Very unfortunate post, and just as I was considering giving warno a real chance since eugen had added urban combat. After the announcement that urban combat based maps in steel division 2 were being completely scrapped because they were apparently seen in testing as too tedious and not fun, difficult to design, and became meat grinders with little movement I was excited that warno was going to include urban combat. Unfortunately it seems that my hopes for actual urban warfare have been dashed.

The best part of urban combat in say steel division 2 or even warno in its current state is that it gives infantry based divisions a chance while providing a massive obstacle to heavy armored divisions. This in turn required teams of players to coordinate their division choices so as to be able to deal with all of the environments on the map. In smaller games such as 1v1 it meant that a player had to structure his battlegroup so he could address both long range and short range engagements. Urban combat also required a different skill set than open terrain positioning was key, yet movement was still possible by creatively finding and taking advantage of unique lines of sight. Where you put your units mattered so that they could make the best use of their weapon loadouts. A unit armed with only smgs and satchel charges could not go into just any building, unlike say a forest, for the open spaces in towns would prevent them from using their weapons, yet they were still viable (unlike they would be in open terrain) in the hands of a skilled player and could clear a path house by house on the more congested flanks, allowing for the enemy's position to still become untenable even if he controlled the open. Even recon had a place in the urban fighting as units could sneak around to gain elevated lines of sight while remaining hidden and protected from the enemy.

The house to house structure layout in SD2 (as opposed to this idea of a block or blocks based layout) takes out a major part of the infantry micro that gives the game variation and makes it both balanced and fun. Those who have expressed concern that the opening up of the city to armored warfare and removing of infantry micro from building to building provides a massive buff to armored divisions in a game that already has an armor meta (which the post even acknowledges, does not address, and then even goes on to reinforces). Now any armored division player does not have to worry about towns as an obstacle and the game returns to choosing heavy tank divisions (I do not believe that despite reassurances infantry at stands a chance in this new change). This is not a development of urban warfare, rather it is a simplification of it. Something which I suspect is either related to trying to attract more of the wgrd playerbase by offering them a more familiar and possibly appealing game that is more akin to a rd copy than a new system in the hopes that it will secure the game from other modern or cold war rts games in competition with warno while also cutting costs and design challenges by simplifying gameplay and map design.

The concerns here, many of which have been expressed by much more experienced players than me, are all very valid, and I think that the fact that a dev felt the need to come into the thread to try and calm these worries with promises of small block sizes and assurances that the armor meta would be addressed soon shows that eugen also is very aware of the seriousness and accuracy of these concerns. Unfortunately it also seems to signal that the decision has already been made regardless of the community's significant negative feedback and that the developers intend to stay their course.

Lastly, many of the suggestions here, in particular those made by Vovin regarding variation of building stats depending on the model, with different building types having distinct advantages in say elevated line of sight or durability, but less stealth or more vulnerability to support weapons (and armor!!!) due to their size makes a lot more sense and instead adds a new layer of complexity to urban combat that would simultaneously be favorable to both infantry, armor, air, or support based divisions.

Also I want to note that I have avoided the ample historical or realism based arguments for urban warfare being an extremely unfavorable and punishing environment for tanks and other armor in order to dodge the inevitable realism and accuracy=/=fun or a good game argument.

Another thing about urban combat is that the inclusion of grenades as a 4th weapon slot would play a big role. Basically each line infantry would have the equivalent of a small satchel, or special ops could have stun grenades. I doubt WARNO will see this though.

I've been pushing for better urban representation so thanks for this. Bigger blocks make sense for a metropolis map- but for smaller urban areas like what you've shown us, it doesn't make that much sense imo. The best part of urban combat in Warno is going building by building and playing on a tactical level with the sight lines, whereas these areas will just allow magical satchels to fly 300 meters to their intended target just because they are in adjacent zones. If the zones are kept bigger, the CQC in zones containing infantry from both sides should be longer to reflect it. I also agree with the main roads being larger and having more straight lines for longer-range engagements, to make IFVs and tanks more worth risking the RPG massage treatment they get at close range. However, in the sneak peaks you've shown, the zones seem to be built around balancing distances for the different units' range rather than the less perfect but more interesting and accurate zone placements that would hapen IRL. Not that I do not get the mindset behind rock-paper-scissor combat, but it also would make urban combat a micro grind and incredibly unfun to deal with. Also, it's been teased for a while now with it seemingly getting mentioned in every update: Is this going to lead to a Hamburg map, a true urban area map? (finally)

I really like micro in cities in WARNO. Unlike in RD, you can park tanks behind building and know, that it won't be destroyed in some weird way, like getting shot by AT throught 4 buildings. Managing streets one by one, using alleyway and such.

I'd like infantry that are in the open running at a building that is occupied by troops to get absolutely destroyed.. I think it should be very difficult to run up to a building without suppressing the troops in the building with arty or tank fire.

Don't change the building dynamic and just make new content 😊

this is going to knock Broken Arrow out of the park.

