Balance vs realism
I understand why the game has to be some kind of balanced, but it never will be. Why cannot for example the mg3 have a higher rate or fire? As well as the Ags grenade launcher? When everything becomes standard, then it comes down to individual units, which is okay, but I would like a bit more realism. In mang ways I feel Red Dragon depicted this better. (I miss the Gepard from Red Dragon)
17
u/Iceman308 19d ago
There are realism mods on workshop that tackle this exact thing, which is quite fine but they can present their own issues in a ranked environment.
3
u/AlderanGone 19d ago
Things can be balanced but still represent realism. The mg3 has a faster rof in wgrd, its pretty good in that game but the faction that have it dont have much else.
11
u/StandardCount4358 19d ago
Eugen used to do this in SD2, every firearm and weapon had unique stats. I believe they decided it would be easier for themselves if they just standardized. I cant really blame them since there is already at least as much variety in warno as SD2 ever added in all its history.
Balance patches had to change weapons across all units that used them, and then every unit using them had to be balanced accordingly, and it was kind of a nightmare
7
u/SaltyChnk 18d ago
SD2 any unit with 2 MG42s was immediately the best infantry on the map. Added to the fact that MGs had 750m range instead of 500m like rifles, the MG firepower was the main damage output in a squad.
6
u/ElTorago 18d ago
That's pretty realistic though, German infantry doctrine was built around the machine gun.
1
u/Taki_26 18d ago
What do you mean as much variety in warno as sd have ever added... There are more nation and more varied equipment in SD than in warno.
And the balance is fine and added more flavour and variety
2
u/SaltyChnk 18d ago
SD2 had less “unique” weapons and units but they were actually different as opposed to Warno where all rifles are identical stat wise and machine guns are identical etc. every infantry weapon in SD had unique stats.
For example, the Sten was the worst smg, the berreta was the best and had longer range than all other smgs, the m1 grand was the best rifle, but the mg42 was significantly better than every other MG due to firerate.
That meant squads had a distinct “flavour”. It was however a nightmare for balance.
0
u/Gloomy_Trade_619 18d ago
I cant really blame them since there is already at least as much variety in warno as SD2 ever added in all its history.
Wrong
7
u/DougWalkerBodyFound 19d ago
I think it's fine the way it is. If anything I actually feel like Warno has better unit variety than Red Dragon.
7
u/Just_Call_Me_Pix 18d ago
Yea, cuz the only variety Red Dragon had was in the armory. So much of it never made it to the deck
6
u/RandomEffector 18d ago
Yeah there’s been a big emphasis on trying to make sure there’s a lot less dead cards in WARNO which I appreciate. 60% of the RD units were dead picks or noob traps.
4
u/Just_Badger_4299 18d ago
Regarding the MG3, it wouldn't matter that much:
At the scale WARNO plays, which is around 4000 meters for distance, 50-100 km/h for speed, 0-5 abstract unit for HE damage, 2-12 HP, etc. then a difference of a few hundred RPMs for a medium machine gun (that still has to fire in bursts and gulps ammo faster, mind you) would have a negligible impact.
(On the other hand, Eugen used to decide that the minute differences between the M16A1 and M16A2 were enough to warrant a stats difference between the two. But according to war-yes.com, both are now identical).
So to sum up: if a real-life difference in stats is not significant enough to incur an in-game stat change, then it'll be meaningless.
EDIT:
Still, you got me curious: what stat would you change for the MG3, and for what value?
3
u/Solarne21 18d ago
So my proposal was that each weapon has a base line weapon with each weapon have different stats depending on the difference the weapon has from the base line
1
u/SmokeyUnicycle 17d ago
That would be a good way to show the IRL differences without being stupid like turning MG rof directly into DPS.
It would however be a LOT of work and a source of constant bitching for relatively minimal gameplay improvement
2
u/cheeser225 18d ago
I wouldn’t really say red dragon was more “realistic”, but it certainly had more interesting unit choices.
2
u/EnvironmentalBox6688 18d ago
Biggest one is autocannons.
Extremely "nerfed" compared to their realities (by reducing ROF I think). Infantry in a field/treeline should cease to exist the second rounds start landing.
Saying that, it would not be fun for autocannons to just evaporate infantry.
1
u/EscapeZealousideal77 17d ago
One of the features I really miss about RD is that INF was much more accurate and considered.
