Which Is Better? // WARNO vs WARGAME

[@STKS1991]

WARNO is much better from a historical perspective. But a huge part of Wargame EE/ ALB / RD succeeding was the fun deck building, sometimes you want to get drunk and play a full arty deck in 10v10, or have a commonwealth deck filled with whatever you feel like. There needs to be some more arcadey type options in WARNO to make it a safe place for RD fans to move to. Prototype units were a big part of this.

[@egoalter1276]

What it needs is tighter combat. The compressed range, slowed down projectiles, x ray vision on all units, poor accuracy, and a number of other changes from red dragon to steel division that got carried over to warno I think make for worse combat.

[@0DTEVIXCALLS]

MAKE WARNO RUSE 2

[@perilxurr868]

@@egoalter1276 it’s realistic

[@perilxurr868]

@@0DTEVIXCALLSdude a Ruse 2 with it being the Cold War would be fucking AWESOME! I would love another Ruse🥲

[@egoalter1276]

@@perilxurr868 Not even Wargame was realistic, and this is even less so.

[@OtherlingQueen]

Knowing the Wargame fanbase one of the big reasons that keeps them playing Red Dragon as opposed to WARNO are funny jingoist factions like Israel and Apartheid South Africa and the fact that the wargame chat is essentially not monitored anymore.

[@Krytech420]

Also the non common factions were great, sweden, denmark, Finland, Norway. I bought the game purely for Norway and ive loved the wargame/warnonseries ever since

[@OtherlingQueen]

@@Krytech420 I mean, some of them were really cool to add. Since Airland Battle took place in Northern Europe that was cool but there was so much potential for actually far more interesting countries instead of more NATO like Netherlands, Israel, SA. We should have had Iran, India, etc, countries that actually make sense for the Red Dragon setting. Instead we had apartheir troops running around in tropical Asia...

[@ItsKlawtastic]

the wargame chat was monitored? 😂

[@molotov6844]

​​​​@@OtherlingQueenit would just fill the redfor unspec deck with more T-55's, T-72's, and BMP's that everyone else has. Both Israel and South Africa bring something new to the table. The netherlands is a weird choice for DLC ngl tho. The equipment pool of nations like Iran and India would be more interesting if the game took place in modern day, where they have local equipment (as seen in many mods), instead of the cold war where it was mostly imported stuff.

[@molotov6844]

The majority of players who I've met that don't like warno say it is because the gameplay feels more like steel division than wargame. Many people wanted wargame new millennium instead of steel division cold war from warno.

[@henryoshea4951]

People complain a a lot about unit variety in WARNO because of the division system, but I find in games there is more variety since different divisions force people to use different units rather than people using the same meta decks and meta units over and over like in Wargame. The better infantry mechanics as well mean people dont just spam VDV '90, with WARNO having many types of VDV infantry even, and only limited to one deck.

[@RedTomato1917]

Exactly, why does choice matter when there are clearly only a few good options. You always see the same units in red dragon because of it

[@alessandroiorio6248]

Complaint is valid, the only restriction should be that of what the nation can field in real life, not artificial divisions. And the example VDV '90 (or other similar units) are already restricted to 2 specs plus general in wargame, so they are already balanced that way. In competitive play WARNO has the exact same problem of people choosing always the best units anyway, because you don't compete to have fun or to lose, you compete to win; difference is in wargame you can also build quirky decks for non-competitive play without dumb artificial restrictions. Because of this (and probably some other reason I can't think of on the fly) the division system should be scrapped for future titles

[@henryoshea4951]

@@alessandroiorio6248 Artificial divisions and artificial limitations? What? You mean the real divisions, brigades and regiments with equipment accurate to the era and setting of the game. What was presented in wargame was not what was being fielded in real life even. Finland wasnt using Stug IIIs in the the 1990s and the Soviets were not using T-34-85s at that time either.

[@alessandroiorio6248]

​@@henryoshea4951 Cool, I phrased my first sentence incorrectly but still you are missing the point; i know there are divisions in real life with those names. I meant artificial restrictions (which is what divisions are mechanically), like i wrote at the end. My point still stands tho and divisions are the facade to disguise the artificial restriction. Who cares if there were no T34s in soviet armored formations at the fulda gap, they are there for the purpose of gameplay. If anything our points should be combined with a mechanic where a lobby host could set to have only units historical to the setting, like restricting a lobby only to coalition decks. Still what i propose adds to the game, what you say can only detract from it. Arguing about historical accuracy is a rabbit hole we don't really wanna go into with EUGEN, or we would have to scrap half of wargame's factions

[@henryoshea4951]

@@alessandroiorio6248 Myself and many others do care about historical accuracy, and so WARNO is much more appealing than wargame, alongside its division mechanics. Thats something that I disliked a lot about wargame, but too each their own. I still find that there is more variety in games in WARNO than wargame.

[@thejonathan130]

Auto counter battery and unload at point are the 2 main reasons I prefer Warno over RD. It's also a very pretty game

[@dontanton7775]

Unload at point is possible in RD: Just queue unload with a SHIFT click order.

[@afrosnyper5597]

Once Eugen release the full range and depth of mod tools (like SD2 tools), it will carry the longevity of the game for quite some time. Sadly currently with the mod tools you cannot create custom names for things, but i can understand why Eugen didnt give the community that on day one.

[@TF2enjoyer2008]

for me the real probleme with wargame is that , the dev never worked on something other than adding new unit or faction in team. the game mechanic and IA never changer since the realease of the game. in 5 years we never get any quality of life improvement in the game. Just for that i think WARNO will be a much greater strategy game in solo and Multiplayer game.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah i wish they really focused on the naval aspect of things after releasing it

[@voterfraud4creepyjoe60]

People should give more credit to Steel Division 2, it was a test bed for a lot of features and quality of life improvements that we are getting to see come to live in WARNO

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

oh absolutely. I would keep playing if it they didnt have that front line system OR the stunning and surrendering mechanics.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

There are many smaller differences, like the sound effects of machine guns, infantry voice acting etc, but that would end up in a 20 minute video kekw. Hope this video is a nice summary and comparison between these two amazing games.

[@checkerbene]

Its Deck Building and Unit Variety that stops Players from moving on to WARNO. That was one of the most fun parts about Wargame.

[@ronmka8931]

But then you have meme migs and vdv’90

[@darklordaranyx2467]

While I am considering moving from Wargame to Warno, one of the main points that I loved so much about Wargame is the massive variety of playable nations. And I'm a bit worried that Eugen might go a similar route as with Steel Division 2 and focus mainly on one or two theaters and any armies that would be fighting there.

