to themed decks only. But not making a cringe division system that doesn't follow the real life battle order and equipment used. What is the point of making a system that provides neither immersion nor fun at all?

"If the commander needs attachments from other units for the operation, he gets whatever is needed in order to win" ; "A commander in real life doesn't get everything, so the choices of unit should be restricted" You are literally contradicting with yourself. Or is it just double standard that you think it's okay for Eugen to stick attachments into a random deck, but not okay for the players to do so?

Besides, the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment is made for airborne rapid deployment. And it's officially in the order of battle in the 82nd Airborne Division. If the 82nd Airborne is sent to Europe, so would the cavalries, as light armor support. It has nothing to do with planning, it's how the division is composed and how it works. And you are making up a story of which the cavalries can't reach the 82nd AB? Such argument won't stand. Another thing is that the Sheridans of the 73rd Cavalry are actually in the game. So obviously you have a poor understanding of the TO&E and the game.

In WGRD, no one is forcing you to form a restricted deck. Nor could you force anyone to play with a restricted deck. But you have opportunities to play with themed decks, meme decks or meta decks for every single faction. In Warno, everyone is forced to play restricted decks, yes. Yet while all divisions are restricted, in terms of unit and tactical availabilities, some are even more restricted. Just look at the 8th ID then compare it with TerrKomSud or the 11th Para. So, in terms of balancing, the division system is not any better than the deck system. And what the division system cannot offer, is the choices for players. If you hate to let players have choices, then division system isn't the thing you're looking for. What you're looking for, would be the unit system of traditional RTS games which players are given a fixed set of unit selection, like that in MOW and COH.

I am not contradicting myself and I have read the thread. What part of operational requirements driving which units are attached and detached do you not understand even if you have plans that say otherwise. To put it this way, you are the NATO commander, 73rd CR cannot make their way to reinforce 82nd with their detachment like the plan you keep citing calls for. But 193rd Armored BDE is able to do this and give them the armor support they need now. Bear in mind the reason the 193rd is drawn from is for heavier armor which the 82nd might need support from.Do you let the 82nd continue to suffer without armor support or do you adjust to operational reality and detach some units from the 193rd to give the 82nd the armor support they need. Tick tok commander.

And you now you are contradicting yourself. You cite plans that call for the 73rd that have existed and now you say plans that don't matter and then continue to cite reasons why those plans existed in the first place. And yes my argument will stand. You are not the entire 82nd AB which is a force of about 10,000 men. You are a vastly smaller component and it is perfectly feasible for one part of a division to be unable to assist another part. If you think otherwise you have no understanding of warfare because one of the most basic things you can do is render enemy forces unable to support each other.

And finally WARNO does let players have choices. What they are not are the same choices in WG because the design philosophy is different. It is sandbox (with certain restrictions) vs being division and TOE restricted not counting any attachments from friendly forces that make sense.

[Amormaliar]

Originally posted by 151:

Clearly you are just another person who didn't the the full thread before jumping to a false conclusion. I've stated like 3 times under this post, that if Eugen purely just wants to limit the strength of players' decks, fine. Do it the Broken Arrow way or simply by limiting the WGRD style decks to themed decks only. But not making a cringe division system that doesn't follow the real life battle order and equipment used. What is the point of making a system that provides neither immersion nor fun at all?

"If the commander needs attachments from other units for the operation, he gets whatever is needed in order to win" ; "A commander in real life doesn't get everything, so the choices of unit should be restricted" You are literally contradicting with yourself. Or is it just double standard that you think it's okay for Eugen to stick attachments into a random deck, but not okay for the players to do so?

In WGRD, no one is forcing you to form a restricted deck. Nor could you force anyone to play with a restricted deck. But you have opportunities to play with themed decks, meme decks or meta decks for every single faction. In Warno, everyone is forced to play restricted decks, yes. Yet while all divisions are restricted, in terms of unit and tactical availabilities, some are even more restricted. Just look at the 8th ID then compare it with TerrKomSud or the 11th Para. So, in terms of balancing, the division system is not any better than the deck system. And what the division system cannot offer, is the choices for players. If you hate to let players have choices, then division system isn't the thing you're looking for. What you're looking for, would be the unit system of traditional RTS games which players are given a fixed set of unit selection, like that in MOW and COH.

