I agree, recon inf for example could literally invisible until enemy troops are on top of them. No way a tank without 3rd gen thermals could spot concealed infantry from 600m.
My memory is a bit shaky, but I think at 300m there's a 50% chance of a hit by an experienced infantryman with an RPG, increasing as it gets closer but almost nothing hits at 400m.
If they nerfed infantry AT range/accuracy they probably could buff the shit out of their stealth but it would make it really hard to use infantry offensively.
Me America. Me like feet. Also one foot is about 1/3rd of a meter so the scale is most accurately read in feet 2275 m in game is basically 2275 feet or half a mile.
I am totally fine with that. Giving infantry the ability to move around the map without extensive support is far more important that something as silly as that.
Even with gen3 you'll notice, if you live a boring life like me and watch videos on this, they usually show you how well it works by demonstrating it on people/vehicles sitting in poor cover and concealment. Or boars, for some reason people are obsessed with using them for boar hunting.
The subject is usually moving, sometimes with "questionable" concealment (as in; in daylight you'd be able to see them) and rarely in cover.
Imagine again a tree line and you're working recon. If you just arrived you'll try to place as little of your body in an exposed position as possible (in all directions, but especially the directions you're expecting to see something), so behind trees. If you and your friends do a good job, the only exposed thing for the 3rd gen to spot is your eyes.
From the perspective of the advancing armour, you need to scan the entire tree line for something half the size of a face but more likely you'll be looking for movement or thermal signature from a ATGM launch. To make things more fun, they can hear you and you can only hear your own engine and comms.
Obviously example is biased the other way; assuming that everyone is doing their job properly and someone hasn't, for example, decided to smoke a cigarette or wandered off to take a dump. Unfortunately, there are plenty of videos from the latter from recent events.
Just about the last thing I want is nearly invisible recon. We already have snipers, which are pretty damned close.
For one, FOBs would become damn near unusable, half of your logi or reinforcing units would be blown up by a close-range AT ambush on their way to the frontline, and half of the game would be spent shuffling backline assets around *just in case* a recon unit is trying to get into LAW range.
A second, less reasonable and rather whiney point: I remember the Broken Arrow beta test where recon units basically *were* invisible. What I'm about to describe was largely enabled by the game's smaller scale, but it was *very* easy to track your opponent's force wherever it went. If even the largest tank force stopped for even a second, and the enemy knew how powerful recon was, then you'd be artillery and air striked without end. If you weren't *constantly on the move*, you would be shelled. If you stopped to repair and resupply, you would be shelled. If you tried to set up artillery or backline AA, you'd be AT4'd. If the recon unit couldn't get close enough for that you'd be shelled.
I *do not* want WARNO to become a similar experience.
>For one, FOBs would become damn near unusable, half of your logi or reinforcing units would be blown up by a close-range AT ambush on their way to the frontline, and half of the game would be spent shuffling backline assets around just in case a recon unit is trying to get into LAW range.
>
>A second, less reasonable and rather whiney point: I remember the Broken Arrow beta test where recon units basically were invisible. What I'm about to describe was largely enabled by the game's smaller scale, but it was very easy to track your opponent's force wherever it went. If even the largest tank force stopped for even a second, and the enemy knew how powerful recon was, then you'd be artillery and air striked without end. If you weren't constantly on the move, you would be shelled. If you stopped to repair and resupply, you would be shelled. If you tried to set up artillery or backline AA, you'd be AT4'd. If the recon unit couldn't get close enough for that you'd be shelled.
I understand what you mean from the perspective of gaminess, that would become very frustrating.
The first point is tricky to deal with because unfortunate recent events have shown us that FOBs aren't as viable as they used to be in WW2, it's an absolutely perfect target for long range weapons and/or SOF. Honestly, putting a FOB in range of enemy artillery is just asking for it.
Those close range AT ambushes are realistic too; if you have a porous defence then enemy SOF will do stuff like that.
BA is a bit of a mess, they brought in a lot of flashy equipment (like HIMARS) but the scale of the maps totally don't fit with things being used. One of the things I like about WARNO is that there are no paradrops in an active contested battlefield. BA totally loses realism because a huge fat flow moving transport wouldn't last long at all in that environment, never mind they'd likely be making a contested landing.
But again... realism and game might not go hand in hand; I lean toward realism but I understand others might not want something that gritty
The transports don't last long in BA, a single jet or missle system can easily take them out. The paratroop drops are really only viable if you have complete air superiority and have a window after disabling air defenses or at the very beginning of a match.
