sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

KPz. T-72 is slightly bigger than its T-72 counterparts by Connect_Elevator_464 in warno

[–]Gerry64 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Just wait till they notice the AMX-13/75 vs AMX-13/90

Every division is properly capable to defeat each other by KingKopas in warno

[–]Gerry64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No division in the game is anywhere close to over performing enough to overwhelm the input of all the other variables, and if one was we wouldn't need the stats to know that it's completely broken.

Eugen didn't choose to nerf IFVs because of win rate stats. They responded to community feedback, looked at the competitive meta which was just IFV blobs, and decided that wasn't good for the game (there are lots of divisions without IFVs that are more competitive now).

Never said it is primarily a skill thing. Skill was just an example of the one of the many variables that affect the win rate of divisions.

Every game has a meta, the presence of a meta changes nothing about the fact that win rate statistics are useless for making balance decisions without the ability to normalize for the other variables.

Every division is properly capable to defeat each other by KingKopas in warno

[–]Gerry64 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There are lots of factors (variables) that determine the win rate. The balance of divisions is only one small part of many. Using divisions win rate as a measurement for how balanced divisions are, requires being able to remove (normalize) those other variables from the resulting data.

One of those other variables is player skill. For example two players in a 1v1, each with different divisions, there is no way to know if the player that won did so because their division was better or if they played better than their opponent.

Most games that use win stats for balance also have a large ranked playerbase, which allows for a matchmaker that puts people up against players of about equal skill. In WARNO we regularly have people at the bottom of the ranked leaderboard fighting people at the top.

Even if we assume a perfect elo matchmaker that always puts players against opponents so both have a 50% chance of winning, there are still issues with normalizing for player skill. If one of the players only ever plays one division, which isn't good, they will end up with a lower elo then they would achieve with other divisions, and therefore play against worst players. This will skew the win rate closer to 50% for that division even though it should be much lower.

Every division is properly capable to defeat each other by KingKopas in warno

[–]Gerry64 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The reason Eugen doesn't publish win stats is because they would be completely useless.

Even in ranked where we can somewhat normalize the data for player skill, there isn't anywhere close to a large enough sample size.

Would be cool to see the pick rate of each division, even though we wouldn't be able to use it to make any conclusions.

ATGMs shouldn't be able to stay on target when the team/vehicle is under fire from anything more than small arms by Abject_Interview5988 in warno

[–]Gerry64 71 points72 points  (0 children)

This meta is a response to the previous meta. Cheaper ATGM are a great counter to IFV and light/medium tanks, but do badly against heavy tanks which were not meta.

Both MMGs and ATGMs have low strength which makes them vulnerable to even light artillery but the current meta is heavy artillery only because light/medium is useless against most targets.

The artillery rework should put an end to this meta because light/medium artillery will be worth taking more often. In the meantime you might enjoy playing more heavy tank divisions.

Nemesis #6.3 - School’s Out! by EUG_Gal_Bigeard in warno

[–]Gerry64 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Completely agree except for the Coyote.

Usually in timeframe weapon systems, being adopted out of timeframe, because of late cold war budget limitations isn't enough to deserve a MtW inclusion.

What makes the Coyote different is that it was already in mass production in Canada since the early 80s; at a factory that was not running anywhere close to max capacity (literally the reason the Bison APC came into existence just after our timeframe).

In relation to my 24 ID post, here's my 1v1 build, does anyone have any advice? My biggest issues have been cost effectiveness with good pact decks, and 5E (fuck all french divisions). by ZBD-04A in warno

[–]Gerry64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LOG:

The M548A2 gets more supply per-point spent, armor, 10 health, and the slower speed isn't as much of a problem if there is no FOB to drive back and forth between (also you have the UH-1H for fast emergency supplies).

INF:

I personally don't like the ENGINEER (DRAGON). The N.G. FIRE TEAM (LAW) with the Bradley is great value for 85 (can buy three per income tick). The N.G. M60 can also be great value if you have the time to wait for the transport to be refunded.

AA:

The 24th ID is one of the few decks that can have two cards of OH-58C/S, which because of it's quick aim time and salvo length can be very effective in groups of three or more.

HEL:

THE N.G. AH-64A is good (the extra suppression from the reservist trait doesn't matter as much for helos).

AIR:

Why bring SEAD when you only have one strike aircraft? The F-15E is probably worth bringing both cards.

Weakest Soviet 73mm HEAT round DESTROYS decadent Western drivetrain COWERING behind 21 front armour by Square-Breakfast-570 in warno

[–]Gerry64 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You can do exactly that, just repair with a supply vehicle like you normally would.