Messaggio originale di ForkInOutlet:

Very unfortunate post, and just as I was considering giving warno a real chance since eugen had added urban combat. After the announcement that urban combat based maps in steel division 2 were being completely scrapped because they were apparently seen in testing as too tedious and not fun, difficult to design, and became meat grinders with little movement I was excited that warno was going to include urban combat. Unfortunately it seems that my hopes for actual urban warfare have been dashed.

The best part of urban combat in say steel division 2 or even warno in its current state is that it gives infantry based divisions a chance while providing a massive obstacle to heavy armored divisions. This in turn required teams of players to coordinate their division choices so as to be able to deal with all of the environments on the map. In smaller games such as 1v1 it meant that a player had to structure his battlegroup so he could address both long range and short range engagements. Urban combat also required a different skill set than open terrain positioning was key, yet movement was still possible by creatively finding and taking advantage of unique lines of sight. Where you put your units mattered so that they could make the best use of their weapon loadouts. A unit armed with only smgs and satchel charges could not go into just any building, unlike say a forest, for the open spaces in towns would prevent them from using their weapons, yet they were still viable (unlike they would be in open terrain) in the hands of a skilled player and could clear a path house by house on the more congested flanks, allowing for the enemy's position to still become untenable even if he controlled the open. Even recon had a place in the urban fighting as units could sneak around to gain elevated lines of sight while remaining hidden and protected from the enemy.

The house to house structure layout in SD2 (as opposed to this idea of a block or blocks based layout) takes out a major part of the infantry micro that gives the game variation and makes it both balanced and fun. Those who have expressed concern that the opening up of the city to armored warfare and removing of infantry micro from building to building provides a massive buff to armored divisions in a game that already has an armor meta (which the post even acknowledges, does not address, and then even goes on to reinforces). Now any armored division player does not have to worry about towns as an obstacle and the game returns to choosing heavy tank divisions (I do not believe that despite reassurances infantry at stands a chance in this new change). This is not a development of urban warfare, rather it is a simplification of it. Something which I suspect is either related to trying to attract more of the wgrd playerbase by offering them a more familiar and possibly appealing game that is more akin to a rd copy than a new system in the hopes that it will secure the game from other modern or cold war rts games in competition with warno while also cutting costs and design challenges by simplifying gameplay and map design.

The concerns here, many of which have been expressed by much more experienced players than me, are all very valid, and I think that the fact that a dev felt the need to come into the thread to try and calm these worries with promises of small block sizes and assurances that the armor meta would be addressed soon shows that eugen also is very aware of the seriousness and accuracy of these concerns. Unfortunately it also seems to signal that the decision has already been made regardless of the community's significant negative feedback and that the developers intend to stay their course.

Lastly, many of the suggestions here, in particular those made by Vovin regarding variation of building stats depending on the model, with different building types having distinct advantages in say elevated line of sight or durability, but less stealth or more vulnerability to support weapons (and armor!!!) due to their size makes a lot more sense and instead adds a new layer of complexity to urban combat that would simultaneously be favorable to both infantry, armor, air, or support based divisions.

Also I want to note that I have avoided the ample historical or realism based arguments for urban warfare being an extremely unfavorable and punishing environment for tanks and other armor in order to dodge the inevitable realism and accuracy=/=fun or a good game argument.

After reading their update I was just going to post "Cannot wait for Broken Arrow to come out" and take all the flak coming my way, but what you Sir wrote is way better so:

+1

Good Work. But this feels kinda weird. Which city on the Earth have empty space between districts?

Changing urban warfare is towards the wrong direction
We dont need single block buildings
ATGM accuracy/capacity needs to be balanced but except from that current setup is working okay

What you should change is replace satchel as this tactic is more a WW2 war era and add maybe bonus to SMG carrying units for urban warfare or clearing buildings

Addition of two new extra battlegroups is welcome but dont differentiate much, low added value for the player

PS it is taken ages for a proper campaign and if currently you are thinking of changing basic mechanics of the game like Urban Warfare, it seems pretty disappointing to the Single Player Community, it is no brainer that number of active users in MP is low

Can we, at some point in time, get the ability to sling-load equipment and vehicles with the heavy lift helicopters? The ability to have troops rappel from hovering helicopters would also be extremely useful and an interesting addition to your arsenal. I just feel like the transport helicopters have such a limited role in the current gameplay.

It would be Awesome if the Fighting Mechanic is going the way Broken Arrow does.

I call this another infantry nerf. Unless we can navigate trough a super block, choose where to assign our squad whithin it and get some more hidden (stay back) than the other. I am really not sure Eugen will allow this.
I am not hyped. [/quote]

I agree that this seems to be a big step back with inf. I think the use of the "giga garrison" destroys the micro in urban combat. It also seems that cities are now just decoration instead of each city block being a possible confrontation with enemies hidden in waiting.

I do think that cities need some open environment in them to allow more long ranged, longer duration combat that requires use of support weapons. However, at the expense of the close range heavy micro intensive combat, I think this would be a detrimental update.

I don't think that we plan cities like that in Germany.

Let BA kill this game... rip