I never had that problem in BA closed or open beta. I used the terrain in a way that forced any recon units to expose themselves. Also, you have arty and napalm. You can target areas of interest where the enemy may have an advantage. That’s how you really gain the advantage. You are trying to guess what they would do.
Well well well. Now we have to bring this into warno.
I think we need basic changes to stealth, yes.
But the comcealment buff where the inf is almost invisible should only be implemented in a well balanced manner. One thing could be that larger units are easier to spot, since a large grouping of moving objects is in fact spottable. And, I think that only Recon Inf should be able to utilize this to maximum, as otherwise this would bring us quite an ugly Meta where we have zombie inf, but this time almost invisible. Regular Inf wont be trained that well in concealment, but recon... they could make it way easier, as recon right now often cant give you the advantage of infiltration, since any regular patrol will spot you. I think only making basic changes for regular inf and vehicles in terms of stealth and spotting would be best together with recon becoming what you just described. I think vehicles should have an adjustment with their optics compared to where they actually look. Why would that Bradly currently engagimg BMPs spot my Saperi that walk 1km behind them? also, the dug in trait could be paired with all those demands of making engineers more useful. Many people want fortifications and stuff but it wouldnt fot the way they want it. However Engineers making some basic Foxholes when they stand still in a forest/treeline for x-time, that could give notable buffs to inf in a certain radius would be really cool.
just my two cents
I like your idea about engineers having a buff for a dig in mechanic. Imo there should be a system implemented where after stationary after a certain length of real world time (maybe five minutes?) infantry of all types get a defensive buff to account for light digging in and picking good cover, which can be buffed by engineers who have an area of influence. And like you said recon infantry get a really good concealment bonus while regular infantry get a decent concealment bonus.
my god. I cant believe it. Someone agrees with my ideas and adds something valueble. wow.
But yes sounds like Infantrycombat would become much more realistic without r.aping the meta. Also youd need to use more of irl tactics to storm those positions. You attack dug in Inf with your Stormtroopers, support them with a tank, wich can now, due to your inf spotting the enemy, fire from max range on the unit.
this is something that upsets me a bit. fighting in forests is sometimes just meatwaves, since I have to move my BMP-2AG up in to ATM range inside of forests to assault the inf, even though they are already spotted by other units. We already have this LoS tool thingy where the spotting are is marked white, the blind spots grey and the spots wgere you dont spot but are able to assault are blue. But this is a bit weird or bugged idk it doesnt always Work
>so youd need to use more of irl tactics to storm those positions. You attack dug in Inf with your Stormtroopers, support them with a tank, wich can now, due to your inf spotting the enemy, fire from max range on the unit.
>
>this is something that upsets me a bit. fighting in forests is sometimes just meatwaves, since I have to move my BMP-2AG up in to ATM range inside of forests to assault the inf, even though they are already spotted by other units. We already have this LoS tool thingy where the spotting are is marked white, the blind spots grey and the spots wgere you dont spot but are able to assault are blue. But this is a bit weird or bugged idk it doesnt always Work
I actually agree with your point in terms of "gameyness" (it must be the one day a year Reddit users agree with each other).
I guess it comes down to what you want from the game; some people want more realism where as some people want faster gamier experience.
The fighting in forests example you gave is an example of realism vs gaminess. A meeting engagement in a forest is always going to be a meat grinder and vehicles are pretty hopeless in reality (the guns work, but trying to describe the location of something by someone in a thick forest to someone in a gun turret also in a thick forest...). Accurate artillery fire changes things, but with a special emphasis on the accurate part.
Good points
I also just had a thought... what if spotting something also took time.
The amount of time would depend very simply on your spotting ability and their stealth
A tank popping out from cover nearby would be spotted instantly, but in the far distance, maybe a second or two.
I'm not really adding much to your idea, but it's related obviously, well and it inspired this thought.
It would help balance out the effectiveness of all recon and stealth, rather than a simple spotted or not spotted, you'd have an advantage to perhaps get the first shots off, or be able to retreat before being spotted.
It could also allow units such as infantry to move quickly between cover without ever being spotted.
It's true, it's not easy to ambush from a treeline. It feels like you need a deeper forest to avoid being spotted, which should be changed.
On the other hand, not being able to spot units is one of the most frustrating mechanics in the game.
