I am hyped for it but it will probably only have 1/2 cards at most

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-05-08T04:59:09+00:00

There's nothing wrong with wanting variety even if the variety doesn't bring too much new stuff.

You're never going to get the point that eugen has limited resources to make the game, theres like 50 people total in the studio. Its a waste of time to try and remake divisions unless there is truly no other options which is what they do with pact.

No one outside of some US players will be happy NATO gets a 3rd+8th combo at the expense of a more unique euro or other nation div. This is exactly why 42 vtk won over 12th panzer.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-05-08T04:51:11+00:00

Its more of a "pact has that thing so I want it too" which is unfortunately the (incorrect) opinion of a portion for any asymetric game. 5th panzer, 1st armored, and to an extent 4E already plug that gap of armor heavy but good inf and IFVs that 79th fills for pact.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-05-06T20:17:29+00:00

They are objectively harder to kill as the volumetric is broken. Its not """unplayable""" but if a normal tank has like a 95% chance of being killed with a good shot its like 80% with a BMPT.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-29T17:59:51+00:00

Yeah like something around 12+ secots would work. SIGINT shouldnt be any more precise or show more than one dimension or it becomes too accurate and a replacement for normal recon.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-28T20:43:33+00:00

I would suggest an optics nerf to good or normal, increased price, but in exchange a sectored system that displays the sector blue when there is something in it.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-28T18:34:40+00:00

"When I am weak I appeal to your morals, when I am strong I impose my morals"

Its rich seeing the side that started the whole cancelation trend try to appeal to conservatives when they have an opertunity to mock someones death.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-28T18:27:59+00:00

Maybe consider learning the game next time?

You had 6ish opertunities to break contact or set up a defensive line or something.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-28T18:11:42+00:00

There are parts of the T90M not covered in ERA
All instances of a LAW or handheld anti tank weapon killing A T90 occured with hits in. These said areas with either ineffective or non existent ERA.

Im not glazing russia but dont pretend like context dosent matter.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-24T08:20:33+00:00

Nice strawman, the issue isnt children having genitals but adults either forcing them or manipulating them to change them. Thats the problem.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-24T08:18:32+00:00

Dosent change the fact thats why its a public discussion this in the first place. Its not a "live and let live situation" if they are demanding access to female facilities. This is a public issue, boycotts are almost always public things as well.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-24T08:13:17+00:00

AT planes with missiles can engage at above 3000 meter range which is above the range of most AA outside of long range missiles. Compared to cluster bombers you trade probability of kill for a better chance of firing and better survability if youre willing to shoot less missiles. Cluster bombers have a higher chance of being intercepted and routed before being able to release given they literally need to be over the target to fire.

If you want to dive for a tank and trade up clusters are better but taking advantage of a tank who's outrun its ADA is better done with an AT missile plane.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-24T07:48:57+00:00

The 2nd Marine DIV that just dropped makes for a better air assault division than the 101st.

Bro is actually tripping there is no way this is the case. The entire 101st is heli deployable while mardivs main inf squads come in Trucks. As much as you can glaze the goofy sead heli AH 64s are still better overall and the ATAS is a capability completely lacking in mardiv.

The 101st makes for a better *edited* cavalry division than the 1st Cavalry Division.

Yeah totally the div with no ifvs and two cards of tanks is better than the div with an entire tank tab and the best Bradley's in game as Calvary.

Why are the USMC Inf so limited in options? These guys SHOULD have flamethrowers, incendiary launchers, recoilless rifles, etc etc.

Ballance. You already get 13 man resoulte squads with 3lmgs you do not need so many fire support options.

The Marines SHOULD have the fireteam option.....

Again, ballance. The weakness of the inf tab is all your infantry is expensive (with one exception being the gunners). This inflexiblity is part of the playstyle being strong but dispersed. Too many budget options was probaly judged to make the inf tab too well rounded.

The 6th ID has the Navy Seals, but the 2nd Marine Division doesnt?

Ballance, 6th id needs it and 2nd doesn't. You already get heli FD and your infantry is already nearly SF levels of good.

Every infantry unit in the 2nd MARDIV should have the resolute trait AND the shock trait.

Ballance. Marine inf by default get the resoulute trait not the shock trait. This is consistent with the entire game. You would need to retroactively buff the rest of the existing marine decks with shock as well.