[@blackmagemasher4031]

Wargame was my first Eugen game, I have such a love/hate with it because of that. I like the gameplay of SD2/Warno more, but I like the unit diversity of Wargame SO MUCH MORE

[@therealgaben5527]

yah even now on release there are only 2 red4 nations 😭

[@darklordaranyx2467]

@@therealgaben5527 I know right? During early access I was huffing massive Copium, that once the proper release rolls around the game's scope would have increased massively, but nope.

[@Imperial_Novatrooper]

This has always been the plan tho

[@DontUputThatEvilOnMe]

Warno is more historically accurate if you like realism. The divisions are essentially the nations of Warno.

[@jigsaw2642]

Difficult topic. I personally prefer wargame. I prefer its deck system, the coloured deck cards that conveniently let me know what I am looking at, the much better UI, the maps, the gameplay and much more. With that being said I also like warno and I would prolly pay full price if its quality of life features could be ported to wargame as a dlc or sth.

[@otavio8566]

I will mis the navy aspect ftom RD in WARNO, but what really pissed me of about naval in RD is that the Arleigh-Burke DD didnt exist but the japanese variant of it did. Plus you couldn't land helos on the ships, alongside the the asm spam

[@michaelthayer5351]

I've tried WARNO, I've got 2k hours in ALB and RD combined, but I just can't make sense of the WARNO UI, it seems cluttered, difficult to tell what's going on and it's a lot harder to manage stacks of multiple units. Added to that is the performance issues. I've never had issues with Wargame but WARNO even doing 1v1 on lowest graphics the game lags, my computer isn't the newest but its still shouldn't be struggling this much where 10v10 for Wargame runs better than 1v1 for WARNO.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

i mean yeah wargame was build for a 2014 computer to be honest here. Warno is much more graphically intensive. I understand that you might feel the UI is a bit confusing at first but its just because its something new. give it some time and itll feel normal in no time. this is one of the big difficulties people like yourself need to get past since you have thousands of hours in games with a different UI.

[@michaelthayer5351]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment Maybe, but WARNO is still the only game my computer has problems with. And besides all the people I play with are still in Wargame, hell most of them even still play ALB over RD because they like the balance better. We'll probably all end up just keep playing Wargame until the servers shut down. It's like that whole line about old dogs and new tricks.

[@haymaker7784]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I have had the same issue with the UI; however, even after a couple hundred hours in WARNO I still think there is something worse about the UI design that is holding it back, that paired with the map design issues and different gameplay balance choices kinda keep me going back to RD though.

[@kingmarre9130]

​@@michaelthayer5351 lol Just get a better PC, i have no problems with Warno. The UI is allmost the same what are you talking about

[@michaelthayer5351]

@@kingmarre9130 I'm not gonna spend money just to play a subpar game I don't enjoy and can't make heads or tails of.

[@rydekk-4644]

You forgot one thing, the one thing that makes WG RD FAR BETTER than Warno ever will. Free nation deckbuilding, not being limited to divisions that only had certain unit types... They claim it's for balance, but Eugene Microtransaction Systems sure found a better way to milk DLC's with division didn't they? As for your other arguments and saying you try not to have any bias. Most of them boil down to the game being 10 years older, there is bias there from the start. Ofcourse Warno will "be better" in those regards and you could argue that even that isn't true. The reality is that Warno is at this point, incomplete thanks to the "sell now, fix/build later" strategy so many developers have adapted over the years. I prefer WG because it is a complete product, it has more content, despite age is a well polished product, gives you liberty to do what you please without catering to a niche competitive scene by limiting options in deckbuilding. And no, that won't 'hurt' me as you so in a PA way said.

[@lequack6373]

The biggest problem for me about Warno in comparison to WGRD is infantry. They are so much slower and more vulnerable now, even in forest or urban combat. Also they have tiny rifles, with like 2 mags each per person. So more often than not, both side depletes their gun ammo before half of the enemy squad is dead.

[@attilakatona-bugner1140]

that is... quite literally 10 times more realistic than wargame? even in sd2, the mgs with 4k ammo just make that gameplay a weird mg-supressing fiesta for infantry. realistically, infantry is hard to kill, and should be bad at dealing damage, unless it enjoys fire sup over the other side

[@lequack6373]

@@attilakatona-bugner1140 Yes, but infantry should be configured so that they are be able to finish another squad with 1 load of munition, not for realism, but for the sake of gameplay.

[@Delucaass]

@@attilakatona-bugner1140 it's a rts game, you know that, right?

[@diddybop8025]

as someone who was in the service... 2 mags is a little low. usually combat load is 7+ but that usually is dictated by what type of conflict you were getting into. Large force on force encounter? Yeah you're going to be bringing as many mags as your little spine can handle carrying around.

[@jakemonkey7]

You can wipe a squad with the base load of ammo for each squad if you close with the enemy squad, I usually use my inf in pairs to have one squad suppress (most often the squad being focused on to minimize their damage intake) and the other move in to do damage.

[@nirktheman-thingstab-cutter]

As much as WARNO has QoL improvements, I really feel It doesn't compare well to WG:RD simply because it lacks variety. All of my favorite nations to play...aren't in WARNO. Furthermore, the maps in WG:RD were more varied aesthetically and allowed some fun with imagining the conflict is taking place elsewhere among the globe where WARNO every map feels like generic European countryside and its just so dull to me. Where's my Chosin Reservoir? Smoke on the Water? Maze in Japan? Cold War Z?

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Ironically, all the maps you mentioned are barely played, but i do agree that they need to add some variety to warno maps.

[@kingmarre9130]

No shit that the maps are in european when the game takes place in Europe.... and the game is still in EA

[@nirktheman-thingstab-cutter]

@@kingmarre9130 You could not have missed the point more if you tried. My critique was not that the maps "take place in Europe" it's that they lack aesthetic variation. Unless you're arguing that's simply impossible with a game set in Europe?

[@kingmarre9130]

@@nirktheman-thingstab-cutter I understand your point but they have said its takes place in one part of Germany where it was very open, so countryside with small towns and some larger ones. There some maps with a city and they have said more maps will come

[@chamikk90]

i don't like the scale change in maps. in red dragon, the distances feel more realistic than warno

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah, as i mentioned, the maps in wargame definitely feel a bit better in some cases. I think the scale in warno is due to some maps being much larger than in wargame.

[@chamikk90]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment not just the maps, unit sizes are much larger in worno. 2km engagement range for a tank feels like 500m

[@haymaker7784]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment The big issue for WARNO maps is width vs depth, since the aircraft speed changes force deep maps you tend, in the 1v1 rotation, to get less wide maps which force less wide play.

[@egoalter1276]

Thats because it is. There ia a 3.8x range multiplier to what you read on the card compared to what is displayed.