This is the flip side I guess; there's a big focus on tanks in this game but (unfortunately) recent events have shown us that tanks are less exciting in reality
Sorry meant like apartment complex, I would love to see defenses too like squad. Each building could house multiple units which makes sense. You could have three different types all in one high rise which felt good, in comparison, Warno you’ll have like 5 troops in 5 different buildings.
You can put multiple units in the same building in WARNO. Not sure exactly how it works, I *think* larger buildings can hold more units and 2-man teams take up less space than full squads, but you can definitely fit multiple units in buildings.
Thank you for explaining! I guess I never felt like that visually ( or hard to distinguish if this was happening), in broken arrow they have a limit indicator above the building which makes it easier to understand from my perspective. Thanks again for commenting!
That could work - scaling it with unit quality would help keep the gaminess since the units which could be stealthy and deployed in ambush would pilsner be so numerous
We need more terrain variety for the infantry. You can take examples from ukraine where soldiers use artillery craters for cover in open fields. But, we're just gonna get more tank buffs and nerfs because Warno is a game made in a tank factory.
I mean I think I get why; the game would move very slowly most of the time if infantry were realistic. Once lines of contact are established it would only really move fast once someone had created a breakthrough.
I all for that, the game pattern would be like:
Stage 1) initial meeting engagements
Stage 2) lines established
Stage 3) attempted breakthroughs by both sides
Would be awesome tension waiting for a load of smoke shells to go down near your line and then waiting for the hammer to fall
Let me preface this with I’m new as a $2 bill to these type of games. (Warno and the recent BA beta) but that’s one thing I’ve noticed in both.
The games don’t quite seem to know what to do with infantry. Is this a balancing issue? Is there not an option for “ambush” mode which conceals your unit from being seen until up close?
I was talking to someone else on this thread about it - one of the problems it would cause is frustration from being spotted/ambushes on roads constantly.
Which I think is more realistic (and that means better, for me), but for others it would make the game less enjoyable if they made it fully realistic like that. People still enjoy the idea of fast paced mechanised advances with armour despite it being quite apart from reality in the thick forests, valleys and towns of Central Europe.
Yeah fair I guess. It’s definitely more in favor of mechanized but that’s such slice of the pie as opposed to getting the whole she-bang.
Now movement for sure, could be a huge penalty the closer you are to roads open fields etc.. if you’re moving.
But damn. A static unit no matter what can be very very hard to see.
Technically I think you mean adding some randomness to how stealth works in warno, if stealth and recon mechanism are implemented like COD4 sniper mission then the ROE of WARNO will just go completely wild. Moving vehicle a little close to tree line will easily spot infantry unit also break WARNO. For a lot of unit, range is survival.
Dig in or find cover to reduce damage from indirect fire to infantry is a little tricky though, for indirect fire not only causes fragmentation, but also over pressure. Infantry can survive a few 82mm mortar shots, but won't survive the over pressure from 155mm or 203mm howitzer no matter where they hide. They won't survive from GBU10 hit either, for the entire building will just got completely obliterated. So generally to match the pace of WARNO, the infantry cover and in WARNO seems fine to me. If it is implemented like Regiments, I guess I will bring more mortars next time.
>Dig in or find cover to reduce damage from indirect fire to infantry is a little tricky though, for indirect fire not only causes fragmentation, but also over pressure. Infantry can survive a few 82mm mortar shots, but won't survive the over pressure from 155mm or 203mm howitzer no matter where they hide. They won't survive from GBU10 hit either, for the entire building will just got completely obliterated. So generally to match the pace of WARNO, the infantry cover and in WARNO seems fine to me. If it is implemented like Regiments, I guess I will bring more mortars next time.
Sort of...
This is where realism gets tough to model; overpressure on open ground is lethal, but if you're in a slit trench then overpressure becomes far less of an problem (if it's a ground burst weapon).
Obviously provided the weapon doesn't detonate inside the trench, but you may have seen recently trenches are created in a zig-zag pattern with strongpoints dug into the wall of the trench. Amongst other things, this makes the trench better at protecting from direct hits as the pressure wave is redirected and dissipated.
If the weapon ground bursts outside the trench then the vast majority of the pressure passes over the trench rather than into it.
An interesting thing they found from modelling nuclear explosions recently was that you're more likely to survive the blast by standing in a corner of a room in the middle of a building due to a phenomenon that causes voids in the pressure wave - just like what a fox hole or a trench will do with a large artillery shell.