You don't like Warno system and want WG:RD 2 - understandable, but there's a lot of people who DON'T like WG:RD system or just like current system more.
AFAIK, majority of Warno community supports divisions system and against the return of WG deck mechanics.
This game have a fixed set of rules, including division-making by Eugen - someone like it and someone don't, but it's a rule-set for this particular game (that many accepted).
It's delusional to think that all of this - some sort of conspiracy against playerbase by Eugen. Majority of Warno community, as mentioned above, supports divisions system - it's a plain fact. And similarly to you right now - they can talk against introductions of WG mechanics.
This game, as I realistically assume, can have only 1 deck-building system. They can't work together for obvious reasons and differences. Unrestricted decks would be much stronger than any division decks, and divisions - the main focus of the game here, they can't function like a fun-mode like in WG:RD with "early" decks. And DLCs would be somewhat similar to SD2, not like they can do it in another way.

So yeah, either they need to scrap all the current work and make it WG-style, or free deck-building wont be an official supporting feature. With official support, players would demand more WG-style content and balance (as some of it - part of the game) - and Eugen don't want this. Again - like it or not, but it's a Warno not WG:RD 2.


About balance - if you seriously bring it, it's a total comedy then. You compare balance of the old game with beta-version of the new one. WG:RD balance in such terrible situation that it can be compared with beta-version of Warno? Well...
And there's quite a few reworks already, with many (but not all to the moment) nerfed to the proper performance. You need patch or two to rework division balance completely, not that long or hard work, so it's useless to bring it here. It shows literally nothing.

... but, we have answers by pro-community/ST (that is also somewhat based on statistics) that balance in SD2 with divisions - "miles ahead" of WG:RD balance. So division system already proved it's superiority balance-wise. Again - you can have a different personal opinion regarding this, but nonetheless it's a fact. Fixing divisions balance - ongoing work: maybe not as fast as someone (including me) wants - but in most cases, they're on a right path.

[151]

Originally posted by Alpha2518:

I am not contradicting myself and I have read the thread. What part of operational requirements driving which units are attached and detached do you not understand even if you have plans that say otherwise. To put it this way, you are the NATO commander, 73rd CR cannot make their way to reinforce 82nd with their detachment like the plan you keep citing calls for. But 193rd Armored BDE is able to do this and give them the armor support they need now. Bear in mind the reason the 193rd is drawn from is for heavier armor which the 82nd might need support from.Do you let the 82nd continue to suffer without armor support or do you adjust to operational reality and detach some units from the 193rd to give the 82nd the armor support they need. Tick tok commander.

And you now you are contradicting yourself. You cite plans that call for the 73rd that have existed and now you say plans that don't matter and then continue to cite reasons why those plans existed in the first place. And yes my argument will stand. You are not the entire 82nd AB which is a force of about 10,000 men. You are a vastly smaller component and it is perfectly feasible for one part of a division to be unable to assist another part. If you think otherwise you have no understanding of warfare because one of the most basic things you can do is render enemy forces unable to support each other.

And finally WARNO does let players have choices. What they are not are the same choices in WG because the design philosophy is different. It is sandbox (with certain restrictions) vs being division and TOE restricted not counting any attachments from friendly forces that make sense.

Your logic is like "I make up a story so that I can use it as an argument point". Stop living in your own little fantasy world. The 4th Battalion of the 73rd CR is officially assigned to the 82nd Airborne, stationed along with the 82nd Airborne in Fort Bragg base and would be deployed with the 82nd Airborne since 1984. So the "cavalry unit cannot make their way to reinforce the 82nd Airborne" thing is total BS. This has nothing to do with a war plan. It's about how the division is formed and how it operates. You are not telling me that unit organization=war plan, are you?

The only advantage of making a division system is to enhance the immersion of the game. To make players feel like they are a regimental commander of a real life historical division, commanding troops from their actual formations. And if you add irrelevant units in there, it breaks the immersion. Hence, making the division system pointless. It's like including Apaches and Bradleys in the 1st Marine Division and say "the Army men are also in the battlefield, so they are attached to the marines for operational needs". Then how different is it from the megamix style WGRD deck system?

