Store Page
WARNO
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews
WARNO > General Discussions > Topic Details
Кукла Куколдуна 9 Jul @ 7:03am
Increase HE damage to tanks in Warno
In my letter, I outlined the main, in my opinion, problems that have existed in WARNO for a long time and at the end I proposed a solution to them.
1) ATGM. The crew of the ATGM consists of 2 people with a pipe that spits out a stream of flame and makes a loud bang, but after the shot it was not detected by anyone. Due to its stealth, firepower, and the fact that tanks shoot at infantry with virtually no damage, the ATGM is too strong a unit. But this is not what needs to be changed.
2) High explosive damage to tanks. It seems wrong to me that 105 caliber artillery has a high explosive damage of 1.7, and a 120 caliber tank has 1.2. This makes it very difficult to storm cities with the support of tanks, since you first need to accumulate the tanks themselves in order to add up their damage. But a tank in WARNO is not a cheap pleasure and they often cost from 235 to 270 points, they are difficult to accumulate and for a long time during this time the enemy will greatly strengthen its position. It turns out that in WARNO a tank is a means against infantry fighting vehicles and weaker tanks. If you're into historicity or realism, keep in mind that you're not making a game about 1939-1945, where tanks are anti-tank weapons. A tank is a support for infantry, but what kind of support does a vehicle that has high-explosive damage like the RPO provide to the infantry? How can a tank deal 1 point of damage to infantry in the field, without cover? And the building is another 50% smaller. A small one-story house cannot protect as a bunker. In the realities of war, a small building can become a mass grave from one shell flying through the window.
3) Infantry in the field lives too long. Now infantry can run across the field and receive 1 unit of damage from a tank shell. That is, to destroy 1 squad of “KDA shooters” of 14 people in the field, 10-14 shells are required, excluding misses. This is reminiscent of the Napoleonic wars, when artillery fired cannonballs.
I offer a solution.
If you think my comments are correct, then you do not need to apply them all at once. For example, an ATGM can be left as stealthy and powerful. But increasing the HE damage from tanks will greatly reduce its survivability when detected. Also, increasing the damage of tank shells will solve the problem of “meat attacks”. Also, if we take into account the specifics of high-explosive fragmentation ammunition produced by different countries, it will be possible to balance the units. For example, USSR tanks may have less high explosive damage, but there is a loading mechanism that allows them to constantly “spit damage”. Abrams tanks may have good accuracy and armor penetration, but the high explosive damage is less, which is compensated by the installed Browning. Challengers do not have any special anti-tank capabilities, but can have increased high explosive damage and suppression of infantry and tanks thanks to HESH shells. Leopard 2A3 and 2A4 have weak armor, but a good gun, so they can take advantage of improved optics. For example, as an “ambush” tank, which when stationary receives medium optics (the Leopard-2 tank has six commander triplexes and a laser rangefinder). Or simply become a “price-quality” tank.
I believe that strengthening the anti-personnel qualities of tanks is necessary in the realities of the game. The main thing is to maintain balance and improve only tanks, without reducing the infantry.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 24 comments
CORRIDA 9 Jul @ 9:23am 
What you describe sounds like SD2 where things die almost instantly.
I lost a lot of good men playing it like Warno.

However i think that arcade like damage is due to the association with red dragon and kinda out of necessity.

An ATGM group only has to people meaning everytthing that does 2 damage will kill it instantly. A normal infantry group has around 0.6 damage output and a tank as you said around 1.

Compare that to SD2 where a group can have 11 STG 44 and around 4.0 damage or a tank around 8. Some pieces of ART even 12 or more.

I am not totally happy with the current system but its in a good spot, otherwise nothing would survive.

Plus, you dont attack a town with tanks anyway
Last edited by CORRIDA; 9 Jul @ 9:24am
#1
Nero 9 Jul @ 1:29pm 
I am all for increasing HE damage output of tanks vs infantry. It is way too low.
#2
soontir fel 9 Jul @ 2:59pm 
Originally posted by CORRIDA:
What you describe sounds like SD2 where things die almost instantly.
I lost a lot of good men playing it like Warno.

However i think that arcade like damage is due to the association with red dragon and kinda out of necessity.

An ATGM group only has to people meaning everytthing that does 2 damage will kill it instantly. A normal infantry group has around 0.6 damage output and a tank as you said around 1.

Compare that to SD2 where a group can have 11 STG 44 and around 4.0 damage or a tank around 8. Some pieces of ART even 12 or more.

I am not totally happy with the current system but its in a good spot, otherwise nothing would survive.