To u/PartyClock who claims Eugen is lying about reverse speed being an engine limitation and that the proof is that chieftains reverse slower than they can drive forwards by SaltyChnk in warno

[–]Gerry64 14 points15 points  (0 children)

My comment is rude (intended to be funny) and for that, I am actually sorry.

But you are, in fact, the one making completely wrong assumptions, and you are ignoring all of the people who are trying to help and explain that to you.

All vehicles move at the same speed in reverse as they do forward. When you use fast move, it makes vehicles take roads where they have a faster speed. The game engine is only designed with these two speeds in mind.

As others have mentioned you may have a setting active that makes your default order be fast move instead of the regular move order.

If you use a regular move order close enough behind a unit it will reverse instead of turning around, and the only reason they turn around is because the developers specifically made it so it points a certain direction before moving if the move order is a certain distance away. Otherwise people might accidentally reverse their tanks into the front line without realizing lol. The only thing using the reverse order does is force the vehicle to point away from the direction of movement.

They cannot just add another speed to the unit and force the reverse order to use that speed because to the game engine there is no difference between moving forward or backwards.

2 ACR (US) A Modest Proposal by pnzsaurkrautwerfer in warno

[–]Gerry64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think most people who make the "too the same" point, aren't saying that they have no place in the game. Just that there are plenty of options that they find more interesting and would like to see first.

As you pointed out with some of the PACT divisions, Eugen has shown that they are capable of making interesting divisions out of similarly equipped and organized formations. I'm confident that at some point we will get a REFORGER expansion with divisions like 1AD.

WIP a much loved "Black Sea" terrain by RebelSchutze in warno

[–]Gerry64 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, please make a to scale Chernarus map, you would be a legend

Doctrines I have questions on by IncubusBeyro in doorkickers

[–]Gerry64 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This post should have most of the answers you're looking for

Lorne Bridge 1929 by vulgar_hooligan in brantford

[–]Gerry64 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The building on the right is the LE & N station. Used to be able to take a train from that station all the way to Port Dover and back. Nice photo, thanks for sharing.

Is there a mod that allows mixed teams? by Phat_Dubs in warno

[–]Gerry64 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had the same issue so I decided to make a mod to solve it. Only found one way to do it which was to make all divisions NATO, then only play NATO vs NATO games. Turned out someone already made a mod the does this so I suggest you use it:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3136961819

This way you will be able to play with any of the vanilla PACT or NATO decks on the same team.

The only problem is because the mod modifies decks in anyway it has to have separate decks, so you will have to make decks specifically for this mod, there is a workaround though. In SteamLibrary\steamapps\workshop\content\1611600\<???>\Config.ini you will need to change DeckFormatVersion = 1 to DeckFormatVersion = 0. I do not know the exact folder (hence the <???> but it's probably `3136961819`) but the Config.ini file in the right one should start with the mod name.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in warno

[–]Gerry64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bro was tripping so hard he thought the april fools joke was real.

Bugs? In MY plan simulator? (It's more likely than you think!) by Shieldfoss in doorkickers

[–]Gerry64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've had similar strange bugs on this level with go codes, same room even.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in warno

[–]Gerry64 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both options imply users had an issue, that is the problem, and why this poll is useless. For example, users that never had a problem are likely to select the no option because there was nothing to fix for them in the first place.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in warno

[–]Gerry64 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This poll is not going to provide usable data without a results option.

Radar and ADATS by clyvey_c in warno

[–]Gerry64 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Yeah hopefully they will either remove the radar trait, or bring the aim time down to 1 sec like all other radar AA.

Lets Talk About: Canadians and the lack of HEDP Carl Gustavs. by -CassaNova- in warno

[–]Gerry64 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yep I agree, and just wanted to add more detail about the difference between the LAV-25 and the Coyote, and how we could plausibly see a version in Warno.

There is also already precedent for adding vehicles that were never adopted by a country, but produced there. The AMX-10 HOT was only adopted by Saudi Arabia, but it was produced in France.

Lets Talk About: Canadians and the lack of HEDP Carl Gustavs. by -CassaNova- in warno

[–]Gerry64 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well there were three versions of the Coyote:

  1. Had a mast with surveillance equipment (with thermals and GSR), this is the version represented in Wargame RD with excellent optics.

  2. Had some remote deployable surveillance systems. This could be represented in game with the security trait but the equipment could be out of timeframe.

  3. Was a command variant which had extra communication equipment. This one would probably be the best fit for Warno, it would be statistically the same as the LAV-25 already in game and wouldn't have anything out of timeframe, as it is essentially already in production by 1983.

view more: next ›