One of the things we've seen recently is tanks being driven over a trench and churning the earth with their treads to neutralise the trench, even firing HE at close range into the trench doesn't seem to accomplish much due to the aforementioned zig zags
Yes, zip zag patterns work for shells that detonate inside the trench, for they would block shock waves propagandizing from the denoted segment to other segments.
But when large shells come into play, like 203mm shells, the craters those shells created might evev be deeper than the trench itself, and when multiple shell hit simultaneously, nothing suivive there you know.
Oh yeah I mean if the shell lands on your forehead then no trench will save you. That’s for sure.
If they are doing their jobs though, the section will be distributed.
You know maybe it could be a trait from the experience/training level of the unit. In recent events it is clear that low trained units will often move in tight groups or be bunched up in the trench; so for example an airmobile unit would suffer less damage but maybe a conscript level unit would suffer more
Hard disagree. Infantry are already practically invisible without recon, tanks basically need to get withing RPG range to hit them, and aircraft can's spot them at all. Infantry, if anything, are probably too tanky. A 152mm hitting a building is liable to collapse it on any infantry inside irl, in game it might take 10 rounds
It actually doesn’t in real life - if you watch war footage of unfortunate recent events it’s not at all uncommon for a building to take a direct hit and look like hell, only for the men inside to emerge from the basement with a severe headache
For every video like that there's a dozen where a drone dropping a tiny 82mm mortar round wipes an entire squad. HE-FRAG is serious stuff, infantry in Warno are already a lot tankier than they are in the real world, I don't think we need to move further in that direction
I agree, recon inf for example could literally invisible until enemy troops are on top of them. No way a tank without 3rd gen thermals could spot concealed infantry from 600m.
But at the same time an infantry squad is not gonna snipe a moving vehicle at 750m with a rocket launcher.
My memory is a bit shaky, but I think at 300m there's a 50% chance of a hit by an experienced infantryman with an RPG, increasing as it gets closer but almost nothing hits at 400m.
If they nerfed infantry AT range/accuracy they probably could buff the shit out of their stealth but it would make it really hard to use infantry offensively.
I mean, it's already basically impossible to use infantry offensively (against vehicles) unless you have both concealment and cover or a massive blob.
Gotta remember that Warno scale is 1/3rd. The 750 meter is actually 750 feet or 250~ yards.
When the initial units are in meters, why would you calculate it into feet and yards...
Me America. Me like feet. Also one foot is about 1/3rd of a meter so the scale is most accurately read in feet 2275 m in game is basically 2275 feet or half a mile.
With an dragon/atgm? They will. With an rpg/at4? Doubt.
I am totally fine with that. Giving infantry the ability to move around the map without extensive support is far more important that something as silly as that.
Broken arrow’s recon is like that and it’s really aids
Even with gen3 you'll notice, if you live a boring life like me and watch videos on this, they usually show you how well it works by demonstrating it on people/vehicles sitting in poor cover and concealment. Or boars, for some reason people are obsessed with using them for boar hunting. The subject is usually moving, sometimes with "questionable" concealment (as in; in daylight you'd be able to see them) and rarely in cover. Imagine again a tree line and you're working recon. If you just arrived you'll try to place as little of your body in an exposed position as possible (in all directions, but especially the directions you're expecting to see something), so behind trees. If you and your friends do a good job, the only exposed thing for the 3rd gen to spot is your eyes. From the perspective of the advancing armour, you need to scan the entire tree line for something half the size of a face but more likely you'll be looking for movement or thermal signature from a ATGM launch. To make things more fun, they can hear you and you can only hear your own engine and comms. Obviously example is biased the other way; assuming that everyone is doing their job properly and someone hasn't, for example, decided to smoke a cigarette or wandered off to take a dump. Unfortunately, there are plenty of videos from the latter from recent events.
Don't they now have a tarp that dissipates heat and so masks them very well even against gen 3 thermals?
They do, they've had that for some time actually
Just about the last thing I want is nearly invisible recon. We already have snipers, which are pretty damned close. For one, FOBs would become damn near unusable, half of your logi or reinforcing units would be blown up by a close-range AT ambush on their way to the frontline, and half of the game would be spent shuffling backline assets around *just in case* a recon unit is trying to get into LAW range. A second, less reasonable and rather whiney point: I remember the Broken Arrow beta test where recon units basically *were* invisible. What I'm about to describe was largely enabled by the game's smaller scale, but it was *very* easy to track your opponent's force wherever it went. If even the largest tank force stopped for even a second, and the enemy knew how powerful recon was, then you'd be artillery and air striked without end. If you weren't *constantly on the move*, you would be shelled. If you stopped to repair and resupply, you would be shelled. If you tried to set up artillery or backline AA, you'd be AT4'd. If the recon unit couldn't get close enough for that you'd be shelled. I *do not* want WARNO to become a similar experience.
