Balance. The game is incredibly well balanced for having so many units and factions. There is almost always a counter to play styles and units. It puts a lot of responsibility on the player to make the right choices and build or bring appropriate decks to games. No unicorn units. Very little bugs. Minimal HUD and clutter on the board. Leans toward player skill and in MP cooperation and communication to win. One, if not the best MP RTS games I've ever played.

Balance doesn't sell DLC's though. Only power creep sells DLCs.

Balance, setting and SOME aspects of the campaign.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย dumba:

Balance, setting and SOME aspects of the campaign.

So, how is the concept of WARNO having divisions that excell in different roles worse? You can pick a well balanced division or a division that has the best tanks for example. It makes for more deck combinations.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Key:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย dumba:

Balance, setting and SOME aspects of the campaign.

So, how is the concept of WARNO having divisions that excell in different roles worse? You can pick a well balanced division or a division that has the best tanks for example. It makes for more deck combinations.

I don't know; I never said it was worse. I like realistic-ish divisions. For me Warno falls short elsewhere.