[@likelike344]

I feel like wargame just feels more epic (more huge). You could have done huge pushes and make truly magnificent manouvers not just pushing 1-2 units. The scale was just different and thats what I miss the most

[@emo-sup-sock]

I regularly see large tank columns when playing, mass IFV assaults, and even the occasional heli rush (although it is not even close to being as problematic as it is in WGRD). It definitely feels slower than WGRD, but isn't this just nostalgia for when Eugen-style RTS were new to you?

[@warbrain1053]

@@emo-sup-sock Well, can you do a 20 IFV push in warno? with 4-8 supporting tanks?

[@emo-sup-sock]

@@warbrain1053 absolutely

[@warbrain1053]

@@emo-sup-sock as one player? Lose it and then do it again?

[@emo-sup-sock]

@@warbrain1053 two times? depends on deck. Most mechanized and territorial defense decks would be able to pull that off. Why is this even a question?

[@rinopalumbo7192]

Warno is fantastic and is again in early access and it will have a lot of improvements starting with the new maps

[@kappa_06]

I feel that this game IS wargame 4. Sames mecanicsm. And I enjoy it because I am an absolute fan of wargame serie. I feel sad that Eugen System don't give a map & campaign editor in red dragon. I think the community of Wargame must be very active if people can create their own map & campaign. One addition that would have been really fun would have been "multiplayer campaigns"!

[@williamwherewhatwho6177]

I'd like to point out another thing I've been asking for, for a long time. Heli's finally have flares!

[@evangelionfan2A]

How about regiments?

[@pelprod6388]

Red dragon is so much better and complete warno is beautiful and that all

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Complete, sure, better? thats objective. There are many things in WARNO that are objectively better and the same is true for wargame. the main thing i experienced is that i just cant play wargame after playing warno, the quality of life mechanics that warno has is already reason enough for me, but i still enjoy both games!

[@jonny-b4954]

I still really wish they'd add...... TERRAIN, to their game. Like there are NO hills, valleys, mountains, no rolling hills or anything. I always thought that would significantly improve the game. But, I get why they haven't bothered. I also think they need to add active protection and ERA

[@apolakigamingandmore6376]

0:46 *Wargame tank rush be like, until the A-10 comes in:*

[@Mori-ey8wj]

One thing I always hear ppl complain about is the Deckbuilding WGRD with its Nations and "complete freedom" approach vs Warnos Battlegroups/Divisions more restricted approach I've been playing these games since European Escalation and I Warno us the first I tried online multiplayer with because the Deckbuilding didn't feel too intimidating too me. So tines less is more especially for "newer" players

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah i prefer the WARNO method more. It forces you to have certain weaknesses when you go for a deck, well in most cases. In wargame, most decks played the same as any other deck and didnt feel really unique.

[@tristanhicks9824]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainmentthe problem with the current meta though is that certain divisions are just worse than others

[@SandwichesAreAwesome-iu2hn]

Ive been waiting for them to finish the campaign mode before I buy it.

[@CapybaraConnoisseur89]

I prefer WARNO because of Division system and range tool, generally all good things from SD2.

[@JeeJeen]

division system is the worst thing they've added and one of the main reasons me and other people don't want to play warno

[@TheMasterChief101234]

@@JeeJeen boohoo

[@milancetkovic7496]

range tool is nice, it was teally hard getting used to wargame's range and vision system after playing SD44 as a first game of this kind for me. On the other hand, i think division system was unnecessary really. I have played warno for some 60 hours lately and i got to say, game looks beautiful. Destruction is nice, explosion effects are awesome, units look cool. I just dont get the division system. Also, keeping it only in european theatre is boring. Give us desert maps for israeli and egyptain divisions, give us turkish or greek divisions too. Neutral countries of Europe like Yugoslavia and Sweden would also be nice. Just having German maps gets repetitive really quickly.

[@spaceduck2130]

@@TheMasterChief101234 I'm actually in favour of playing WARNO but your comeback is just dumb.

[@ohsam5954]

As someone who played Warno before trying Wargame I must say I love Warno so much. It is my favorite game period. No competition.

[@OtherlingQueen]

This checks out because the Wargame fandom is 100% based off 'muh devs are libtards and I can't say the n-word anymore', Wargame was a great game for its time but there's no reason to play it now that WARNO does everything better.

[@HansenHa]

I play warNote much better than I play walking game red Dragon. I think it have to do with the mechanics are much better in the new game and also I feel the new game is much more realistic red Dragon have a big tenancy too itinerary the base all the time And I haven’t seen that too much in the new game. I only saw it one time it was a bit ignoring in the new map with the airport. Some people use the fire artillery where the units are coming out and a lot of the units got burned and I just feel it a bit Bad gameplay for the player just doing that if you only wanna get points from artillery the base and kill the units coming out I think that’s pretty low. I don’t do that because I don’t see it as really playing the game in both games. I only played 10 or 10 now. I don’t play red Dragon anymore. I suggest all red dragon players to come to the new game is really much better.

[@HansenHa]

But one thing I miss is the small maps 10 words 10 there’s not really any small maps in the new game. I hope it’s coming. Perhaps the developer could take some of the red dragon maps to put them in the new game I hope so and also I Mr. ships I don’t play ship battles in the old game but some of the maps where you can use to ship together I think really that’s a lot of fun but some of the maps in the new game is really too big most of the maps I don’t play. I like the map with the big city in the middle. That’s my favorite and I also like the mapwith the airport and the map called the Twin Cities.

[@L1eutenantMaster]

The modding tools we were given for warno are lackluster. Imagine giving tools to modify units data but not allow to rename them. So you can have custom division names, unit names or even custom countries. And that's just one issue among many more.

[@soup2684]

Having played every one if their games since Ruse, WARNO is mu favorite from a pure gameplay perspective. Sure it doesnt have the nation variety yet but its far and away the most functional

[@danielfrancis4799]

Thanks for you video! What would you say is the real minimum specs of a laptop/computer for playing Warno. A Red Dragon Fan with old computer.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

I'd say modern day components and you should be fine. For a laptop, the best i7 or a very good i9 and at least a 4070ti since laptop components aren't the same as PC ones. You can check my pc if you want to know what I have.

[@asyanimasi3d]

How many faction are it at now?

[@littlebird665]

I thought something was familiar, so I looked at my steam library. And it turns out my dad played war game while he was a kid.

[@metkiy_t-bod8571]

How to rotate the camera? Pls help meb

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

middle mouse

[@metkiy_t-bod8571]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment It’s works! Thank you!

[@Mnero78]

Just bought warno and i already miss my merkavas 😢, hopefully they release israel and asian factions again

[@MrDukes1111]

I have plenty of time on both. I obviously like the variety of units and deck building in WG:RD. However the quality of quantity makes it no comparison. Warno is the better game by a mile. The sound, visuals, gameplay. I genuinely love getting a big hit on a tank and hearing the rounds pop off, so satisfying.

[@EL20078]

Wargame airland battle was amazing, sad thing is they didn't release any DLCs when they could have released a heap and they would have been uber-popular. If you ask me Wargame Airland battle was left neglected.

[@Justusuave313]

Never played either or any game like them tbh so came here to decide which one to get seems like Warno is the way to go but Wargame currently has a sale where all games and dlc ($90+ of content) are available for $17 and I feel like that’s too good to pass up

[@rnak3183]

I want red dragon with warno graphics 😂

[@rookstun]

Wargame had interesting weapon variety for vics. I wish we got the Comvat and Starship in Warno, which has better mechanics overall.

[@Lem0nsquid]

Airland was great after EE but red dragon was pretty meh for me. However warno is just leagues ahead of war game in every category. It’s just a matter of fleshing it out now

[@angmori172]

Regarding GFX, the color palette makes the biggest difference imo. Warno is so much easier on the eyes

[@nickghilea3624]

I have only been playing the single player campaign for both and enjoyment of engage wise wargame take it because it feels like a rts game while in warno feels like a statistic and numbers game with realistic models.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

This video was sponsored by Hypemasters and World War Armies. You can download this free to play mobile RTS game here: wwc.onelink.me/uDzy/rts

[@LynxErgo]

My man is growing

[@HostileGG]

Warno is a very good game, and the graphism are top notch, the only thing i don't realy like is the lack of diversity in term of factions compared to Wargame, Israël and South Africa are very unique and original factions i'd like to see them again.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

There will be more nations added to warno

[@lakshamb]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment lacks of units.... lack of units per card.... lack of nations.... no Asian faction just European..... People are bored of European only factions. They could have made a new game based on modern era.... nations like china, India, Japan.... but no..... it's just air land battle remastered

[@hejdu4480]

Warno is in a really good spot now and it keeps getting better with every update. I will always have a soft spot for wargame but just stuff like the line of site tool makes it so much more enjoyable.

[@duckman12569]

Schlomowitz Shecklenberg is playing right now!

[@wolfno.755M]

My issue with warno is simple, I got red dragon (with every single dlc) for 25 USD but warno on early access cost 30 USD atleast. I will pay that much when it is a finished game.

[@Applecompuser]

I really really enjoy Wargrame Reddragon. Id like to see a Blizzard level of quality pvp matching would be really great.

[@ronmka8931]

The ranked wg:rd matchmaking pitted me against a top 11 ranked major general while i was on my 3rd ranked match at private

[@StratiotisTV]

I bought the wargame and steel division games but I could never stick to it. Warno captured my heart by suprise after being triggered by the Broken Arrow playtest.

[@EldenPing]

I dont know what it is but I feel like wargame gameplay and everything is more enjoyable than SD2/Warno.

[@antimob4420]

it requires much less minimum iq, so you fell confortable and cool

[@alessandroiorio6248]

I feel like the analysis almost skipped gameplay (the thing that matters most) and balancing, and could have used a longer runtime. Also the UI in WARNO is fking terrible compared to the older Wargames, it's a mess to read on the fly, icons are sized weirdly and things like assessing ammo count is impossible at a glance without different colouring; unused spaces in the menus, fake buttons, weird text sizing, only 3 weapon characteristics instead of the unrestricted number of acronyms (which are more intuitive and efficient btw) in wargame.....etc. Also somewhat of a dealbreaker for me is plane behaviour: they drop payload when they are on top of their target together with basic physics, making them easy meat for SHORAD, in turn making both long range AA and SEAD redundant, leaving unreliable fighters as the only efficient use of unit cards for long range AA. They are also generally more inaccurate than wargame across the board, making RNG even more of a frustration. Infantry gameplay is better in only one aspect that i can think of, the fact that now switching buildings has a consistent timer and can therefore be timed correctly, instead of praying to RNG your dudes don't go out just as bombs are going off. Recons behind enemy lines are borderline useless without the need for CVs and the massively dumb fact that they can only guide shots inside an arbitrary circle instead of what they can actually see, meaning you might as well go kill those enemy arties shooting from spawn with your MANPATS; which means an elite unit with excellent optics can guide just as well and as far as a dude with binos. I'd have so many more things to add and i bet some are already in the comments; i haven't played WARNO lately so they don't come to mind easily, but there's a 1 hour video to be made about this comparison, and i think 7 minutes don't make it justice. I'd want to switch to WARNO since i bought it, but it's simply worse that RD in what matters. And saying that it's a "10 yo game I don't want to betray" is ridiculous; it's a game not a person, i don't owe any loyalty to it, if wargame was worse than WARNO i'd switch in a heartbeat.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

honestly i do not recognize many of the issues you experience in WARNO. Something being different isnt automatically bad. You say that you havent played WARNO lately and that tells me that you simply dont have a lot of hours in the game (going to assume that) so i would just recommend you to play the game and give it an honest shot instead of blowing things out of proportion. ''Long range AA and sead reduntant'', yeah you definitely have not been arround long enough to understand that long range AA is perfect to PREVENT these bombers from dropping their payload since one direct hit makes these planes go bye bye and sead has been buffed massively and its really dangerous to not micro your AA. The main purpose of the slight decrease in accuracy in WARNO compared to WARGAME is to increase the TTK and not have everything be a snipe fest, which increases micro intensity and causes an even steeper learning curve. Recon behind enemy lines being useless without the need for CVs? So you just want people to be able to snipe commands again like in wargame and have everything be an arty fest in the last 10 minutes to try to capture zones in conquest? A one hour video will not be something that people watch. people on average only watch about 7-10 minutes of my videos (the analytics you cant see as a viewer) so long doesnt mean better in this case ;). The short format of this video tells people that warno is better in some cases, on par with others or worse than wargame in some cases. Not going to retype the entire review in this reply so just rewatch the video and be unbiased like I tried to be. I have thousands of hours in these games so i am of the opinion that my opinion is an educated one. Thats all. you said that you dont owe any loyalty to wargame, then why dont you give warno some more shots?