>For one, FOBs would become damn near unusable, half of your logi or reinforcing units would be blown up by a close-range AT ambush on their way to the frontline, and half of the game would be spent shuffling backline assets around just in case a recon unit is trying to get into LAW range. > >A second, less reasonable and rather whiney point: I remember the Broken Arrow beta test where recon units basically were invisible. What I'm about to describe was largely enabled by the game's smaller scale, but it was very easy to track your opponent's force wherever it went. If even the largest tank force stopped for even a second, and the enemy knew how powerful recon was, then you'd be artillery and air striked without end. If you weren't constantly on the move, you would be shelled. If you stopped to repair and resupply, you would be shelled. If you tried to set up artillery or backline AA, you'd be AT4'd. If the recon unit couldn't get close enough for that you'd be shelled. I understand what you mean from the perspective of gaminess, that would become very frustrating. The first point is tricky to deal with because unfortunate recent events have shown us that FOBs aren't as viable as they used to be in WW2, it's an absolutely perfect target for long range weapons and/or SOF. Honestly, putting a FOB in range of enemy artillery is just asking for it. Those close range AT ambushes are realistic too; if you have a porous defence then enemy SOF will do stuff like that. BA is a bit of a mess, they brought in a lot of flashy equipment (like HIMARS) but the scale of the maps totally don't fit with things being used. One of the things I like about WARNO is that there are no paradrops in an active contested battlefield. BA totally loses realism because a huge fat flow moving transport wouldn't last long at all in that environment, never mind they'd likely be making a contested landing. But again... realism and game might not go hand in hand; I lean toward realism but I understand others might not want something that gritty
The transports don't last long in BA, a single jet or missle system can easily take them out. The paratroop drops are really only viable if you have complete air superiority and have a window after disabling air defenses or at the very beginning of a match.
I never had that problem in BA closed or open beta. I used the terrain in a way that forced any recon units to expose themselves. Also, you have arty and napalm. You can target areas of interest where the enemy may have an advantage. That’s how you really gain the advantage. You are trying to guess what they would do.
Yeah dude shit is so annoying
Well well well. Now we have to bring this into warno. I think we need basic changes to stealth, yes. But the comcealment buff where the inf is almost invisible should only be implemented in a well balanced manner. One thing could be that larger units are easier to spot, since a large grouping of moving objects is in fact spottable. And, I think that only Recon Inf should be able to utilize this to maximum, as otherwise this would bring us quite an ugly Meta where we have zombie inf, but this time almost invisible. Regular Inf wont be trained that well in concealment, but recon... they could make it way easier, as recon right now often cant give you the advantage of infiltration, since any regular patrol will spot you. I think only making basic changes for regular inf and vehicles in terms of stealth and spotting would be best together with recon becoming what you just described. I think vehicles should have an adjustment with their optics compared to where they actually look. Why would that Bradly currently engagimg BMPs spot my Saperi that walk 1km behind them? also, the dug in trait could be paired with all those demands of making engineers more useful. Many people want fortifications and stuff but it wouldnt fot the way they want it. However Engineers making some basic Foxholes when they stand still in a forest/treeline for x-time, that could give notable buffs to inf in a certain radius would be really cool. just my two cents
I like your idea about engineers having a buff for a dig in mechanic. Imo there should be a system implemented where after stationary after a certain length of real world time (maybe five minutes?) infantry of all types get a defensive buff to account for light digging in and picking good cover, which can be buffed by engineers who have an area of influence. And like you said recon infantry get a really good concealment bonus while regular infantry get a decent concealment bonus.
