Search Results
3/19/2025, 6:35:21 PM
>>1987012
>While there's some great technical improvements over RD, the game's core is a downgrade imo, and the DLC is far less bang for buck.
That's what I've been thinking about, Warno. There is a lot of nice stuff, but there are a few major downsides regarding the gameplay, which outweigh the former. There are also not enough changes to make it look like an actually new game. When I first launched it, it felt like a more boring reskin of Wargame on Steel Division engine.
I really don't buy their larp about 'muh historical accuracy' or 'balance', their DLC is based purely on greed. Those french faggots are just too lazy to make new content, so they just shit out those DLCs where 90% of units are copy-pasted. Moreover, due to retarded obsession with "realism", any nation that isn't USA or USSR is simply gimped. At least in Red Dragon those countries could get cool prototypes, to make them more competitive and have actual original units, but in Warno it's always second tier equipment so they're pretty much cannon fodder.
This is what probably annoys me the most about this game, it's literally "NO FUN ALLOWED" mindset.
Then there's singleplayer. It's nice that they brought Army General from Steel Division, it's better than the campaign from Red Dragon but it's still extremely basic. Encircling enemy units literally doesn't matter, because every battle is a direct confrontation with a regular frontline, so the only thing you achieve are some artificial bonuses and the chance to destroy the whole unit after battle, which is no different from the rest.
Broken Arrow had its own problems, but at least the game felt fresh. Deckbuilding is one of my favourite parts there, where you can upgrade units and, more important, change their loadouts.
And the unit cards are just great.
>While there's some great technical improvements over RD, the game's core is a downgrade imo, and the DLC is far less bang for buck.
That's what I've been thinking about, Warno. There is a lot of nice stuff, but there are a few major downsides regarding the gameplay, which outweigh the former. There are also not enough changes to make it look like an actually new game. When I first launched it, it felt like a more boring reskin of Wargame on Steel Division engine.
I really don't buy their larp about 'muh historical accuracy' or 'balance', their DLC is based purely on greed. Those french faggots are just too lazy to make new content, so they just shit out those DLCs where 90% of units are copy-pasted. Moreover, due to retarded obsession with "realism", any nation that isn't USA or USSR is simply gimped. At least in Red Dragon those countries could get cool prototypes, to make them more competitive and have actual original units, but in Warno it's always second tier equipment so they're pretty much cannon fodder.
This is what probably annoys me the most about this game, it's literally "NO FUN ALLOWED" mindset.
Then there's singleplayer. It's nice that they brought Army General from Steel Division, it's better than the campaign from Red Dragon but it's still extremely basic. Encircling enemy units literally doesn't matter, because every battle is a direct confrontation with a regular frontline, so the only thing you achieve are some artificial bonuses and the chance to destroy the whole unit after battle, which is no different from the rest.
Broken Arrow had its own problems, but at least the game felt fresh. Deckbuilding is one of my favourite parts there, where you can upgrade units and, more important, change their loadouts.
And the unit cards are just great.
Page 1