[@alessandroiorio6248]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment Hello, I'll try to be as concise as possible. -I have no problem with different, just with bad and tbf some things i wrote are objectively bad. -I have thousands of hours in all the direct prequels to WARNO, so i don't need hundreds of hours to properly assess it. -I gave it an honest shot, more than honest, played with friends too. -"AA/sead" controversy, as i said i'm not a newbie, i know what the purpose of long range AA is, it's just not card-efficient if fighters can do the same thing (as i wrote in the comment); still my point has not been refuted, and the buff to sead is useless if opponent can just use IR AA and fighters. -TTK: there's a balance between higher TTK/ newb friendliness and rewarding skilled play; sometimes wargames were a bit too harsh on unskilled play but WARNO certainly swung the scale on the other side and is very inconsistent (great ASFs blowing all their load to maybe kill a crappy 10% ecm plane, happens too often). -CV sniping is certainly effective in wargame, but also an overblown problem; people just need to be a bit more creative with placement, and random CV snipes aren't at all common; when they happen there's often a valid reason that can be attributed to skill of sniper and/or negligence of the sniped; wargame encourages creative ways to both protect and kill CVs, while WARNO scrapped the entire thing -Recon spotting/UI issues not discussed -1 hour video; what i wanted to convey is that there's an hour of comparisons that could be made and the more I list the more that come to mind, then the channel is yours and you judge what you think best. I simply don't mind longer videos, i can always come back to finish them whenever I have time. I watched the video twice before commenting, to avoid misrepresenting. -I'm sure your considerations were educated, i've been following you for quite a long time at this point and i certainly don't doubt your good faith. -I do give it a shot periodically both solo and with friends, but the issues are not superficial. To conclude, i think videos like yours are a good thing because they give another avenue of discussion to hopefully advance the genre. If you made it this far i'd like to say that although unfortunately i don't watch many of your WARNO videos simply because I get some bad vibes from seeing the game, you are making it difficult for me not to click on them because the thumbnails and titles are certainly captivating and i'm sure you are being rewarded with increasing viewership and i'm happy for that :)

[@Chrischos]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment As someone who started with steel divison 2 in b4 a week im also kinda on the flip side with the menu it looksa bit arcadish and not very clear altough i must say i dont hate anything more than cut off ammunition numbers of weapons like in SD 2 in the info tab or is there a way to size the info window ?! like u would with a windows "window"

[@michup86]

WARNO is better IMO. It can allow you to organize decks aka battalions in platoons and purchase them as one. Also, rules of engagement are an awesome feature.

[@thechinese-australian9205]

One thing the Wargame Red Dragon has over WARNO is slightly more factions (China, NK, SK, Japan and the pay to win DLCs). It makes sense to not have the East Asian factions in WARNO due to the game being set in Europe.

[@ethankrause8697]

Well also Warno is still in development so there are going to be more divisions added later down the line

[@GeneralOfHonor]

Soon we can finally play test Broken Arrow ;) Nice video as always

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah looking forward to that big time!

[@goshtsoldier]

What about the boats, does no one care about the boats? 😂. The addition of the coop campaing maybe the deciding factor for me to buy it, since in airland battle I enjoyed it like a kid. Nice video 😊

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah we dont talk about the boats here haha. It was a meh thing they added to the game but it needed a lot of optimizing which they didnt.

[@goshtsoldier]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment yeah, completely true, but it was nice doing some funky amphibious landings in some maps, or parking a frigate near the coast as a anti personnel + AA post

[@georgeapolo6749]

okay here, graphics and explosion mod for red dragon and you're set. loving the graphics of warno but I still prefer the gameplay and UI of Red dragon.

[@JShu98]

I get that WARNO is kinda your main game and it's the title you prefer, but this video seems like it's just shilling for WARNO. The categories are all tailored to things WARNO does better than Wargame. Maybe it's just a clickbait title for the KZbin hustle and your new sponsorship, but this video seems more like a "Why Wargame: Red Dragon players should try WARNO" video than an earnest analysis of which title is better in its current state. Some of the criticism wasn't even accurate and made me question how much experience you had in WG:RD (infantry analysis was the big trigger for me). WARNO has a lot going for it, but it is not a finished product. It does have a lot of nice QoL improvements, such as pre-battle orders, improved graphics, line of sight tool, etc. It also removed some improvements, though, like the ability to group units (you can split, but can't regroup in WARNO) and put said groups in the same building. You can't choose the direction from which infantry exit buildings, either. At the moment, WGRD has more content and (in my opinion) is more balanced. WARNO may get there with time. As you said, it will depend upon the lifespan of the game and the content it adds. The urban rework, for instance, looks awesome. My biggest pet peeve with WARNO versus all of the old Wargame titles is how terrible the UI is. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I hate the WARNO UI. It is atrociously bad. From the game menus to the battle menus, it just sucks. The colors don't go well together and make it hard to read. The armory is full of useless statistics (the speed of the FOB is listed but not its supply capacity, for instance) while omitting relevant statistics (like the stealth on a nighthawk). Do other aircraft in WARNO even have stealth like in WGRD? We don't know because the armory doesn't tell us. And idk who thought making the esc key take you out of the lobby was a good idea, but that needs to change. I can't tell you how many times my friends and I have had people just disconnect from our lobbies because they were exiting another menu within the game and got pulled out of the lobby by that hotkey. There are a lot of changes that just come down to personal preference. Forward deployed recon, lack of spawn zones, divisions vs. decks, more topography, the veterancy system, etc. I was hoping to see more of an analysis of those, but I guess that was too much to expect from a seven minute video. I'm not going to make an exhaustive list for how the games are different. It's a KZbin comment. But as a veteran of both titles, I felt that your analysis was very incomplete and one-sided.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

as someone with over 1700 hours in wargame (its probably a couple thousand more due to resets and new steam accounts), i am probably a good person for this analysis. id like to hear what you think was not an accurate criticism. The UI is actually better when in-game, sure the main menu could use some work but if you simply learn what to do and what not to do, those become a non issue, especially with the lobby thing you mentioned. I think its definitely a bit of a preference thing as you mentioned. to be honest, a lot of your comments are your own preference and you mention that yourself. i have formed a non biased objective comparison of these two games without diving too far into the rabbit hole. This video is simply put out to compare the two games in general terms and make people realise that in a lot of ways warno is superior for the things i mentioned but there is still work to do as i have also mentioned. wargame is simply outdated and some things in wargame should also piss you off in terms of UI. it was wayy to cluttered when in-game. I have a couple hundred videos out on wargame and still play it so my opinion is quite up to date even if i say so myself. i just dont post content on it.

