![]() ![]() Locked in the year 1989 so no 50-era units and stuff like that anymore. These two alone addresses your concern of only "attack-move". Rules Of Engagement which finally transforms your units from dumb 90-era rts units to actual soldiers that react programmable to enemy fire, like the scripting system in Deadfire. Adding new mechanics & QoL and actively removing cheese. What makes WARNO in particular exciting is two things. Wish they developed something better, destruction is considerd a noob mode because people just arty snipe to get to the win limit. ![]() Having magical flags in open field for a WW3 game always felt wrong for me. With that said I am personally not a big fan of the Conquest gamemode, which I assure you is heresy to say on the reddit or discord. Especially if you have a military historic interest of the period. Kinda like Magic: The Gathering deck building. This combined with the deck system makes a lot of the fun, for me at least, to figure out your vision of an effective fighting force and proving it in action. The lethality of weapons, which sort of actually removes counter play on one hand because anything from a militia with an recoiless-rifle, infantry ATGM, Apache Longbow to Plane based ATGM can threaten your heavy tank given good setup, and this goes for all units. The complex unity dynamics of the cold war which is mainly driven by the use of missiles, rocket artillery, helicopters and jet planes which creates new standoff threats and increases the "skill cap" of making successful attacks with the multitude of units available and threats.ĭivisions, which are meant to have more balanced pros and cons than the nation approach of WG. Almost exclusively multiplayer, almost number one reason why I'm playing catch up with Pathfinder: Kingmaker and other RPGs at the moment.įor the multiplayer Conquest mode in general I would say that the enjoyment comes from a couple of points. With a disclaimer that I am a big Wargame/WARNO fanboy, got 936h on WG:RD, 286h on WG:ALB and 124h on WW:EE. Does the game somehow become much better in multiplayer? Well, I don't imagine multiplayer being much more fun given these mechanics. Only singleplayer, which I guess someone is going to point at as being "my problem". I have 16 hours in WARNO and 25 hours in Steel Division 2. For the majority of the time you are just looking at the 2d sprites/icons of your units. Just having LoS and "attack-move" order can't pass as killer features, please.Īlso I can't say I'm crazy about the graphics, which are supposed to be a big thing. Additionally, terrain is very simplistically represented. Fair enough, but the gameplay just turns into a "pick the right counter unit". The developer excuse themselves with "historical reasons" for this, as in this is the first hours and days of a conventional WW3, no one has time to dig trenches and lay mines. No real maneuvering, no entrenchments, no minefields. This game is just head-on battles, capture the flag stuff. I've been playing this for a while, a few skirmish battles and now I just did the first of the "Operations" they recently added. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |