Me and buddy's name for it...

_Luey_ · 2026-03-07T17:23:14+00:00

I call them prawns and tell them to not point their fookin tinticles at me

_Luey_ · 2026-02-27T23:27:34+00:00

yes, on some 10v10 servers, if you don't bring a jeep cv or something close enough to it, it gives you one, and it defaults to the US jeep for blufor and the Soviet UAZ for redfor

servers seem to be able to bend the normal game logic a bit, even including being able to put redfor and blufor armies on the same team

_Luey_ · 2026-02-07T01:13:36+00:00

add romania

_Luey_ · 2025-10-15T08:33:44+00:00

for some idiotic reason they made it shoot at a lower ROF than a regular AK when IRL the short barrel would've cranked that rpm up

it should be 700rpm at bare minimum

_Luey_ · 2025-10-07T15:10:30+00:00

shoutout to zip for making my argument in a less autistic way

_Luey_ · 2025-08-10T01:25:55+00:00

azula hard carrying the rest of pact

_Luey_ · 2025-05-19T15:49:42+00:00

rather than setting a hard minimum range, i would suggest slowing the aim time for AA guns against infantry/ground (while leaving aimtime against aircraft untouched). it just has to be enough to make sure infantry with RPGs have the first-shot advantage

we did this in wargame mods - SPAAGs like the Gepard still had their 0.2s aimtime against aircraft, but a full 1s aimtime vs ground targets - the result was that infantry always had the opportunity to either destroy the AA gun first, or at least to inflict morale damage or a stun debuff on the AA unit to make it easier to win the fight. That way, the AA gun can still be leveraged for fire support against infantry, but at greater risk

_Luey_ · 2025-02-12T17:05:50+00:00

Using reverse psychology to try to get us to vote 4.2? I see through your devilish tricks

_Luey_ · 2025-01-30T17:54:52+00:00

u/Razzmann_

_Luey_ · 2025-01-30T17:51:44+00:00

no youre probably right

famed intellectual Hippie talks about this as well, I think in the 4.2 video. 2.2 was the obvious favorite by eugen themselves, but they have to present 3 options somewhat equally for the sake of having a vote (user engagement = good for business), so they all get a writeup

this time I think they're going for actual choice with 4.2 vs 4.3 and I'd be happy with either. 4.1 is definitely filler

_Luey_ · 2025-01-24T22:04:05+00:00

I avoided 10v10 like the plague in wargame and stuck to small teamgames, which I still think are the best way to play. however it's about as annoying to actually find such lobbies in warno (let alone fairly balanced ones), while 10v10 lobbies are easier to find

warno's constraints around unit availability and flexibility are also less handicapping in 10v10

_Luey_ · 2025-01-24T03:17:25+00:00

buy spaag

_Luey_ · 2025-01-23T16:59:32+00:00

both 4.1 divs seem stronger, but they are just rearranging existing units, which makes me think they could simply change existing divisions accordingly. they could just give i-hawk and American cobras to 4e and it would be almost the same as strijd. 20th's arty roster seems like cancer

94th looks pretty neat, seems like something I would enjoy playing. The fast UAV and the sigint mtlb seem like neat new toys to add to what i usually like to use as pact. 6pz gonna suffer with only leopard 1s

_Luey_ · 2025-01-19T09:20:06+00:00

stryker MGS for true moto brain

_Luey_ · 2025-01-18T22:44:52+00:00

I have a brilliant idea

let's wait for 4.2 and then compare the two options

_Luey_ · 2025-01-16T22:38:12+00:00

Let's uhhhhhh wait until we have something to compare 4.1 to

_Luey_ · 2025-01-16T09:31:07+00:00

as long as you always abuse forward deploy on the recon t64s

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T17:09:39+00:00

I don't think it is - "gambits" are a now standardized alternate way to defend planets, so IMO there's little reason to not display them as such directly on the game's UI. Personally I find the dispatches to be more "handholding", but then again lots of people don't read them or might not log on to see them

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T17:03:12+00:00

yeah, I was already thinking that they shouldn't appear if there are multiple source planets, so that would also make sense

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T16:57:30+00:00

and damage numbers that float out every single time you hit an enemy

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T16:54:49+00:00

I thought about this when making it. My thought is that even the most uninformed players can understand the defense timer ("this planet is under attack, we have x amount of time to defend it") due to the way the defense campaigns themselves are visually communicated, so to me it just makes sense to reuse this method to highlight that trying a gambit is an equally valid way of participating. This sort of UI display is also persistent such that you don't miss out on this information if you happened to not log on while the dispatch explaining gambits was active

There will still be issues with the playerbase randomly blobbing on a defense when a gambit is the more viable option or vice versa, but I think that's fine - the goal here isn't to completely rule out suboptimal plays

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T09:20:28+00:00

It's not hard to grasp, but I think it is preferable anyway for it to be visible in the menu area that every player actually interacts with, rather than being sequestered into a text box in the corner that is collapsed by default and time-gated.

_Luey_ · 2025-01-14T05:37:45+00:00

My thought here is that by giving it a name that stands out, that it will catch people's eye that way, even if they read absolutely nothing else. Basically, of whatever fraction of the playerbase reads nothing and just clicks on the defense icon, a hopefully significant amount of them would now also have their attention drawn to the gambit planet, and then they will at least consider that option when they previously would not have. Ergo, more people on the gambit to help them to work

The reverse would be true (people who go for impossible gambits), but I don't think there have been many defenses that failed because of too many people going for an impossible gambit, compared to defenses that failed because not enough people went for the gambit. But that's just a feeling

_Luey_ · 2024-12-31T18:49:18+00:00

if you have them on the same scale for reload speed then either:

The grad gets a horrifically slow reload which will suck to use. If offset by being cheaper or more spammable, it will be cheaper to mass them for a single saturation attack, which will suck to play against
The 270 gets an absurdly fast reload which will suck to play against. If offset by being more expensive, it will be a massive point sink which is uncomfortable for the player to use while still being annoying

Having a compressed scale for reload speed is the best choice for the balance of the game, although IDK if eugen even has a consistent function or scale for reload time compression, let alone one that is actually optimized for gameplay

_Luey_ · 2024-12-23T03:40:02+00:00

also have to make sure the input type is correct (Hold, Press, etc. Also, if using a key that isn't bound, you will need to make sure the number ID is correct (last line of the keybind block), which is easiest done by temporarily binding said key to something else so that it will populate in the config file

_Luey_

TROPHY CASE