Besides, just as you've said. In the field, there's going to be smaller elements of units from different divisions, brigades and regiments. Then I don't see why the WGRD deck system can't be justified. And the topic you've been avoiding is that why Eugen aren't using other practical ways but the division system to restrict players decks, apart from the DLC money grab reason.

[151]

Originally posted by Amormaliar:

Originally posted by 151:

Clearly you are just another person who didn't the the full thread before jumping to a false conclusion. I've stated like 3 times under this post, that if Eugen purely just wants to limit the strength of players' decks, fine. Do it the Broken Arrow way or simply by limiting the WGRD style decks to themed decks only. But not making a cringe division system that doesn't follow the real life battle order and equipment used. What is the point of making a system that provides neither immersion nor fun at all?

"If the commander needs attachments from other units for the operation, he gets whatever is needed in order to win" ; "A commander in real life doesn't get everything, so the choices of unit should be restricted" You are literally contradicting with yourself. Or is it just double standard that you think it's okay for Eugen to stick attachments into a random deck, but not okay for the players to do so?

In WGRD, no one is forcing you to form a restricted deck. Nor could you force anyone to play with a restricted deck. But you have opportunities to play with themed decks, meme decks or meta decks for every single faction. In Warno, everyone is forced to play restricted decks, yes. Yet while all divisions are restricted, in terms of unit and tactical availabilities, some are even more restricted. Just look at the 8th ID then compare it with TerrKomSud or the 11th Para. So, in terms of balancing, the division system is not any better than the deck system. And what the division system cannot offer, is the choices for players. If you hate to let players have choices, then division system isn't the thing you're looking for. What you're looking for, would be the unit system of traditional RTS games which players are given a fixed set of unit selection, like that in MOW and COH.

You don't like Warno system and want WG:RD 2 - understandable, but there's a lot of people who DON'T like WG:RD system or just like current system more.
AFAIK, majority of Warno community supports divisions system and against the return of WG deck mechanics.
This game have a fixed set of rules, including division-making by Eugen - someone like it and someone don't, but it's a rule-set for this particular game (that many accepted).
It's delusional to think that all of this - some sort of conspiracy against playerbase by Eugen. Majority of Warno community, as mentioned above, supports divisions system - it's a plain fact. And similarly to you right now - they can talk against introductions of WG mechanics.
This game, as I realistically assume, can have only 1 deck-building system. They can't work together for obvious reasons and differences. Unrestricted decks would be much stronger than any division decks, and divisions - the main focus of the game here, they can't function like a fun-mode like in WG:RD with "early" decks. And DLCs would be somewhat similar to SD2, not like they can do it in another way.

So yeah, either they need to scrap all the current work and make it WG-style, or free deck-building wont be an official supporting feature. With official support, players would demand more WG-style content and balance (as some of it - part of the game) - and Eugen don't want this. Again - like it or not, but it's a Warno not WG:RD 2.


About balance - if you seriously bring it, it's a total comedy then. You compare balance of the old game with beta-version of the new one. WG:RD balance in such terrible situation that it can be compared with beta-version of Warno? Well...
And there's quite a few reworks already, with many (but not all to the moment) nerfed to the proper performance. You need patch or two to rework division balance completely, not that long or hard work, so it's useless to bring it here. It shows literally nothing.

... but, we have answers by pro-community/ST (that is also somewhat based on statistics) that balance in SD2 with divisions - "miles ahead" of WG:RD balance. So division system already proved it's superiority balance-wise. Again - you can have a different personal opinion regarding this, but nonetheless it's a fact. Fixing divisions balance - ongoing work: maybe not as fast as someone (including me) wants - but in most cases, they're on a right path.

That's exactly why people are here to discuss whether a deck system is better than a division system. If your logic is like "praise the division system and all the mechanics introduced by Eugen in Warno or get out of here", then what's even the point of having this forum?

Free decks of course can be stronger. But when other folks can build strong decks for every faction, so could you. Nobody is forbidding you from building a competitive deck. Or you could win people with a weak meme deck if you are skillful enough. So I see nothing unfair here, what's the issue? Is it that you are having trouble in building a deck in WGRD?

As I've said before balancing is terrible in WGRD, that some units are pointless to use. And in Warno, it's even worse that some entire divisions are worthless to play as. Just ask yourself how often you see some one using TerrKomSud, Berlin Command, 11e Para and how often you see people using the 3rd Armor, 2nd ID and 79th Gvds Tanks. It tells it all. And with only around 800 units, it still has a poorer balance than RD which has over 2080 units.

Statistically speaking, WGRD has 2 times more the ACTIVE player count than Warno. If SD2 and Warno are far better options with superior mechanics, then why do people still stick to a old flawed game? Clearly, more folks prefer WGRD's gameplay or else they would have migrated to Warno or simply not play it at all.

[Sleepysteve]

Just dont buy the dlc. Viola, problem solved. This is my policy towards gaming in general now. I dont pre order. I no longer buy EA. I usually* only buy games 50% off or better. I only buy DLC if I feel it adds a very large amount of value.

Take responsibility and control over what you can. Very obviously the divisions system makes them way more money, since they can rinse and repeat tons of units with different skins ala SD2.

[Savage_912]

Originally posted by Sleepysteve:

Just dont buy the dlc. Viola, problem solved. This is my policy towards gaming in general now. I dont pre order. I no longer buy EA. I usually* only buy games 50% off or better. I only buy DLC if I feel it adds a very large amount of value.

Take responsibility and control over what you can. Very obviously the divisions system makes them way more money, since they can rinse and repeat tons of units with different skins ala SD2.

I definitely agree with the logic, "Don't buy the DLC."

However, if some of the best divisions are locked behind a pay wall that makes the game less enjoyable for the masses. If less people purchase the game and/or the DLCs then the game dies and Eugen goes out of business, hence no more games in this franchise. Now, the snowball effect may not be that dramatic, but you see where I'm going.

I dont know who is testing or guiding the development of WARNO, but whoever they are, they need to grow a pair and start advising Eugen on some true feedback. Divisions can stay, I honestly don't care. It's the variety and costs of those divisions I'm more concerned about after what SD2 ended up turning out to be.

If the DLC for WARNO expanded the game to a modern time line or early 2000's time line, I'd happily pay for that DLC. Or if future DLC expanded the game to include the same variety of nations as WG:RD I'd also happily pay for that DLC. But if Eugen is going to repeat the same model as SD2, they'll lose all the trust and credibility I have left for them as a developer.

[Amormaliar]

Originally posted by 151:

Free decks of course can be stronger. But when other folks can build strong decks for every faction, so could you. Nobody is forbidding you from building a competitive deck. Or you could win people with a weak meme deck if you are skillful enough. So I see nothing unfair here, what's the issue? Is it that you are having trouble in building a deck in WGRD?

As I've said before balancing is terrible in WGRD, that some units are pointless to use. And in Warno, it's even worse that some entire divisions are worthless to play as. Just ask yourself how often you see some one using TerrKomSud, Berlin Command, 11e Para and how often you see people using the 3rd Armor, 2nd ID and 79th Gvds Tanks. It tells it all. And with only around 800 units, it still has a poorer balance than RD which has over 2080 units.

Statistically speaking, WGRD has 2 times more the ACTIVE player count than Warno. If SD2 and Warno are far better options with superior mechanics, then why do people still stick to a old flawed game? Clearly, more folks prefer WGRD's gameplay or else they would have migrated to Warno or simply not play it at all.

Division system would be dead competitive-wise if there would be a free decks, so what I'm talking about - as long as this game would be centred around the divisions, they can't be the weakest type of decks.