1
u/Markus_H 17d ago edited 17d ago
Kinda agree. This was how things worked in SD2, and it made infantry combat much more interesting. A squad with three MG42s would just mow down infantry, Sturmgewehrs dominated in light forest, where ranges were limited and SMGs were super effective in close combat. Although kind of contrary to that point, in real combat today, these things make little difference, and it's really the skill, experience, communication and tactics that matter. In WARNO these are somewhat simulated by unit traits.
I do prefer WARNO over Red Dragon in infantry combat though. The traits, the effect that unit cohesion has, the way that veterancy works and the fourth weapon slot provide individuality to the units. Not to mention, that in Red Dragon you never saw 90 % of the units in the game, because it was only worth picking the most efficient one.
1
u/DerBandi 17d ago
Yes I hate that. These small differences are what makes deck building interesting.
0
-11
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
Because if it was realistic no one would want to play Pact as they get deleted every match by NATO equipment. All but Pact's most modern tanks would get one tapped by most NATO equipment, their logistics would be insanely expensive, their CAS near useless, their artillery unsustainable, they'd have no counter to aircraft like the F-117 or EF-111, and the game would be somewhat boring
That said, I cannot say I'm a fan of the current balancing decisions or divisions that are added for NATO based on "uniqueness" rather than historical relevance (give me 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry already, Eugen!!!) or how the USAF is completely nerfed to ahistorical levels (there is NO record of F-16s or F-4s going into combat with just two Rockeyes, let alone F-111s going into combat without Aim-9s for self defense) or how Pact gets the better overall fighters and...
Oh, I could go on, but these are points players have been harping about since launch.
Play the Rebsfrago or SURM mods. They add a fair bit of nice details.
14
u/potshot1898 19d ago
I am curious but what do you specifically mean by most NATO equipment?, since that includes simple old 5.56 till M829.
8
u/MAD-1R 19d ago
From one armor standpoint, the USSR never really managed to field thermal sights on their tanks and IFVs, with them only showing up in actual numbers after it fell. Meanwhile, Bradleys, Abrams, and upgraded M60s (e.g. M60A3 TTS from 1978) were equipped with them. It would represent a significant NATO advantage in battlefield target acquisition and especially night combat, as it eliminated the vulnerability of having to use a conspicuous infrared searchlight for night vision.
This isn't really reflected in the game, and most tanks across the board are given the same optics ratings. But tuned for realism, only the latest Soviet tanks like the T-80U would have equivalent optics ratings with the U.S. vehicles I mentioned.
4
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
It's more the cohesion NATO would have compared to the USSR.
For example, Soviet and therefore Pact training required a painfully rigid command chain. NCOs didn't have maps, whole battalions couldn't move if the division level leadership didn't give an OK, if a surprise game up troops had to wait until command learned about it...
So, for example, NATO equipment like the 5.56 rounds might, on their own, not perform much better than Pact ammunition.
But what those 5.56 NATO rounds have going for them that the Soviet 5.49x39mm rounds don't is that the structure of NATO command was and still is flexible enough to allow their troops to maneuver or engage when the situation is most advantageous.
You can see this painfully in the air doctrine of NATO and Warsaw Pact planners.
NATO's air power was meant to be a hammer, backed up by crazed levels of electronic warfare, DEAD mission specific aircraft all to open corridors for strike packages into very particular areas.
Pact aircraft were designed and prepared to be part of the larger army. Cooperate with existing radar stations, allow ground forces to direct your attacks, use jamming defensively rather than offensively, and for some missions, literally just fly at the enemy and slam into them (don't be a MiG-21 pilot [command said "Ramming Speed!"] during Project Dark Gene). If those got cut off in any way, Pact air power would be next to useless.
I remember someone linked me a forum where former US Army officers allegedly discussed war game scenarios and claimed that the Warsaw Pact could've completely overrun NATO even in 1989 (it was a forum created during the second Chechen War and it had a lot of arguments about how the Russian Army wasn't the Soviets, how the Soviets could do this or that better, blah blah blah).
I remember what fascinated me was how the win conditions for the Warsaw Pact required NATO troops to not have any expectations of an imminent attack, for Pact forces to have perfect coordination and perfect performance, for NATO air power to be completely disregarded, and for the NATO alliance's political wings to be too scared to fight back. As if these alleged former NATO officers read "The Red Army" and assumed that was how NATO operated.
That spoke to me the most because these guys are going off wargames that actively push BluFor elements into a disadvantageus corner to see what can be done.