[@JShu98]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I want to preface my long comment chain that I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm not some hardcore Wargame fanboy who hates anyone who prefers WARNO. I was just disappointed in the quality of the analysis. It's nothing personal. Also, I'm not saying Wargame's system is necessarily "better," it's just different. The word I took issue with was "linear" and the suggestion that Wargame infantry is a jack of all trades when in fact, many more specialist units exist in Wargame than WARNO. ​At 4:34 you described Wargame's infantry gameplay as "linear" and said "you basically only have special forces, shock troops, and regular forces." You then contrasted this with WARNO, in which you have, “special forces, airborne units, shock troops, reservists, guard units, [IFV infantry] (which is the shock trait in WARNO)...” All of these units exist in Wargame: Red Dragon, they are just handled differently. You then expanded upon your criticism by saying WARNO’s infantry are more specialized and that Wargame’s infantry are a “Swiss [army] knife for any scenario.” The reason I considered this criticism inaccurate was because I felt it did not accurately describe the infantry combat in WG:RD and that many of the phenomena you described in WARNO seemed to suggest that it was exclusive to WARNO. The only thing unique to WARNO was the traits system, which is essentially the successor to the "training level" system of Wargame. It’s hard to begin to describe the problems with this criticism because of just how simplistic it is and how complex Wargame’s infantry roster is. I’m going to pick an arbitrary place to begin and just expound from there. Forgive me if the structure is a bit rambling.

[@JShu98]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment The big thing is unit variety. In Wargame, units are varied by their role, squad size, training level, armaments, transports, and veterancy (not to be confused with training level). None of these things are unique to Wargame as opposed to WARNO, they are just handled differently. Role: certain units can only come in certain decks with certain transports. For instance: airborne squads can (generally) only come in airborne decks. The availability of transports varies with the type of deck, as does their veterancy. Squad size: there are four squad sizes: 2, 5, 10, 15. The size of the squad affects its hp (and sometimes stealth) and thus how the squad will be used. Five-man fire support squads make for poor front line units, for instance, but can have potentially even greater damage output than a ten-man line unit. Training level is a baseline for a unit’s statistics. It primarily affects the unit’s speed, morale, resistance to suppression, and morale/panic recovery. Units with militia training are slow and easily panicked, which reduces their accuracy and survivability tremendously. Elite troops are very fast and can stay in fights much longer without being panicked, and can weather enemy fire better to be more resolute fighters (this is basically the resolute trait in WARNO). However, this training level is just a baseline. It interacts with the veterancy system (which is much more complex and substantial in Wargame) to determine a unit’s stats. The level of veterancy adds a multiplicative modifier to its baseline accuracy, morale recovery, ability to identify units, and stun recovery. Because Wargame has a much more substantial veterancy system, this can potentially raise some unit’s accuracy by 32%, morale recovery by 300%, chanced to identify enemy units by 20%, and stun recovery by 80% (at the highest level). Like in WARNO, Wargame units have the option to increase their veterancy at the cost of their availability, but the veterancy system has a much more substantial impact on the unit’s performance because of how potent the bonuses are and how it interacts with training levels. Finally, there is the matter of armaments, and this is the most substantial difference. Wargame Red Dragon simply has a far greater variety of arms at the moment. Some of this is due to the number of factions in the game, but it also varies with how the game is balanced. WARNO units generally have the same weapons. Not by name or icon, but they have very similar (often identical) data tables. Wargame benefits from greater weapon and unit diversity. And not just infantry units, but also transports. Each of these is tailored to a different purpose. There are two-man ATGM squads. There are also five, ten, and fifteen-man ATGM squads. There are units with flame throwers and units with napalm rockets. Some guys have grenade machine guns. Some have no machine guns. Some have snipers. Some have short-range rockets, some have long-range recoilless rifles. Some have those weapons with HE ammo instead of AP ammo. Whereas WARNO’s infantry have fire support teams with machine guns and different weapon compositions, it generally comes down to “which team has how many of X type of weapon?” where X is SMG, Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, Machine Gun. In Wargame, most of the weapons are different, though there are definitely some statistical duplicates. Accuracy, range, and fire rate vary. The M60 is different from the Minimi which is different from the Galil which is different from the MG3 which is different from whatever the Finns use. It’s not a “linear” system where X beats Y. There is synergy within the infantry tab and a variety of units and compositions that simply is not matched by WARNO.

[@JShu98]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I felt the video was somewhat inadequate with how it addressed WARNO's improvements, too. WARNO, to its credit, has made some improvements that distinguish its system from Wargame’s. The health of the squad affects the damage of the squad. If a man falls, that’s one less rifle firing. This is not the case in Wargame. The last man standing in a Wargame squad can fire two weapons at once and, provided he is not panicked, does so just as effectively as a full-health squad for however long he lives. The traits system does introduce new mechanical types of synergy between units that is practical. Leaders raise veterancy, IFVs help infantry stay in the fight, guard units prevent reservists from deserting. That’s all cool and it only happens in Wargame on a tactical level (as opposed to a mechanical one). IFVs and fire support units don’t boost your own troops’ morale, they just suppress the enemy more so they take less morale damage. Anyway, sorry for sending an essay. KZbin isn't the best forum for it. I felt compelled to defend my stance as I'm sure you were compelled to defend yours. The TL;DR is that the infantry systems are very similar, yet different, and it probably comes down to personal preference which you prefer. I just did not like the characterization and I felt it wrote off Wargame too quickly (it was about nine seconds, after all).

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

thank you for the additional information

[@RipVanWhinkle]

Finally, the video I was looking for

[@CoachGunns]

Great review bro !

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Appreciate it!

[@impostor101]

is there a naval War in WARNO?

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Nope

[@trivixni435]

Broken Arrow will be releasing in some months to a year so ill prefer to wait for it, i gave a chance to warno and it felt like a mess, ai knows where you are always

[@DDayJayke]

Division systems sucks in my opinion. The people who complain about VDV '90 spam or meta decks, act like they played mulitplayer alot, but simply not the case. If I had a dime for everytime a loser spammed VDV '90 units or "Meta Decks", which let's face it, were just decks with good units that were most likely Veteran or Elite status, I'd have around a dollar or two. But you know, it is a strategy game, there will always be a strategy that makes the shitty players mad. Watching a VDV spammer waste 90% of their VDV troops to a swarm of IFVs hidden in a forest is something you get to see when you play the game like it is meant to be played. The Division mechanics force the few spammers to not spam, but it drains the fun out of deck building. Cause one of my favorite things to do was running obscure decks. WARNO just looks good. But Wargame is better in my opinion

[@molotov6844]

Wargame is set in 1996, the second korean war campaign happens in 1992, and the most recent units in the game are set to 1996 in the armory.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

im pretty sure all campaigns are set from 1975 to 1991. And the ones from 1996 are prototype units (unless im derpin) so i woudnt really count them. The BULK of the game is set to 1991.

