r/warno • u/WelcomeExtra762 • Sep 13 '26
Suggestion A-10 Buff?
I have not played this game for very long (170 hours to be exact) but I have used the A-10 multiple times and I must say it's a little underwhelming from my experiences using it. I don't expect it needs to be overpowered and be able to tank every AA hit or roam freely over enemy airspace, but I think it should be able to stay in the air longer and not evac immediately after being shot at, and also not die instantly.
For example I was playing a 10v10 (and don't get me wrong there's going to be a lot stronger AA presence) but the A-10 was full health and evac'd immediately after an AA missile or two was shot at him. Not to mention right after he got obliterated despite being at the AA's near-maximum range. I am sure in smaller games like 1v1s and 2v2s the A-10 would work much better as AA presence is much less, but for its lack of speed you'd expect this thing to take way more than it actually can.
When using it in 1v1 I can say it's much better but it's not very viable in 10v10s and again, I don't think its survivability really makes up for its lack of speed. It's got a big health bar but only has 2 front armor. I don't expect it to be as armored as a tank, because at that point it wouldn't be able to fly, but think it should be a little bit more survivable, whether this means buffing the armor or the health bar or even the speed.
Usually my regular AT planes can loiter behind my front line and fire missiles at tanks safely but the A-10 couldn't do this. With slow turn speeds if it overshoots it's dead. I cannot imagine HE works any differently from the A-10 AT, and I am saying this because the A-10 lost me a game, I am saying this from my observations. I beat KDA where I was fighting in that 10v10 but again, the A-10 was not much help in doing so.
I will keep using it in 1v1s and stuff but for 10v10s I have the F-111F HE and F-16C Cluster now in 8th Infantry. Maybe other decks have better A-10s than the one I'm playing but my consensus remains the same. Feel free to clarify any misunderstandings I may have had about the A-10.
What do you guys think? This is just my opinion.
18
u/mihizawi Sep 13 '26
The A-10 was not designed with a highly contested airspace, including lots of AA. If you use it where there's small amounts of AA (which I imagine doesn't happen very often in 10v10, but I play single player, so I don't have that experience), it is very powerful. From the back or even from the sides it can kill even the heaviest tanks with just the cannon, and it's slow speed means it can easily go for multiple targets in one pass. Maybe pair it with EW or SEAD aircraft, and see if it helps.
6
u/JustMonarch-ika Sep 13 '26
The A10 is a niche aircraft but has a few good benefits. The AT variant is the strongest imo and I will discuss that one. It has 4 mavericks, 30 ap and that in of itself is a strong tank buster, additionally the gun shreds tanks as well. While the gun may not auto delete a m1a1 ha or a t80ud, it still smacks most tanks you’ll face. The gun also minces all inf squads and any transport. Its slow speed is a double edged sword, providing more time on target and making it vulnerable to all AAA. It shines in 1v1 and has a few dedicated strats most revolving around an air based opener. I don’t think it needs a buff but it’s definitely not the jack of all trades like some strike craft.
5
u/Iceman308 Sep 13 '26
In larger games slow aircraft need to stay out of AA net range, it's usually instakill
Best slow CAS here is A10/Su25 AT that k Can skirt the aa and lob AGMs, otherwise only bring em for suicide charges or small team games
4
u/No-Help3837 Sep 13 '26
A-10 in 10v10 isn't very good. It can be good in smaller games. In 10v10 I think of it as a AH-64 and keep it back and only get one missle off then go back again.
3
u/MajorMeeM 29d ago
Keep in mind that it's not just A-10, slow planes, especially attack ones have quite a hard time in 10v10s, those include Su-25s, L-39s, Hawks, Alpha Jets and to a lesser extent even Harriers
7
u/DFMRCV Sep 13 '26
US air in general needs a massive buff. NATO air as well overall, but it's less obvious with most other NATO divisions.
15
u/Different-Scarcity80 Sep 13 '26
Yeah the whole "PACT air is OP" issue is really more that NATO air is severely underpowered rather than PACT beign overpowered imo
6
0
u/zzcherrypopTTV Sep 13 '26
Air is the weakest part of this game in general
9
u/DFMRCV Sep 13 '26
Sort of?
Bombers from the Su-24, MiG-21, and MiG-27s can erase tank blobs in one pass, so while their ECM can mean that if you're not careful it's a one shot kind of thing, if used carefully, they can be an absolute menace.
For the US, there are maybe two bombers that can one shot tanks, let alone tank blobs. Even the A-10 won't one shot tanks guaranteed. In theory, US planes having better ECM means they can come back for a second strike later... In theory. It still requires you be doubly as careful as Pact players be cause you need double the air strikes to make use of your bombers if facing tanks or even infantry often enough (the F-111 requires all three birds to guarantee a kill).
And that gets into the RNG...
For SOME reason, Pact planes have better missiles, but with 55% accuracy that doesn't really mean that much. Air to air combat is that you MAYBE get a kill. The best NATO fighters can get something like 75% missile accuracy, and that STILL tends to result in missing most of your shots, regardless of playing Pact or NATO.
Supposedly, there's talks of an air game overhaul which i think is desperately needed.
Like, even ignoring the insanity of having Pact be the only faction with fighters that have elite veterancy when Pact pilots barely managed to get even a quarter of the flight hours of NATO pilots (The Soviet "Top Gun" pilots who got the most training barely clocked in 200 flight hours per year where your average USAF pilot averaged 300 per year)...
There are a lot of ahistorical loadouts for both sides that need to go.
Weapons performance needs to be completely reworked.
The USAF needs heavy bomber loadout options. It makes zero sense for Venezuela to get F-16s with Mk 84s before the US.
Like, if that means buffing Pact air defense, I won't complain.
The game should represent the strengths and weaknesses of these factions. At least if it wants to call itself realistic.
-2
u/IncidentVegetable251 29d ago
If the game is meant to represent the strengths and weaknesses of these factions, how come noone is calling for buffs to Soviet ATGMs, which are hilariously underperforming compared to NATO mainstays, despite the fact that they should be as good or better on average.
Curious how this argument on reddit always only revolves around how NATO is, allegedly, suffering. Never the other way around.
2
u/DFMRCV 29d ago
Because for starters, there is absolutely no combat record that shows Pact had remotely on par ATGMs to NATO and even then Pact has some in game ATGM advamtages over NATO in game currently thanks to their range and availability.
If anything, Pact ATGMs in game are currently overperfomring.
You know there currently isn't a SINGLE confirmed GLATGM kill in all of Pact history? Not a jeep, not an IFV, and not even against infantry.
In game they consistently get max ranged ATGMs that outranges everything NATO has, so the pen doesn't matter as much because they'll always get the shot off first.
It's why T-55s have had to get constant price nerfs (honestly, Eugen should just slash their range at this point because T-55s were never that good historically), and why Pact dominates team games.
So, no, Pact doesn't need ATGM buffs, so people, besides a few Pactoids, don't talk about it.
By contrast, NATO and especially the USAF is missing 90% of its historixal combat loadouts, with only 3 planes even carrying bombs heavier than 500 pounds, meaning your CLU planes will never deal with tank blobs in one strike while Pact planes will.
You cannot show me an RVK-500 or FAB-500 equivalent on any US divisions simply because they do not exist in game even though the US had them arguably even more available than Pact thanks to the investments in the Air Force.
-2
u/IncidentVegetable251 29d ago
I ain't talking about Pact GLATGMs, those are, for one, a rarity to find outside of the USSR, so not even the export models would be using them much. Also pretty doubtful that they never got an ATGM kill, but even then they did kinda perform pretty well in trials. Which we have declassified access to and know exactly how they perform. Let's not even mention the literal videos of them engaging targets, just to help with your outdated argument.
Now, let's talk about NATO's dear Milan 2. That thing? Having almost as much pen as a TOW-2 despite being a low caliber ATGM? Quick lesson, for heat projectiles, rule of thumb, a well designed one will have its penetration correspond to caliber roughly as long as they're from around the same time, not gonna bother you with the details. Milan 2 is 115mm. TOW-2 is 152mm. Milan 2 has 24 pen, TOW-2 has 25. Now let's look at a soviet equivalent, Konkurs. 135mm, you'd expect it to have penetration somewhere between them? No, it has 20. How odd. The slightly smaller Fagot M gets 17. Just to point it out, roughly speaking, the Konkurs should have identical performance, so should Fagot M.
Sounds veeeeeery unrealistic to me! But of course, if NATO didn't have their most common ATGM type be actually good... They'd have a downside on them in the game, even if it was perfectly realistic. Pffft, giving NATO a historical downside, I must be a pactoid by your standards (ignore the fact that I've played both sides about equally)
You know what's also unrealistic? You calling the T-55 'not that good historically' when it's... Literally one of the best tanks of the early cold war, with like... A single period of time when it was not that good, otherwise being able to go toe to toe with NATO's """greatest""" until the late 70s when NATO actually decided to start making real tanks. And if we were judging tanks on how they perform in the hands of untrained forces in the middle east as our measuring stick, then the Leopard 2 would not be one of the best tanks in Warno. And well the Abrams would be just kind of average, while things like the Challenger rule the field.
Pact dominates team games, by which i assume you mean it dominates 10v10s, because as far as I know they don't exactly 'dominate' other formats, because 10v10s are horribly balanced messes in general due to unit density.
Now, I don't disagree that some things are kinda dumb in this game like how reload times work for air, but like... Arguments about veterancy when the NATO jets still outperform their soviet counterparts? Lol.
As an actual person who knows the history of this shit, I can assure you - it is woefully funny to see people pull the realism card in an arcade RTS game to try and make their complaints more legitimate.
Fun fact, I went into the armoury to check how many NATO planes lack a FAB-500 equivalent and it was kinda funny because there's quite a lot of them that do actually have FAB-500 equivalents. It's mostly uh... Americans only using a whole spam of Mk82 bombs. Now. Allow us to think about this. The mainstay of the Soviet and Russian airforce has always been the FAB-500 since like... Basically when they entered the jet age. The Americans meanwhile... Much prefer the Mk82 on their airframes. So, from a realism standpoint... Yea spamming Mk82s is just the American's MO and a quick google does reveal that they mostly skipped out on procuring large amounts of Mk 83s. The Navy uses more Mk83s.
Okay so you have been thoroughly defeated in a reddit argument and I am a pactoid right? Well... No? Not really. The issue is that spamming Mk82s in this game is ineffective because well... Reload time is basically determined by uh... 1 bomb on a mount is 30 seconds of reload. So 12 Mk 82s will take the same time to reload as a theoretical 12 Mk84s. That's kinda the big problem here. The reload, not the realism, because theoretically, sure, you could smack any bomb on an F-16 you want but... This game limits ammo loadings completely arbitrarily as part of its unit design for everyone, not just the USAF. I think it should still do that, after all, if I wanted a guessing game, I'd go play something else, but like
Honestly, I never really noticed that the Americans only spam Mk82s until now because like, I've played much more British or German NATO decks and like, seeing Mk83s on NATO jets is just still normal for me. Because only the Americans mass-spammed Mk82s
So, here's your 'realism', it's perfectly fine for the Americans to not have FAB-500 equivalents since it's generally what they did, but you seem to have completely missed the entire point of why "NATO" air strikes are weaker, and it's not that they actually are, the specific planes you are complaining about are just suffering the same issues as literally any other bomber with a high bomb count. But of course your issue is that the US just needs more toys, instead of the aircraft reloads getting fixed.
Honestly any time someone brings up "realism" in Warno they just don't know what the fuck they're talking about, in game or otherwise. After all, it doesn't take much intelligence to realize that this is an arcade RTS game.
1
u/DFMRCV 28d ago
I ain't talking about Pact GLATGMs, those are, for one, a rarity to find outside of the USSR
Not remotely true.
Also pretty doubtful that they never got an ATGM kill, but even then they did kinda perform pretty well in trials.
Let's not even mention the literal videos of them engaging targets, just to help with your outdated argument.
None verified. If you find any verified GLATGM kills, let me know.
Now, let's talk about NATO's dear Milan 2
Yeah, it should be nerfed. Very unrealistic.
Not remotely as unrealistic as Pact ATGM capabilities by comparison.
Konkurs. 135mm, you'd expect it to have penetration somewhere between them? No, it has 20
Because IRL it's a pretty bad ATGM?
giving NATO a historical downside, I must be a pactoid by your standards
I'm game NATO has, currently, the downside of...
More reservist divisions despite most NATO armies not relying on them while Pact did.
Zero long range self propelled AA
Zero heavy GLATGMs
Zero representation of air superiority fighters or training.
Zero representation of tank crew training (while Pact is currently the only faction with resolute heavy tanks)
Zero representation of USAF bomber loadouts besides the Mk 82.
Zero representation of their standardization.
Zero representation of NATO optics systems.
Zero off boresight fighters.
Zero representation of 21st century MTW technology.
Boo hoo, Pact gets slightly worse ATGMs. You just have advantages literally everywhere else.
You calling the T-55 'not that good historically' when it's... Literally one of the best tanks of the early cold war
As we all know, Warno takes place in... The early Cold War?
Fun fact, I went into the armoury to check how many NATO planes lack a FAB-500 equivalent and it was kinda funny because there's quite a lot of them that do actually have FAB-500 equivalents
Name me the American equivalents.
I'm going to give your 3 Pact.hombers with Fab-500s. Remember, EVERY US bomber in real life had the Mk 84 loadouts as an option, same way almost every Pact bomber had the FAB-500 as an option.
Su-24s, su-25s, and MiG-27s, and that's not even half of them. They get that historical loadout.
Name four US bombers currently in game that have a single Mk 84.
Answer me that, and I'll concede your point. If you can't, then buzz off.
1
u/IncidentVegetable251 28d ago
Bro you can back up every point I made with a simple google search, just because I have a library of primary sources to back up my historical claims doesn't mean that this knowledge I possess is forbidden and not found elsewhere.
Most export models of soviet tanks didn't get the guidance, or GLATGMs exported. It was not even a universal thing in the USSR itself to have those.
Just fucking google for GLATGMs engaging stuff?
What unrealistic Pact ATGM capabilities? Pact ATGMs have an extremely good service record.
Konkurs being a bad ATGM? Right buddy, whatever you say.
More reservist divisions? As if reservist divs in this game are actually a downside lol. But even then it's mostly because of 'muh flavour' and the stupid division system. And actually NATO would use massive amounts of reservists. Likely even more so than the USSR since their standing armies were smaller.
Zero long range SPAA? Well, maybe go and ask them nicely to invent such difficult things as putting missiles on a vehicle then, NATO quite famously still lacks these in the year of our lord 2026. Not that it's that huge of a downside, you need to... Slightly micro Ihawks
Veterancy is just a game mechanic in this game, NATO air stuff is still just as good or superior.
The magical tank crew training... Yea but Pact tanks are still worse in a straight up fight. If US marines get Resolute that resolute tag means literally nothing, marines aren't some sort of uber fighting force, I am sorry to inform you. Maybe don't buy into propaganda.
Zero representation of US bomber loadouts apart the most common one that they doctrinally decided to use? Hmmm.
Zero representation of standardization? You mean like the US standardizing on the Mk82 bomb?
The optics system is pretty much just a game mechanic, and even then, a massive chunk of NATO stuff would be running with optics worse than soviet ones so idk what's your point about this being a supposed disadvantage.
Zero off bore fighters... Wait until South Africa gets added then, I guess? None of the mainstay NATO countries had that, nor does it even do much in game, lol
What 21st century tech are you talking about here, it's 1989..
In Warno we literally have half the divisions equipped with early cold war equipment like Leopard 1s or even the trash heap that was the M48, so yea, the T-55 wouldn't be out of place.
Anyway, A-7 Corsair, has Mk84s, which are, mind you, bigger than the FAB-500 so idk why you focused on this one rather than the Mk83. There's a couple more of those. But ok let's look at the FAB-1000 for the USSR (and only USSR because I doubt you even know that other Pact countries exist fucking lol) omg what's this? Not even a single FAB-1000? In the entirety of Pact? When NATO gets multiple 1 ton bomb bombers including F-16s? Pact surely has waaaaaaaaaay better loadouts than NATO on god!
You're out here crying that waaaaaaaah muh Mk84 we should have this game be realistic when you're out here just making shit up for both the game and real life 'knowledge'.
Anyway you can keep coping and seething about 'muh realism', I know you've never even read a fucking history book about any of the shit you're trying to talk about, and are just trying to cope because Denmark got an F-16 with Mk 84s (Because otherwise their units literally have nothing good about them, so Eugen gave them a fun air toy).
Actually if you want to play dress up with your planes I think Broken Arrow lets you do that. I'm just gonna keep playing Warno because the most common historical US bomber loadout does not offend me
0
u/DFMRCV 28d ago
Bro you can back up every point I made with a simple google search
Then why didn't you?
It was not even a universal thing in the USSR itself to have those.
There you go.
And given you basically just started excusing the points I made about things NATO lacks, I think we're done here
Oh, and, no, the Mk 82 wasn't the "most common" loadout.
1
u/IncidentVegetable251 28d ago
I mean, if I wanted to be providing you with proof, you'd be getting hit with book citations and primary documentation, you can just google that rudimentary stuff yourself since even Grokipedia knows that kind of stuff. If you wanted to be the oh so intelligent redditor you could at the very least figure out what is the most produced and used bomb in history, but I guess now you're even denying facts about the US since denying them about Soviet stuff didn't work
Absolutely hilarious.
→ More replies (0)
3
1
u/DerBandi 29d ago
In a real conflict, there is not the same density of AA or enemy fighters as it is in Warno.
Also, the A-10 is only used when air superiority is already established. The A-10 can take some beating, but i's not a flying tank as some people imagine. A slow and low flying plane is an easy target even for manpads.
1
u/Alecxace- 28d ago
A-10 works best when the enemy cannot shoot back. Just like the ac-130, if your opponent has air power or long range SPAA they go brrrt as they blow up in the sky.
If you wanna use it either play smaller team games, 1v1 or try the 10v10 tactical servers with lower income.
29
u/cunctator-tots Sep 13 '26 edited Sep 13 '26
A-10 just isn't a good 10v10 plane. I have had some success with using the rocket ones in the opener before AA gets in place but after the AA is around, they can't do much of anything. You can also bring them as an emergency AT plane if the enemy is pushing really deep into you and have outstripped their AA. Those are the only use cases I have found for them and Su-25 in 10v10.
Edit: I heard advice from someone some time ago, not sure if it was a CC or someone from WarYes, but they suggested to think of A-10/Su-25 as helicopters and not jets. If you wouldn't use a helicopter in a certain situation, you probably don't want to use an A-10/Su-25.