WARNO - The RTS Formerly Known As Wargame 4

I’ve only played a couple of matches, but it really does perform a metric ton better than Red Dragon. I’ve just been replaying the latter this week, and one of the big reasons I got Warno was I was sick of watching my AI teammates charge at the beginning of every match with light AA missiles and guns, straight into enemy formations. Or not understand how logistics work and watch them strand all of their vehicles all over the map because they ran out of gas.

The Warno AI generally does seem to stick to conventional tactics better. It’s not great, but it’s not absolutely braindead. It seems to play by the same rules, too, in terms of spotting and intelligence. If I sit too long in one position, it will arty it. Once it does get a fix on my artillery, it will counter-battery. It does seem to lead with recon and follow-up with armor and infantry. It will send SEAD after my AA, and when I send in fighters it will also send in fighters. It calls in logistics to rearm/refuel/repair units.

So, yeah, I’m happy.

Thanks for the breakdown, Woolen. I’m very glad to read that. All that Cold War nostalgia, with a decent single-player AI and especially their latest dynamic campaign operations, is making this is really a tempting package.

All of Eugen’s games, from EE on up to WARNO, have had a decent single-player game, especially with the addition of active pause (since SD, I think?)

Wait, what? I’ve been holding off on this game until it received a decent sale and this news may have bumped up its value to “don’t wait.”

Maybe don’t hold me to that. Uh, can someone here who actually knows tell me and @Dan_Theman whether WARNO has one of those “dynamic campaigns” that Eugen has flirted with? I seem to recall Steel Division in particular had these modes with pretty fleshed-out operational layers with some force/resource management, and they would generate skirmishes, and you played them over multiple sessions as a dynamic campaign. That was Steel Division, right? Isn’t there supposed to be something like that in WARNO, or am I just wishcasting again?

Warno has five Army General campaigns at the moment.

You have predefined units that are close, if not exactly, what the historical units had at the time.

Each campaign is focused on one time frame/area and you get reinforcements on a schedule.

Any losses you or your opponent suffer are permanent. Lose that 11th Armored Cavalry battalion in the first couple of fights? Rest of the campaign is going to be harder. I know from painful experience!

You maneuver your units and pick when and where to engage. You have the option to play it out manually in a tactical battle, or just auto resolve. The difference between playing it manually and auto resolve can be pretty large. That said, auto resolving every fight is perfectly doable.

Auto resolve fights will generally result in more losses, and higher accrued fatigue. The higher fatigue in particular will significantly impact your decisions on when and where to fight.

11th Armored Cavalry battalions are more than a match for any two or three Pact battalions. Even through multiple fights. However, if the fatigue gets too high, they will go into disorganization, and then if a recon jeep shows up and shouts ‘boo!’ They will surrender regardless of how much of the force is still intact.

Makes for a system I have been enjoying.

Also the Army General campaigns can be played from either side, single player, co-op, or PVP.

edit: forgot that when you have multiple battalions in a specific fight, you can choose to command all of them yourself, or hand off some part to the AI to control. I found it made it easier for me to get a better grip on the systems. The AI does an acceptable job for the most part.

@Jarrodhk, I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but I don’t see anywhere in your post were you answer the question of whether it’s a dynamic campaign. Based on what you’ve told us, it could just as easily be a Panzer General-style linear sequence of scripted missions!

Which I’m pretty sure isn’t the case, but can you or someone else confirming that these “Army General campaigns” are dynamic so I’m not leading anyone astray with my earlier post? : )

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘dynamic campaign.’

It is not a series of missions, branching or otherwise. It is the same system as they have in Steel Divisions 2 and War Game Red Dragon.

Here is a map table with pre-determined units to move around in turn based mode and have fights with while trying to accomplish the overlying goal for the campaign.

Which is why I laid it out in the post you were responding to. : )

Yet what you had described could apply to Panzer General, which didn’t generate skirmishes, but just walked the player through a pre-determined sequence of scripted maps and encounters (albeit with some forking, IIRC?). But traditionally a dynamic campaign in an RTS – not that there’s anything “traditional” about RTS’ with dynamic campaigns – procedurally generates a skirmish, and the skirmishes will be played non-linearly according to what happens on the operational/strategic layer. Rise of Nations is one of the rare true examples. As is, I seem to recall, Steel Division 2. And before it was applied to the occasional RTS, I guess the term came from flight sims? At least, that’s where I remember it being a bullet point, and a thing we bitched and moaned about when we didn’t get it. : )

Anyway, I appreciate your replies. I think you’ve confirmed WARNO is like Steel Division, but I’ll take a look myself and verify back here at some point.