[@molotov6844]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment second korean war is 1992

[@hamoodhabibi1579]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment Plus the Yugoslav Spec Ops got themselves the Bumbar. Lol

[@The_true_BoBa]

The biggest problem with Warno’s gameplay is deck building. In Warno it simply doesn’t exist, you take a division and you almost can’t change anything. Two pro players are going to make the same deck from one division. In Wargame the deck building is much less restrictive and you can have your proper game style and build your proper and original decks. Another problem with Warno is balance and not even the balance between reds and blues or different divisions, but the balance in interaction between the units themselves. While playing Warno, it’s very weird to see an autocannon shooting an ATGM squad and it being able to shoot back and kill the IFV. It’s definitely not like it’s supposed to be. And that was only one example. Also maps in warno don’t encourage any “smart” plays from players, they don’t give you any ability to set up ambushes, flank enemies, etc. Wargame maps are just better in gameplay aspect. Also in warno there is stuff like sound spotting which is a legal maphack. Oh yes, and the pricing policy of warno… yeah… These are the reasons all people I know prefer Wargame to Warno, but who knows, probably warno will be better one day. Or Brpken Arrow will be released… Will see

[@manzell]

Is there a game like Warno/Red Dragon that simulates "the entire" cold-war gone hot, IE, one big step zoomed out, a step more strategic and slightly less tactical?

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

i cant think of one myself

[@sd_league]

SGS Natos Night Mare, but its a turnbased Wargame

[@manzell]

@@sd_league This is closer to what I was looking for, thank you!

[@fly_pie_1172]

i like that wargame has more nations, thus more unit variety, and since your not locked to divisions (which i hate a lot) you can build any deck how you want mixing units as you like, with thematic choices as airborne or such) despite wargame not having paratroopers or fixed artillery like warno

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

the thing is, not being locked to divisions also kinda blends all the decks into eachother, you can mix and match the best of both worlds and it turns your gameplay style to one universal one. with warno, you have to adapt to really make use of of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses.

[@lequack6373]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment As someone had pointed out before, it can be easily fixed by introducing a switch for deck type, with realism mode for division based deck building, and arcade mode for mixed division deck.

[@TutterTactics]

as a fan of both and a long time player of the wargame series. I simply cannot go back to Wargame. The features and tools in WARNO allow for better gameplay IMO. While im not a fan of the division mechanic this is also easily fixed with workshop support with things like freedom deck builder. Im very excited for Army General as we havent had a genuine coop eugen experience in the cold war since airland battle. The only gripe I have with WARNO is the content drop speed. While regular content monthly is great they have been promising army general for a long time and at this point its getting to ready or not ridiculous with the postponement. while this isnt a bad thing as we all want a good experience it seems they hyped the mode wayy to early. Aside from that WARNO lacks the sheer variety that red dragon has. Red Dragon has so many different countries and units that you can build about a million decks and deck combos while in WARNO its a bit more linear even with mods.

[@raf.nogueira]

They promissed the WARNO Campaign and we still have nothing...

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

yeah its taking quite long isnt it

[@charlie2731]

Does no one else think the explosions in WARNO look really odd and not good?

[@egoalter1276]

Yep. They look like orange soda foam. They are way too saturated, and animated way too slowly.

[@raul0ca]

Warno is Wargame after inflation hit military procurement

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Hahhaha this is actually a good one

[@alexsp7086]

The speed of these two games puts me off. They are like they where catered for the ADHD brigade.

[@ArmorKingEmir]

wargame gives so much emotions, when we play it we scream like crazy. when playing warno its just always calm, DPS is low so you can take hits and retreat. while in wargame every second can be descisive. AA actually kills hellis etc...

[@samuelurch9863]

Wargame is better, more intense and punishing, WARNO is for slow/old people

[@KarolusTemplareV]

The part about effects it's funny. Why? Come one the two games are many years apart, if Warno didnt have that better..oh my.

[@nkosinathindlovu3059]

Am I the only one who finds Warno maps to be a bit strenous to look at? The detail is a bit too much for my liking, and the maps are seemingly blue-ish. Whereas I find WG:RD maps to be easy on the eye and units can be varied from terrein and map elements. And of course the convoluted Warno UI. Otherwise, Warno mechanics and sound effects take the cup... I'm too drawn to the WG:RD soundtracks though, which includes some that were included in WG:EE

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Convoluted UI. I actually find it less convoluted than wargame but they are still quite similar i gues. Everything can be adjusted too and you can even remove the minimap. But in terms of the maps. I dont feel the same way. I had this with steel division. I found that game bad to look at

[@LemonDuc]

I just can't get over that they have no naval stuff, which is a bit of a downgrade, I don't like the deck building as much, aaaand icing on the cake was that I found out the t80 is the best tank. Like we havn't all seen vids of 80s model bradleys taking out a t90.

[@davidh5858]

I feel like we need a better deck builder ( like the one in WARGAME ) better voice lines too the ones in WARNO are silly. I feel like we should also have more units, Id like to see marines for the US that would be nice

[@NDMO2468]

As someone with 5000 hours in Wargame: Red Dragon and like 80 in WARNO, is that Wargame Red Dragon is optimized for competitive 1v1 play, while being open for casual team play as well. In my view, WARNO is focused mainly on team games, which is something I do not appreciate. I find the 1v1 balancing in WARNO to be very weak compared to Red Dragon.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Yeah for 1v1 its very map and division dependent and some divisions have massive weaknesses. Like the AA in 35th airborne but it forces the player to play to their strengths and adds a layer of complexity and interest (in my opinion) i think most people play in team games anyways so its not necessarily a bad thing

[@ilias6458]

The whole point to play Wargame is it's diverse clean competitive gameplay, of course i don't count the AA/SEAD shit as part of the diversity nor competition . And that point is almost fully omitted in this video, idk how this video is any useful or fair . The ton of infantry types with random buffs made me even more sure that Warno's gameplay makes much less sense, but thats an addition to stack of much bigger issues . And, largest effect on longevity comes from gameplay, obviously newer games will have more content, but older ones are played regardless, most of the time because of their gameplay, "better" as that video would say, not because of f* nostalgia . Wargame has the most diverse gameplay of all games in the world, and Warno isn't close to it . If i would be interested in gameplay which is similar to Warno, personally i would rather wait for Broken Arrow to be released before considering buying it .

[@salvatore771]

Took your advice and tried both reasonably thoroughly, RD feels so much more authetnic, the gameplay, the scale, the speed, the variety in armies.... it feels like you are a real battlefield commander controling forces in a huge battle, Warno is very arcady, the hp system on vechiles, the UI, just feels horrible, like a mobile game almost! Warno does look and sound leagues better then wargame, but gameplay goes to red dragon.

[@101jir]

Outright better? I was expecting more tradeoffs. Curious more about that.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

At some point I will dive into all the tiniest details but the things I mentioned are the easiest when trying to decide which one has the better system. The main thing people like about Wargame is the time to kill. Its really low, AA is deadly accurate, infantry can delete an entire squad in half a second etc. So its more micro heavy, but thats not exactly a good thing.