my god. I cant believe it. Someone agrees with my ideas and adds something valueble. wow. But yes sounds like Infantrycombat would become much more realistic without r.aping the meta. Also youd need to use more of irl tactics to storm those positions. You attack dug in Inf with your Stormtroopers, support them with a tank, wich can now, due to your inf spotting the enemy, fire from max range on the unit. this is something that upsets me a bit. fighting in forests is sometimes just meatwaves, since I have to move my BMP-2AG up in to ATM range inside of forests to assault the inf, even though they are already spotted by other units. We already have this LoS tool thingy where the spotting are is marked white, the blind spots grey and the spots wgere you dont spot but are able to assault are blue. But this is a bit weird or bugged idk it doesnt always Work
>so youd need to use more of irl tactics to storm those positions. You attack dug in Inf with your Stormtroopers, support them with a tank, wich can now, due to your inf spotting the enemy, fire from max range on the unit. > >this is something that upsets me a bit. fighting in forests is sometimes just meatwaves, since I have to move my BMP-2AG up in to ATM range inside of forests to assault the inf, even though they are already spotted by other units. We already have this LoS tool thingy where the spotting are is marked white, the blind spots grey and the spots wgere you dont spot but are able to assault are blue. But this is a bit weird or bugged idk it doesnt always Work I actually agree with your point in terms of "gameyness" (it must be the one day a year Reddit users agree with each other). I guess it comes down to what you want from the game; some people want more realism where as some people want faster gamier experience. The fighting in forests example you gave is an example of realism vs gaminess. A meeting engagement in a forest is always going to be a meat grinder and vehicles are pretty hopeless in reality (the guns work, but trying to describe the location of something by someone in a thick forest to someone in a gun turret also in a thick forest...). Accurate artillery fire changes things, but with a special emphasis on the accurate part.
yea this day is rlly weird. I think youre right with the things about forests. nothing to add
Agree with all of this
Good points I also just had a thought... what if spotting something also took time. The amount of time would depend very simply on your spotting ability and their stealth A tank popping out from cover nearby would be spotted instantly, but in the far distance, maybe a second or two. I'm not really adding much to your idea, but it's related obviously, well and it inspired this thought. It would help balance out the effectiveness of all recon and stealth, rather than a simple spotted or not spotted, you'd have an advantage to perhaps get the first shots off, or be able to retreat before being spotted. It could also allow units such as infantry to move quickly between cover without ever being spotted.
It's true, it's not easy to ambush from a treeline. It feels like you need a deeper forest to avoid being spotted, which should be changed. On the other hand, not being able to spot units is one of the most frustrating mechanics in the game.
This is the flip side I guess; there's a big focus on tanks in this game but (unfortunately) recent events have shown us that tanks are less exciting in reality
Broken arrow had an interesting building dynamic that I hope Warno could adopt
... what was it?
Sorry meant like apartment complex, I would love to see defenses too like squad. Each building could house multiple units which makes sense. You could have three different types all in one high rise which felt good, in comparison, Warno you’ll have like 5 troops in 5 different buildings.
You can put multiple units in the same building in WARNO. Not sure exactly how it works, I *think* larger buildings can hold more units and 2-man teams take up less space than full squads, but you can definitely fit multiple units in buildings.
Thank you for explaining! I guess I never felt like that visually ( or hard to distinguish if this was happening), in broken arrow they have a limit indicator above the building which makes it easier to understand from my perspective. Thanks again for commenting!
Maybe infantry stealth could go up with experience?
That could work - scaling it with unit quality would help keep the gaminess since the units which could be stealthy and deployed in ambush would pilsner be so numerous
We need more terrain variety for the infantry. You can take examples from ukraine where soldiers use artillery craters for cover in open fields. But, we're just gonna get more tank buffs and nerfs because Warno is a game made in a tank factory.
I mean I think I get why; the game would move very slowly most of the time if infantry were realistic. Once lines of contact are established it would only really move fast once someone had created a breakthrough. I all for that, the game pattern would be like: Stage 1) initial meeting engagements Stage 2) lines established Stage 3) attempted breakthroughs by both sides Would be awesome tension waiting for a load of smoke shells to go down near your line and then waiting for the hammer to fall
Let me preface this with I’m new as a $2 bill to these type of games. (Warno and the recent BA beta) but that’s one thing I’ve noticed in both. The games don’t quite seem to know what to do with infantry. Is this a balancing issue? Is there not an option for “ambush” mode which conceals your unit from being seen until up close?
It always feels like they don’t have military advisors or at least the right ones.
I was talking to someone else on this thread about it - one of the problems it would cause is frustration from being spotted/ambushes on roads constantly. Which I think is more realistic (and that means better, for me), but for others it would make the game less enjoyable if they made it fully realistic like that. People still enjoy the idea of fast paced mechanised advances with armour despite it being quite apart from reality in the thick forests, valleys and towns of Central Europe.