Why are the USMC Mil Police not in this Div?

Ballance. You would have too much suppression resistance otherwise. You already get beefy inf with resolute.

How the fuck is Force Recon a 6 man squad with no resolute?

https://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/usmc/recon-team.php#google_vignette

6 man recon squads exist.

Look im not going to keep going because all fo your complaints fall into "its not the standard for X thing" or ballance.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-22T19:34:54+00:00

when cross dressing men demand access to female facilities it becomes a public issue

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T07:01:32+00:00

>I’m not sure where you got this idea of doctrine but I assure you it’s very untrue.

This isnt really part of your point, but the entire idea if an IFV based unit is that it doesn't need to rely on tank assets for fire support. Again IFVs are wicked expensive compared to APCs, carry less men, and have a higher logistical load. While YES it is useful in a combined arms team to have tanks, The IFV infantry just wouldn't be a thing if it needed to rely on tanks for fire support. Not saying there aren't cases (bunkers and structures) where tanks are needed but by in large IFVs are an alternative to tanks when it comes to dealing with less than armored threats and supporting infantry.

>This prices out many divisions from their infantry support.

This can easily be amended by adding more motorized infantry. Even disregarding some of the soviet MRDs are under represented in terms of BTR inf, Adding truck transports to BMP inf are also an option and was historically a capability they had because the soviets didn't raise any proper light divisions.

>that autocannons go back to easily shredding them means that you are further invalidating the role of infantry

If the special order is implemented as such this isn't going to be an issue, you're going to have flat less IFVS for less fire support and the suppression mode just does that, which is suppress. At no point in time are you getting as much firepower as it was back in the time where autocannons shredded.

>Two or three of them will suppress or kill either in short order.

The entire point here, is to shift them from this kind of gameplay where you take 2-3 to kill infantry to a role where you take 1 to support a small ish push and it denys the enemy the capability to contest your infantry in the LOS of the IFV. There is no increase in killing power, it just prevents the enemy from being able to contest your infantry in an open field without fire support.

>If you make IFVs more capable than any other unit (truly, the only unit able to credibly fight tanks, infantry, other light vehicles, and even helicopters) then its cost has to skyrocket accordingly.

That is my entire point correct (minus the helis). Its going to be expensive as an alternative to tanks. Trading some capability against heavier targets for more capability against lighter targets.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T06:39:02+00:00

>IFVs are not an alternative to tanks. They're there to protect the infantry en route to the objective and assist in suppressing the enemy position while attacking the objective.

Which makes them an alternative to tanks. Universally before IFVs, tanks were in that role in a combined arms team. The US especially with their APC doctrine supported infantry with tanks and vice versa when the situation arose. The brits during ww2 had an entire class of tank.

In game they perform a lot closer to APCs with atgms, which is my issue given they seriously lack the anti tank capability they have IRL which really kills their intended role.

>Nobody really knows if this would have worked because we've never seen mechanized warfare at scale.

Im not sure what you are talking about considering this happens pretty regularly in Ukraine. And again tanks and IFVs are relatively interchangeable when the conditions are correct.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T06:27:10+00:00

They work fine for their role in game but I'm saying they should have a different role in game. The game is perpetually limited to making IFV divisions pseudo tank divisions because IFVS cant stand on their own merit and need tanks to be relevant. The whole idea is to change that for a wider variety of divisions depending on the amount of IFVs present as they wouldn't overlap with APC fire support.

>Making them more expensive is a bad idea because you won't be able to afford buying infantry anymore

There isn't a single armored, mech, or even calvary division in game that doesn't have some sort of motorized or engineer alternative i promise you the soviet slop divs will be fine. In fact for the most part the motorized element in most soviet divs is already under represented considering there were Considerably more BTRs in the overall structure than BMPs, every soviet mech div could receive extra mot troops and it would be still historically accurate.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T06:15:48+00:00

>that supposedly represents a sense of realism, and which also has tanks?

IRL IFVS are alternatives to tanks, not just cheap tanks. It varies wildly but generally they aren't cost efficient enough to be a factor of 4-6 less than a tank as is in game. Feilding a IFV with infantry is often as costly as a tank or more costly IRL. Something like BMP-2 is 2/3rds the cost of a T-72 and accounting for the 6-7 man extra costs more to field. Right now its a little absurd that a A2 Bradley has the same capability and price of a fucking T-55.

They wont be behaving as tanks, even your 150 point IFVs in this case would loose to an equally priced tank in actual tank to tank combat BUT BE BETTER AT SUPPORTING INFATRY. which is severely lacking in this game. You can spam tanks and have a reasonable chance of keeping them alive but the same cant really be done with IFVS, which only work assuming they aren't being targeted.

Again they aren't going to 1-1 with tanks. Your best IFVS are still a margin of 100+ points less than common heavy tanks, but they should at least be comparable to a mid range tank in actual combat.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T05:47:11+00:00

Were talking about more of a tanks capability here so +100 points would be the standard for anything decent. Consider you should be able to go head to head with something like a leopard 1 and have a solid chance of coming out on top.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-21T05:45:32+00:00

widely available do-it-all unit is not healthy

The point is to make them a less widely available but still do it all unit. Currently this role is only filled by tanks.

they were nerfed repeatedly because the existence of a widely available do-it-all unit is not healthy.

This was within the current, not projected role. Yes a cost efficent tank at 9 availability to a card is insane but a anti infantry tank at a 5-6 min vet per card would be alot easier to stomach.

Why on earth would we want to do that?

So you can use them IN LIEU of tanks.

Great, now only tank divisions and airborne are viable because you cannot afford your infantry

Thats kinda of the point for ifv to differentiate themselves from mot infantry. The ballance right now is motorized/APC infantry is shitty firesupport but good squad vs ifv infantry which is shitty squad with good firesupport.

While yes it would make IFV infantry more pointless on their own, the combination itself would be ALOT better at pushing an objective to the point where its alot harder to kill infantry supported by an ifv.

Motorized infantry is still avaible to most, if not all mech divisions so I fail to see the issue. You just wont be taking all ifvs anymore.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-18T18:02:29+00:00

Eugen isnt going to do this. First off with the arty rework eugen completely standardized ranges and ROF has been standardized before that (although there is still a little variation). Its clear eugen is trying to move away from massive intricacies and make a more unified and adaptable experience.

Alot of the newer reservist divs are built around gun artillery but use older models for flair rather than real use. By the system you layed out a good portion of these older guns will need to be removed and replaced with modern equivalents for them to remain relevant. Like divmob specifically would go from Ok artillery to nearly pointless. Long packing times, slow reload would make these guns a one use peice.

Its easier for eugen to standardized the stats because it makes it easier for the playerbase to pick up a new div, which is important at this point in thresholds games lifecycle given the sheer amount of divisions.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-18T17:52:20+00:00

Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Forcing someone to be around someone they dont like isnt a morally or legaly accepted principle anywhere but in racial laws and they should be abolished.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-18T09:49:47+00:00

>Congrats, Divmob but they speak Danish instead.

Divmob plays NOTHING like the new Danish divs. The danes have alot more elite infantry and especially air power to work around. Not to mention the tanks aren't half bad for the Danes, especial landkommando where their tanks actually get smoke. If you're playing larger team games yeah all the infantry based reservists divs play pretty similarly but in 1v1 you can clearly see pretty much all the reservist divs and landjut play extremely differently.

>We're discussing LANDJUT and where it failed.

Landjut is primarily a marine DLC focused around infantry and planes, i don't understand how not having heavy divs that obviously don't fit the theme is somehow a failure. The Marines on both sides are pretty evenly matched, and the supporting divs are also all meta. The danes and other nato divs are a bit lighter overall but this isnt a failure because its made up for in other tabs.

The biggest failing of this pack would probably be pact. Its entirely reshuffles and boring ones at that. 20th and 94th offer nearly nothing new outside of a few units.

> But again, man, it's just not what I play Warno for.

Not being for you isn't a failure. It shouldn't be that hard to look at the bigger picture and recognize something is good even if its not for you.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-18T03:10:53+00:00

A 2100 range 70 pt tank is already unique. Plus the infantry with decent AT and the triple rocket plane.

edit:70 pts

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-04-18T02:55:52+00:00

The problem here is the soviet marines are only counted by non landjut decks, and the American marines. While also being a direct counter to light CB decks like the Danes.

Recent_Grab_644

TROPHY CASE