[@101jir]

@BoltSauce Well that's a pretty big point in favor of Warno for me

[@ridfersmovies]

4:52 you say unit variety like this is a good thing, i think it is a horrible thing gameplay wise, in wargame in an instant you would know what infantry u where up against and how to counter it. in warno there's to many differences, different abilities, that just don't add anything strategy wise. it just makes the game feel clunky and cluttered in my opinion.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

There is arguably more variety in wargame since its a more finished product but i do also understand the “less is more” argument.

[@ridfersmovies]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I just don't like the fact that I can't see in a spit second what I am dealing with infantry wise (actually not just infantry I think the ui just fals short compared to wargame aswell, but mostly it's with inf) . Like for example the squad size is no longer normalized wich I like on the one side Cuz it's more realistic, and just makes more sense. But the big downside then is that it feels more clunky when you play. Like in wargame you have any elite squad you know for sure it's gonna have atleaet 10 men, and will murder any emeny squad. Then in warno you don't know any more for sure, cuz you have the smaller size elites aswell and I need to open up the info panel all the time. And I'm a casual player I'm never gonna learn all the units so yea. I do hope they'll fix the ui make it more clear I think this could solve alot. Thanks for the reply btw ^^

[@fede98k54]

If they add Italy as a faction, then I might buy it.But so far nothing, so no money from me.

[@EvansdiAl]

What u mean there werent reservist in wargame?

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

I never said there wasnt, but they were close to useless due to the low TTK in wargame

[@LazzieMazzie]

in warno there really isn't much of "meta" decks it is more dice game and if someone uses "meta" deck just say they are weak to not be creative or using their mind because you don't use "meta" in war you use skill and experience with creative minds

[@rjbarrett1232]

Red Dragon clears unfortunately

[@cisarovnajosefina4525]

I hate the fact Warno is going the steel division route of adding content with expensive dlc that only give a selected division instead of whole countries.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Agreed at this moment

[@TopHatHat]

Here is a massive rant. I feel a lot of the stuff people miss from wargame makes no sense whatsoever. Yes there was a lot of unit variety in wargame, but NOBODY used it at all, did anyone use any inf that wasn't the '90 variant? No. Did anyone use the really awful militia for anything other than one funny match and then immediately switch back to the meta? No. Did anyone use the deck settings for mechanised, marine etc? No. One person in the comments was saying they liked the combo national decks, really only used because minor nations were completely unplayable, Commonwealth was 90% British with just the few Candian or Aussie werent completely useless. Only national issues in Warno come from the historical setting (Which is a personal preference) and current lack of divisions. They complain and then switch back to wargame, never using the mechanics they claim to love so much. The joy of Warno, despite some balancing issues, is that the game actually feels fresh, new tactics, new problems, not the same 5 meta decks every time. I actually see fun units like KDA Militia, which are awful but make sense for the divisional deck system and give a weakness to a division, rather than all-round strengths. Every wargame match is really just playing "Best units simulator" where you have Challenger 2's, Akula's, Spetznaz, Hellfires, Patriots, Erreksonjakari, etc. Everything is just desperately keeping your limited elite units alive whilst they massacre any opponent that isn't using the absolute meta. Or in multiplayer where EVERYONE is using the meta you just wait until somebody makes an error or you accidently lose an important unit. I loved wargame, but after a while it just got so stale, the same map with the same meta decks 1000 times over because that's the only thing that works.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

Exactly

[@samuelurch9863]

The meta has changed, wargame is fun when you play all the rarely used nations and units,

[@300spartan2222]

warno is too arcadish in looks and gameplay imo

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

in which ways does it look and play arcady? im actually curious

[@Chrischos]

I bet u mean the blue UI wich is held very simple

[@dragonosk3168]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I don’t know if this qualifies as arcady but I feel like warno is to easy and has to high unit availability for high cost unit. In wargame my one or two superheavies are really precious and can get side shot at any moment which makes the game harder. In warno I see Stealthgaming with 5 Challenger 2’s just driving across an open field and not losing a tank without smoke and while tanking a lot of atgm and tank fire. The fact that you need to babysit units is what makes wargame skillful and interesting for me.

[@GiftigeBalspuwer]

I really want to try this game but the learning curve looks to much to me !

[@georgeofazgad2176]

I personally found that wargame had much slower time to kill, tanks can take multiple hits and most infantry are 10 or 15 men squads. But the quality of life improvements in warno is much needed, plus I liked new deck system

I think red dragon could fix urban combat simply by adding workshop

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

agreed

[@nickrider815]

It's not really fair to compare Red Dragon to Warno because RD focused on Asia where as Warno is Eastern Europe. RD has a huge unit selection and many more factions than Warno. I still enjoy RD to this day.

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

It isnt just about the unit types. Its about other things too. Unit types are not very game changing, game mechanics are

[@nickrider815]

@@SaucyNetworkEntertainment I enjoyed the different factions and the campaigns in RD, that's what I played it for. I played airland battle before RD and wargame airland battle was much more comparable to Warno. RD has a much bigger scope. I enjoyed the different tactics and strategies needed based on which faction you played or faced. I hated the steel division series and the mechanics they introduced in that. Some of those mechanics they played into Warno. The only reason I've decided to look at Warno is because it's a return to the cold war era and they have finally introduced campaigns. If they relaunched RD in the warno engine then it would be a fair comparison. But really Warno is more comparable to airland battle.

[@mawithewese]

wargame"s chat is more wild than any war you can play into the game :)

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

its just toxic

[@rowdy8814]

true wargame chat is enough reason to stay and not switch to warno, its just too funny.

[@apolakigamingandmore6376]

*Last speech is true.* 😅

[@aidanfarris6565]

For me it's a matter of price, I got wg rd for 7$ and I'm worried I'll buy warno for 30$ and not like it as much lol

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

an old product will be cheaper by default but still definitely worth playing wargame for 7 bucks. lots of content and fun

[@Kesen2003]

Honestly the quality of life shit in warno is cool. And certain aspects of warno I prefer. But I still play wargame over warno. I find the multiplayer much more enjoyable in wargame. And I prefer the deck system in wargame.

[@Kesen2003]

And for me it has nothing to do with betraying an older game. I don’t stick with older games in any other series. The fact is wargame just plays better in some aspects that warno doesn’t have. While they’re similar games, you can’t tell me that they feel the same when playing them. The pacing and utilization of things are completely different.

[@Marcelino1098]

I'm also really looking forward to Broken Arrow compared to this

[@SimCityEA1989]

Next review should be WARNO vs Broken Arrow

[@SaucyNetworkEntertainment]

oh yeah