Plus, you dont attack a town with tanks anyway
sort of unrelated but only specifically anti infantry tanks ever have remotely that high HE damage in SD2. the vast majority of tanks do damage similar to warno closer to 1.x. The Same is true for Arty with AT weapons, where the AT damage is usually somewhere between 8-12 on most tanks and AT arty, but the actual HE damage on that arty is usually closer to 5-7. just throwing that out there.

As for the subject at hand, the reason why tanks are in more of an infantry support role than a tank killer role is specifically because of things like shoulder fired ATGMs, which allow a small number of dismounts to destroy tanks more effectively, requiring a much closer use of combined arms than in WW2 since tanks need infantry to protect them from such attacks much more than they did in WW2.
#3
seashell 9 Jul @ 4:50pm 
why do i see tank in towns anyways? if tanks are so bad in cities why don't modern armies just use human wave and bombardment to solve everything?

Originally posted by CORRIDA:
Plus, you dont attack a town with tanks anyway
#4
DasaKamov 9 Jul @ 5:31pm 
Originally posted by seashell:
why do i see tank in towns anyways?
You usually don't. And when you do, those tanks usually take unsustainable losses.[/quote]
Originally posted by seashell:
why don't modern armies just use human wave and bombardment to solve everything?
Because, in a world where most conflicts are regional "brushfire" wars, most modern armies don't rely on large numbers of conscripted infantry (there are a few highly-publicized exceptions) and are moving towards fewer but more specialized troops.
Also, bombardment (both aerial and artillery) is a HUGE part of modern conflict (again, as highly publicized current conflicts shows) and also because war is about occupying territory, and no one wants to occupy a barren wasteland where every town has been leveled to the ground.
Last edited by DasaKamov; 9 Jul @ 5:31pm
#5
Master Chief Garbage Collection 9 Jul @ 7:14pm 
I think you're right that ATGMs are kind of the top of the food chain in WARNO.

I think you might be right that infantry out in the open should not take 14 shots. However, in WARNO there are also many more options for anti-infantry work. IFVs and HMG teams have ranges of around 1500m and they are basically infantry weed whackers.

Also the right strategy for clearing out towns is not to use tanks. You get your infantry transports ready, smoke off the towns, and pray before you have your transports drive into the nearest city block.


I'm not an awesome WARNO player but I think that WARNO feels way more defense-heavy than RD. It's much harder to break through in WARNO because ATGMS plink everything.
Last edited by Master Chief Garbage Collection; 9 Jul @ 7:16pm
#6
Ahriman 10 Jul @ 1:11am 
Originally posted by seashell:
why do i see tank in towns anyways? if tanks are so bad in cities why don't modern armies just use human wave and bombardment to solve everything?

If you want to see what happens when you do that, go research why the US introduced the TUSK kits to their Abrams, you just might get enlightened.

Originally posted by Кукла Куколдуна:
I believe that strengthening the anti-personnel qualities of tanks is necessary in the realities of the game. The main thing is to maintain balance and improve only tanks, without reducing the infantry.

Considering that Infantry gets utterly mulched by units that are dedicated to dealing with them, ranging from Autocannons to Rocket Pods to CEVs, what it sounds like you are after more is the ability to only use tanks without the need to combine your units to fill up gaps. If your problem is not being able to take out an Infantry unit out in the open field, then you clearly have not tried the CEVs. Those things take out just about any Infantry unit in one or at most two shots. ACs opening up melt squads like no tomorrow as well.

The risk your proposed changes brings is quite simply making infantry outside of Exceptional Stealth and tight cities worthless. Infantry is easy to spot when they come out of hiding, and tanks with their incredible range would be able to halt any attempts at an offensive, even when the enemy would try to smoke and do it properly. Certain decks might be able to pull it off, assuming they get great tanks to support their infantry, but even smoking won't help. You can very easily drive a heavier tank into the smoke and engage the enemy Infantry as the MGs + few rounds would take out the unit with these changes, and as the Stun is linked directly to the amount of damage you take, the Tank would be able to stunlock the squad into being unable to fight back, making Tanks the kings of city fighting, which they absolutely under no circumstance should be. Unsupported tanks are easy pickings for Infantry for a reason.