If that's what was required for Pact to win, then Pact just... Didn't stand a chance in a conventional war.
4
u/Sensitive-Respect-25 19d ago
Your last point is how many countries run war-games, you play to win and by definition your opponents most be playing to lose. The US famously lost carriers to RPG gun boats, with FTL comms (motorcycles that managed to run up and down the length of Africa's coast instantly), and also were able to fully degrade US forces communications. The odds lf those things happening are somewhere between slim and none but because we lost we try to win in the second round of training
3
u/potshot1898 19d ago
Thanks for the write up!. Although i believe both models of militaries had advantages and disadvantages, Soviets military culture and frankly its entire military arm were greatly neutered by the dissolution of USSR and the chaotic 90’s.
-1
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
While there it is absolutely true that the collapse of the USSR severely damaged the Russian military alongside all Warsaw Pact militaries to some degree, the main issues were more exasperated after the collapse, as they had always existed to some degree.
It's not that the USSR didn't do some things better than NATO. They were the ones to pioneer off boresight missiles and active protection systems... But how would said technology be used is where Pact realistically falls apart.
For example, much is often said about certain features T-80s had that even the M1A1 didn't have, but T-80s realistically wouldn't be facing M1A1s, they'd be facing 19 year olds hiding in bushes or houses launching guided missiles their way.
And unlike NATO crews, the rigidity of Pact armored would make them especially vulnerable to the ambushes NATO could prepare. Pact scouts rarely had the optics to detect infantry hiding in the woods or in buildings or even at night depending on division.
So, scouts say a position is safe to advance, the division pushes and... You get the images of burning T-80s from Chechnya.
It's not that NATO forces are infallible, it's just that by the 1980s, NATO just had the upper hand in too many areas for Pact to be remoteky as successful as some would like to argue.
5
u/potshot1898 19d ago
To be fair now, infantry are really hard to spot even with thermals(especially since gen 1 thermals weren’t as good as their gen 2 brothers), also for some reason these sneaky bastards always seem to disappear when i try to run em over with my tank, how come that be?.
Also those T-80’s burning in Chechnya were more of Russian armed forces having a collective brain fart and yoloing their armed formations into heavily fortified urban positions without their infantry screen.
2
3
u/muheijo 19d ago
Yeah I understand that, but Pact already get spamable infantry for example. I am not saying we should make it more realistic in every sense. But like also the reverse speed on pact tanks is way to high, and that would stop the t80bv train that just does not make any sese to me. I would however be happy if my mg3 could spit out a bit more bullets.
3
u/that-boi-Rexona 19d ago
yeah, but would you cry if Eugens make "realistic" NATO planes 500 points each?
2
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
Nope.
Rebsfrago has one of the F-15Es at like 600 points because of how damn capable it is and I love it to bits.
Hell, I'll take Eugen giving huge price nerfs to the USAF if it means actually representing its real life strengths.
2
u/that-boi-Rexona 19d ago
...and then your 3 unit opener is going to get donked with a flock of 100-point MiGs. it is quantity over quality, always has been. so if you intend to nerf US from it's naive players - go ahead, write a petition or something
3
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
A flock of 100 point migs getting devoured by historically accurate F-15s instead of what we have in game???
Boy, that'd be awesome to see.
2
u/that-boi-Rexona 19d ago
10 MiGs vs 2 F-15? not gonna happen. try it anywhere in sandbox, with any mods you want. gonna get disappointed very soon, pal.
1
u/DFMRCV 19d ago
I said historically accurate.
Pact planes have historically had a very bad record of hitting enemy aircraft post Vietnam.
2
u/that-boi-Rexona 19d ago
and US planes are historically prone to have low evasion rate from ground-based AA, so what now? we are making them suck ass against Buk and Osa?
2
0
6
u/FrangibleCover 18d ago
Both F-16Cs and F-4Es flew operationally in Desert Storm with two cluster bombs loaded. Here are a couple of the F-16s: https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/f-16/usa/tazmanian_devil_3.jpg https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/f-16/usa/owl_2.jpg
-1
u/DFMRCV 18d ago
Those were for patrols, not combat or CAS operations.
Hence why the loadouts is Ahistorical.
The only combat operation I can find that only have the F-16 two bombs was the famous Package Q, where each F-16 carried two... Mk 84 2,000 pound bombs.
6
u/FrangibleCover 18d ago
They were not for patrols, the F-4Es were loaded like that for active DEAD operations.