TerrKomSud - for quite a long time was the absolute top-1 deck for ranked games. You can ask any serious player about this.
Berlin Command - NATO deck that I played the most games from all, it have some troubles but it's a pretty good deck.
11e para - together with heli spam was another top-tier contender for ranked games (only recently nerfed somewhat).
3rd AD - possibly the strongest straightforward tank deck for USA that even possible in this game. Honestly, it should be nerfed as for me. Personally, I consider it as the strongest super-heavy tank deck in the game. It's stronger than 119th or 5th Pz.; and 1st AD - deck that benefitted a lot from the new tank availability (Chally 2 not nerfed)... but it isn't more effective than 3rd AD in my opinion.
2nd ID - standard deck, nothing very fancy but bad too.
79th - by most rankings, it was the strongest deck in the game for a long time, before it was nerfed.
... So, you proved my point about the balance and how it changes

SD2 - WW2 game, it have a completely different community, and most of them... don't even know much about the WG. And not interested in Warno.
Warno - Early Access game, you can compare them after the full-release, before it... it's useless too. There's a lot of people who don't want to play Warno before the full-release.

[151]

Originally posted by Amormaliar:

Division system would be dead competitive-wise if there would be a free decks, so what I'm talking about - as long as this game would be centred around the divisions, they can't be the weakest type of decks.

TerrKomSud - for quite a long time was the absolute top-1 deck for ranked games. You can ask any serious player about this.
Berlin Command - NATO deck that I played the most games from all, it have some troubles but it's a pretty good deck.
11e para - together with heli spam was another top-tier contender for ranked games (only recently nerfed somewhat).
3rd AD - possibly the strongest straightforward tank deck for USA that even possible in this game. Honestly, it should be nerfed as for me. Personally, I consider it as the strongest super-heavy tank deck in the game. It's stronger than 119th or 5th Pz.; and 1st AD - deck that benefitted a lot from the new tank availability (Chally 2 not nerfed)... but it isn't more effective than 3rd AD in my opinion.
2nd ID - standard deck, nothing very fancy but bad too.
79th - by most rankings, it was the strongest deck in the game for a long time, before it was nerfed.
... So, you proved my point about the balance and how it changes

SD2 - WW2 game, it have a completely different community, and most of them... don't even know much about the WG. And not interested in Warno.
Warno - Early Access game, you can compare them after the full-release, before it... it's useless too. There's a lot of people who don't want to play Warno before the full-release.

Quite the opposite, you are proving my point of that some divisions have better unit and tactic availabilities. The 3rd AD, 2nd ID, 8th ID and the 79th Gvds, they basically have everything from infantry to artillery, from heavy armor to helicopter gunship, and the top-tier selection of aerial units. While the TerrKomSud and 11e Para has poor armor and arty, the Berlin Command has basically no chance to gain air superiority with its units. So stronger divisions like the 3rd AD can do both what the weaker divisions, like the 11e Para, can do and can't do. Then players who play the stronger divisions obviously could have much more flexible tactics. Hence, the weaker divisions are just worthless to play as. In RD, at least the weaker factions have a place in coalition decks.

Besides, there's a thing called themed deck in WGRD, which the player gets unit veterancy and quantity bonuses when restricting their unit selection to a specific specialization.
Experienced players and players who want to focus on a particular play style use such decks over the general purpose megamix decks. So competitive-wise, it could still match up with those decks with "cherry-picked units".

The issue with game balancing these days, is that the game developers only learn to nerf things, till everything become weak. And the result is that everything become unsatisfying to use and that the game is no longer entertaining at all. Even worse, the balancing might just become broken. So instead of making some crippled divisions, they should have just kept the freedom of deck building and let those who play under a division restriction get bonuses.

If the SD2 players are not into the cold war genre, of course they are unlikely to be interested in playing Warno. That's exactly why Eugen and the Warno community should attract WG players to migrate to this game. Yet the deck system is basically the one thing that stops them from trying and playing Warno. And stop using "early access" as an excuse, the base game is supposed to be finished a year ago according to Eugen's plan.

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

For me, the main advantage of the Deck system was that it allowed less-popular nations like Canada, Finland, and Japan to be featured. As a Canadian, I always get a little pulse of joy anytime I get to play as the CAF in video games.

However, I do think the Division system results in more coherent and realistic forces overall, since there simply aren't enough units to make your force solely from meta options. It's also easier to understand for a new player; trying to determine the optimal deck type (Mechanized, Airborne, etc.) for your nation was an exercise in frustration.

Essentially, I think restricted options actually IMPROVE variety rather than reduce it.