You are forgetting a vital problem about suspension of disbelief when it comes to the level of simulation WARNO aims for. No Infantry unit is ever that clumped up. They are practically hugging each other, IRL a single HE round would absolutely take out that entire squad, or most of it, even with a near miss. In truth, the spread is so wide that it would take several shells to take them out realistically, but that can't be simulated in-game.
#7
Sunburn 10 Jul @ 10:34am 
On a related note, I still don't understand the decision of Eugen to remove the ability for the player to choose the type of ammo the tank will fire. In previous titles, being able to select High Explosive ammo when engaging infantry and Armour Piecing for armoured targets made the game better for the player. It also had the added benefit of an additional layer of supply management, which a lot of people enjoyed and which added its own layer of tactics to the post engagement phase

The blended ammo restriction in WARNO is an over simplification that doesn't make the game better. Even for new players imho.
#8
DasaKamov 10 Jul @ 11:21am 
Originally posted by Sunburn:
On a related note, I still don't understand the decision of Eugen to remove the ability for the player to choose the type of ammo the tank will fire.
It's part of this game's design philosophy of being a successor to the Wargame series, where there was only one abstract form of ammunition there as well.

I agree that it was neat being able to manually select the ammunition types in Steel Division, but it cuts down on micromanagement and also makes things less confusing than trying to explain to someone who ISN'T a military nerd what HEAT / HEAP / HESH means and when the best time to use them are. ;)
#9
molnibalage 10 Jul @ 12:19pm 
Originally posted by DasaKamov:
Originally posted by Sunburn:
On a related note, I still don't understand the decision of Eugen to remove the ability for the player to choose the type of ammo the tank will fire.
It's part of this game's design philosophy of being a successor to the Wargame series, where there was only one abstract form of ammunition there as well.

I agree that it was neat being able to manually select the ammunition types in Steel Division, but it cuts down on micromanagement and also makes things less confusing than trying to explain to someone who ISN'T a military nerd what HEAT / HEAP / HESH means and when the best time to use them are. ;)
It should not be selectable but it would be great to have a split amount because it would make more important he logistics and it would nerf the most powerful tanks because they would run out from APFSDS against a massive vehicle spam.

In current state a tank essentially has almost infinite ammo because always is available the right type of shell...
#10
soldier6661111 10 Jul @ 8:12pm 
Why do you need tanks to storm a city lmao
#11
Кукла Куколдуна 11 Jul @ 7:27am 
I will try to answer everyone who does not understand how to use tanks and other “armor” to storm a city. To storm a city, you must first enter it. Riding a landing party at point-blank range and praying not to run into an RPG is a strange tactic. Therefore, the infantry marches on foot, under the cover of armored vehicles. Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles stand behind and help knock the enemy out of the first line of houses, and then assault infantry enters the battle and clears the second and third line of houses. Now a cheap tank (100-150 points) will do 0.5 damage to infantry in houses, so if you need a lot of tanks, points and time to attempt an assault, if you were not able to occupy the city first (and not all divisions allow you to do this). And that's the problem.
For those who tell me about CEVs, they are right to some extent. But don’t you think that in this case there are too few of them?
And finally, I don’t mind the fact that infantry is difficult to dislodge from urban areas, that’s its strength. But let's do an experiment. Let's take 1 tank and take infantry with AT for an equal number of points (excluding vehicles). Let's send them auto-attacking each other, who will win?

Originally posted by soldier6661111:
Why do you need tanks to storm a city lmao


Originally posted by Ahriman:
Originally posted by seashell:
why do i see tank in towns anyways? if tanks are so bad in cities why don't modern armies just use human wave and bombardment to solve everything?

If you want to see what happens when you do that, go research why the US introduced the TUSK kits to their Abrams, you just might get enlightened.

Originally posted by Кукла Куколдуна:
I believe that strengthening the anti-personnel qualities of tanks is necessary in the realities of the game. The main thing is to maintain balance and improve only tanks, without reducing the infantry.

Considering that Infantry gets utterly mulched by units that are dedicated to dealing with them, ranging from Autocannons to Rocket Pods to CEVs, what it sounds like you are after more is the ability to only use tanks without the need to combine your units to fill up gaps. If your problem is not being able to take out an Infantry unit out in the open field, then you clearly have not tried the CEVs. Those things take out just about any Infantry unit in one or at most two shots. ACs opening up melt squads like no tomorrow as well.

The risk your proposed changes brings is quite simply making infantry outside of Exceptional Stealth and tight cities worthless. Infantry is easy to spot when they come out of hiding, and tanks with their incredible range would be able to halt any attempts at an offensive, even when the enemy would try to smoke and do it properly. Certain decks might be able to pull it off, assuming they get great tanks to support their infantry, but even smoking won't help. You can very easily drive a heavier tank into the smoke and engage the enemy Infantry as the MGs + few rounds would take out the unit with these changes, and as the Stun is linked directly to the amount of damage you take, the Tank would be able to stunlock the squad into being unable to fight back, making Tanks the kings of city fighting, which they absolutely under no circumstance should be. Unsupported tanks are easy pickings for Infantry for a reason.