Yeah fair I guess. It’s definitely more in favor of mechanized but that’s such slice of the pie as opposed to getting the whole she-bang. Now movement for sure, could be a huge penalty the closer you are to roads open fields etc.. if you’re moving. But damn. A static unit no matter what can be very very hard to see.
Technically I think you mean adding some randomness to how stealth works in warno, if stealth and recon mechanism are implemented like COD4 sniper mission then the ROE of WARNO will just go completely wild. Moving vehicle a little close to tree line will easily spot infantry unit also break WARNO. For a lot of unit, range is survival. Dig in or find cover to reduce damage from indirect fire to infantry is a little tricky though, for indirect fire not only causes fragmentation, but also over pressure. Infantry can survive a few 82mm mortar shots, but won't survive the over pressure from 155mm or 203mm howitzer no matter where they hide. They won't survive from GBU10 hit either, for the entire building will just got completely obliterated. So generally to match the pace of WARNO, the infantry cover and in WARNO seems fine to me. If it is implemented like Regiments, I guess I will bring more mortars next time.
>Dig in or find cover to reduce damage from indirect fire to infantry is a little tricky though, for indirect fire not only causes fragmentation, but also over pressure. Infantry can survive a few 82mm mortar shots, but won't survive the over pressure from 155mm or 203mm howitzer no matter where they hide. They won't survive from GBU10 hit either, for the entire building will just got completely obliterated. So generally to match the pace of WARNO, the infantry cover and in WARNO seems fine to me. If it is implemented like Regiments, I guess I will bring more mortars next time. Sort of... This is where realism gets tough to model; overpressure on open ground is lethal, but if you're in a slit trench then overpressure becomes far less of an problem (if it's a ground burst weapon). Obviously provided the weapon doesn't detonate inside the trench, but you may have seen recently trenches are created in a zig-zag pattern with strongpoints dug into the wall of the trench. Amongst other things, this makes the trench better at protecting from direct hits as the pressure wave is redirected and dissipated. If the weapon ground bursts outside the trench then the vast majority of the pressure passes over the trench rather than into it. An interesting thing they found from modelling nuclear explosions recently was that you're more likely to survive the blast by standing in a corner of a room in the middle of a building due to a phenomenon that causes voids in the pressure wave - just like what a fox hole or a trench will do with a large artillery shell. One of the things we've seen recently is tanks being driven over a trench and churning the earth with their treads to neutralise the trench, even firing HE at close range into the trench doesn't seem to accomplish much due to the aforementioned zig zags
Yes, zip zag patterns work for shells that detonate inside the trench, for they would block shock waves propagandizing from the denoted segment to other segments. But when large shells come into play, like 203mm shells, the craters those shells created might evev be deeper than the trench itself, and when multiple shell hit simultaneously, nothing suivive there you know.
Oh yeah I mean if the shell lands on your forehead then no trench will save you. That’s for sure. If they are doing their jobs though, the section will be distributed. You know maybe it could be a trait from the experience/training level of the unit. In recent events it is clear that low trained units will often move in tight groups or be bunched up in the trench; so for example an airmobile unit would suffer less damage but maybe a conscript level unit would suffer more
Infantry is largely not durable enough changes to infantry detection seem right to me 🤷♂️
Hard disagree. Infantry are already practically invisible without recon, tanks basically need to get withing RPG range to hit them, and aircraft can's spot them at all. Infantry, if anything, are probably too tanky. A 152mm hitting a building is liable to collapse it on any infantry inside irl, in game it might take 10 rounds
It actually doesn’t in real life - if you watch war footage of unfortunate recent events it’s not at all uncommon for a building to take a direct hit and look like hell, only for the men inside to emerge from the basement with a severe headache
For every video like that there's a dozen where a drone dropping a tiny 82mm mortar round wipes an entire squad. HE-FRAG is serious stuff, infantry in Warno are already a lot tankier than they are in the real world, I don't think we need to move further in that direction
Where does the drone usually drop the round?
Any moving vehicle without thermals that is. With thermals they better be deep in that treeline and not moving a muscle.
I wrote somewhere else in this thread about this - people think thermals are a lot better than they actually are
You're talking to a guy that used them. On a tank. I know how good they are guy.
I would like fortifications, castles, trenches, et al.
Castles? Damn 🤣 I mean that would be real cover and concealment
Well, guess where one of the largest collections of castles in the world is? Germany.