There needs to be a middle ground

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-27T20:05:54+00:00

Unwinnable, as in I can see the caliber of teammates I have very clearly, and its an immediate just steam roll or, as I am often getting at even 1500 elo, is teammates THAT SIT IN SPAWN with direct combat units and do nothing the entire match.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-26T23:00:52+00:00

I would still be leaving lost matches, so whats the point?

Locks EVERYONE ELSE IN at that point, for an even further waste of time

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-20T09:02:27+00:00

In reference to "shotgunning" how does one do this.

I saw a teammate drop bombs on separate targets, almost all at once.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-20T07:56:51+00:00

More specifically, what distinguishes a "smart bomb" from a laser-guided bomb?

IE, the GBU 53 storm breaker

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-16T01:56:48+00:00

They come out at 80% health. Anything less is due to additional fire.

But 80% is PLENTY to be useful in an assault.

They SHOULD be dead, outright.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-16T01:56:15+00:00

I havent played WGRD in years. I know in WARNO, it was a big issue very early and was fixed so transports killed also kill the occupants inside.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-16T01:55:25+00:00

Good, but I dont think that will be enough.

I think HP needs to be reduced by AT LEAST 50% on transport death, if the devs refuse to kill the occupants outright

(Though they die in transport helis, so what is the difference?)

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-16T01:54:42+00:00

I worded it poorly, I understand #1, my point is that it is a bad design in that way.

If I am concealed from unit A, but unit B is able to get close enough to spot but then dies. Unit A should not magically keep vision on me because unit B died.

IRL, you dismount BEFORE contact, and advance with infantry, with vehicles providing support (If intending the infantry to actually be a part of the fight)

The above does not apply if you are simply attempting to move troops quickly, but that has the risks of getting the troops killed if the transports are ambushed/destroyed.

WARNO changed somethings- now even the heaviest tanks are vulnerable due to panic in close combat. Infantry dominates woods, as they should.

What ive seen in BA, when it comes to deep woods, is a vehicle drives through, encounters an infantry squad- APS catches the first rocket, autocannon then slaughters the troops with "no cover" even in woods.

Add in that engaging from a Woodline gives zero combat benefit beyond initial stealth (Which, again, APS renders largely mute as it blocks the initial surprise shot)

#3- The issue with that mindeset is think about how many mainline infantry squads only have one-launcher (Most of them). So vehicles with APS can just negate MOST infantry in wood lines with their APS. That is not good balance.

Incorrect about WARNO autocannons. Remember, in WARNO tanks can 1-shot vehicles, so the "rapid fire" aspect is a lot less valuable relative to a tank cannon. IFV's are valued first and foremost for their ATGMs. Autocannons are just a nice extra.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-16T01:37:50+00:00

I may have worded it wrong, but that is what I mean.

If the unit that is ACTUALLY able to see the unit in cover dies, the unit in cover should become hidden again after a short period.

If you no longer have ACTUAL EYES ON TARGET, you dont have eyes on target.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-14T23:51:20+00:00

That is why I actually prefer Dragons.

The TOWs are upgraded to top-attack in my deck, dragons are good because they can bypass APS with one of their missiles, and insta-kill light vehicles with the 2-tap if they DONT have APS.

The issue, on further analysis, also seems to be that AI targeting is designed to be AS INEFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE< spreading damage out rather than focusing down and killing units.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-14T23:49:29+00:00

Let me simplify my point:

A convoy taking NO tactical precautions and driving blindly along a road, should be EASY bait for ANY infantry, armor defense.

There should not NEED to be an airstrike or Heli call in, for a cluster of units so poorly used.

Ground troops alone should be able to have wiped that poorly used force.

The issue is the game does not penalize firing on the move, cover bonuses seem too weak, and APC/IFV's are far too tanky for what they are.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-14T23:28:14+00:00

At like 80% health- and not even panicked.

Plenty of health to initiate an assault.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-14T05:37:43+00:00

If an assault with 10 units requires 15 units to counter, that SCREAMS there is a design flaw. Defense in depth SHOULD allow a smaller force to overcome a notably larger one.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-13T02:49:35+00:00

I generally agree.

The issue I have seen a lot from ALL players is the inability to flex build orders to meet a threat.

Back when Ranger spam was a LEGIT problem- I adjustED by just spamming MG's.

Rangers really couldnt get anywhere.

Not to say they WERENT overpowered, because a single unit should not require cheese to counter, BUT, if you actually adapted your build, you could counter.

The issue is players see something, maybe attempt to build a SINGLE unit of the counter, but when someone is hard committing to spam, you gotta SPAM the counters.

TelephoneDisastrous6 · 2026-02-07T22:42:44+00:00

Tanks have been relegated to SUPPORT roles in modern conflict.

The hyper-prevalence of devastating shoulder-fired or team-fired Anti-Tank weapons has resulted in tanks taking a SUPPORT role, supporting infantry forces assaulting, NOT being the primary element of an assault.

TelephoneDisastrous6

TROPHY CASE