You are forgetting a vital problem about suspension of disbelief when it comes to the level of simulation WARNO aims for. No Infantry unit is ever that clumped up. They are practically hugging each other, IRL a single HE round would absolutely take out that entire squad, or most of it, even with a near miss. In truth, the spread is so wide that it would take several shells to take them out realistically, but that can't be simulated in-game.
Last edited by Кукла Куколдуна; 11 Jul @ 7:33am
#12
Ahriman 11 Jul @ 8:08am 
Originally posted by Кукла Куколдуна:
Let's take 1 tank and take infantry with AT for an equal number of points (excluding vehicles). Let's send them auto-attacking each other, who will win?

Alright, I'll pick the AMX-30B. Let's put it up against the dreaded KdA you were using prior. You'll get 2 of them vs the AMX-30B and its AC, MG and main gun. My bets are not going to be on the KdA that will rout 100% of the time after the first volley due to their Reservist Trait. They wouldn't be getting anywhere near the AMX to even have hope of taking it out.
Last edited by Ahriman; 11 Jul @ 8:09am
#13
Кукла Куколдуна 11 Jul @ 8:27am 
Originally posted by Ahriman:
Originally posted by Кукла Куколдуна:
Let's take 1 tank and take infantry with AT for an equal number of points (excluding vehicles). Let's send them auto-attacking each other, who will win?

Alright, I'll pick the AMX-30B. Let's put it up against the dreaded KdA you were using prior. You'll get 2 of them vs the AMX-30B and its AC, MG and main gun. My bets are not going to be on the KdA that will rout 100% of the time after the first volley due to their Reservist Trait. They wouldn't be getting anywhere near the AMX to even have hope of taking it out.

And it's all? Only 1 tank in the game? Or maybe we’ll take the T-62 or T-80 or Amrams or Challenger?
#14
Ahriman 11 Jul @ 12:40pm 
Originally posted by Кукла Куколдуна:
And it's all? Only 1 tank in the game? Or maybe we’ll take the T-62 or T-80 or Amrams or Challenger?

Why would I do that? I have better units to handle Infantry, my Tanks are there primarily to engage armor and assist against Infantry, but the actual dislodging and killing is done by units meant for it. Out of all the tanks, the best one for the Anti-Infantry role you want is the AMX-30s since they also have the AC on them. So my point was to highlight the need to use the best tools for the job.

Tanks are fine as they are. They are suppressing Infantry and lowering their Cohesion, killing should be left to units meant for it.

To make sure you are aware of what you are sounding like with these requests, it is like someone asking buffs to IR AA because they can't engage Planes as efficiently as Radar AA. Tanks can still deal damage to Infantry, they can still suppress Infantry, thus they can support your Infantry during pushes, but the primary source for damage against said Infantry comes from your IFVs, Mortars, Artillery, and obviously your Infantry that is moving in to dislodge them.

By improving the HE values of Tanks vs Infantry would mean you make those units redundant for the most part in that role. You would only use them as meatshields and spotters to dig out enemy ATGM and Infantry Teams, volley fire 3+ tanks into the building, wipe out the ATGM team without a hitch and WAY beyond retaliation range of any unit that might be able to fight a Tank. Remember, when an ATGM unit fires, their Stealth Rating drops significantly, which means that a competent player having even a basic Recon unit at the front will cause the ATGM team to be detected, at which point the ATGM team has to pick between running immediately to avoid instant obliteration and missing the shot, or pray to the gods above the missile connects before the tank gets in range. Considering that right now Tanks can easily take out ATGM teams even in buildings in two to three shots, increasing the HE damage would simply ensure guaranteed stuns at minimum, thus turning ATGMs into completely anaemic defensive weapon, which it kinda already is thanks to the power of Artillery right now.

Tanks would just be superior to the alternatives. They have better armor than IFVs, they have better range than CEVs, they have often smoke and speed to also ensure that they can get out when they are in a bind, so if I can easily take on Infantry with Tanks, why bother bring in anything but a handful of Infantry for mop up operation and spotting?
Last edited by Ahriman; 11 Jul @ 12:59pm
#15
< >
Showing 1-15 of 24 comments
Per page: 1530 50

WARNO > General Discussions > Topic Details
Date Posted: 9 Jul @ 7:03am
Posts: 24

Discussions Rules and Guidelines