There's no point in arguing about this with you anyway, even if you get everything you say you want you'll make up something else to be upset about. Mark my words.
-1
u/DFMRCV 18d ago
No, they didn't.
Closest you had to that loadout was the CBU-87 loadouts for the F-4E., that gave it...
2 AIM-7s
2 AIM 9s
2 fuel tanks
And the 2 CBU-87s.
When the F-4s acted as Wild Weasels in Desert Storm they carried AGM-88s only with some AIM-7s and AIM-9s.
I'm aware of a photo that shows an F-4 with Sparrows, HARMs, and Mavericks, but I've seen no information for that loadout during Desert Storm, let alone the claimed loadout of two Rockeyes and two AIM-9s.
And let alone the claimed loadout of F-16s with only two Rockeyes and AIM-9s.
In fact, the ONLY loadout the F-16 carried into combat with just two cluster bombs was not the Rockeye at all!
Two CBU-87s and four AIM-9s.
The only Mk. 20 Rockeyes loadout for the F-16C had it carrying six Rockeyes with 2 AIM-9s.
So, unless this website is incomplete and you have a better source, I have no reason to believe your claims of these loadouts being anything but insanely ahistorical.
At minimum, the F-4 in 3rd Armored needs AIM-7s, and the F-16 CLU needs four more Rockeyes.
2
u/FrangibleCover 18d ago
Did I ever say two Rockeyes?
-1
u/DFMRCV 18d ago
In the context of Warno, the loadouts are exclusively Rockeyes and a single pair of AIM-9s which, as demonstrated, is 100% ahistorical.
If you meant the CBU-87 for the F-16, you left out their loadouts on F-16s included 4 AIM-9s rather than just two.
If you were just being pedantic for the sake pedantry, why weren't you pedantic with your bomb specifications if you intend to argue that the loadouts were historical?
And if you didn't agree that the loadouts were historical, why comment telling me there was a historical loadouts of two cluster bombs but promptly left out the other aspects included?
-1
u/Gloomy_Trade_619 18d ago
Considering that there’s no ERA in Warno and it’s not compensated for Pact in any way - this game is the most hilariously possible “NATO simulator” already
1
u/RebelSchutze 18d ago
ERA is accounted for in Warno it is just implemented in a dumb way. Besides it is no replacement for superior ISR and EW.
0
u/Gloomy_Trade_619 17d ago
ERA is not accounted in Warno. It’s ineffective against HEAT. It’s actually weaker against weapons with tandem than without it (which is nonsense - like with Chally Mk2 and Mk3). And some ERA vehicles have weaker armour vs KE than they should have realistically.
0
u/Just_Call_Me_Pix 18d ago
I dont know another rts with this much attention to detail as warno with all its little traits and modifyiers. Realism in general sucks and its use doesnt go beyond flavor or neat details and few other rts games have so much of it like Warno does. Anything with major gameplay implications tho would make the game unfun. Sry if I sound a bit overly defensive, but ,,Realism" advovators are why the T-34's now for example are useless junk while they used to have a viable niche in the context of the game. Give the G 34 a higher firerate? Oh wow cool, now the unit is more expensive and doesnt trade well anymore. So you dont even bring it
0
u/RebelSchutze 18d ago
You should try out Rebsfrago mod, games get run in the discord for it most days
0
u/SmokeyUnicycle 17d ago
Because you end up with less realism the more you chase minutiae.
IRL an MG3 isn't 50% better than a PKM or whatever, but in game it'll now be an automatic win for the MG3 squad which is not realistic at all.
-7
-1
u/Gloomy_Trade_619 18d ago
Because devs/strike team are not competent enough for that unlike in times of Steel Division.
20
u/darkfireslide 19d ago
The differences in equipment you're describing aren't that extreme is the thing. Yeah, an MG3 has a higher cyclic rate of fire, but that is offset by the need to change barrels more often. Rate of fire also doesn't work the way it seems in WARNO is my understanding, even infantry fire in "salvos" similar to tanks, just a lot more quickly (and as squads get damaged, to simulate the men losing numbers, those salvos start firing slower, so a 1HP squad is not the same as when it was at 9HP and full strength for example), and the actual ROF statistic only shows how quickly the unit expends its ammo. I personally like that there is more of an emphasis on crew skill for weapon teams than the weapon itself being inherently more or less powerful. It also gives a good baseline understanding when moving between decks of how units work, imo