If you've coming from WARNO, I'd say that it feels like Broken Arrow has more *potential* in the long run, simply due to all of the extra features which it includes. However it does currently lack a degree of polish compared to WARNO - which shouldn't be surprising, as Eugen has basically been (very slowly) delivering small iterations on what is essentially the same game, for the last 10 years or so. I think most people who enjoy WARNO will also find Broken Arrow worthwhile at a minimum. If you enjoyed World in Conflict back in the day, then you'll definitely like this.
@@tomfahey2823 Yeah I agree with that sentiment - WARNO is a far more polished game. The graphics are better, the UI is better, the game feels less janky and is a smoother experience. However WARNO suffers the unending wrath of Darricks balancing the game with a sledgehammer based on his latest 1v1 results. Broken Arrow offers a lot of interesting ideas like actual paradrops which for some reason Eugen have never attempted to implement. I do think Broken Arrow needs to adjust it's damage system - I get that it's not fun spending 500 points on a tank only for a 80 point javelin to kill it in one shot, but that's as much a skill issue as it is balance. The way it stands (And as seen here with those stingers against the MI-28) there are a lot of units in broken arrow that seem far too difficult to kill. An attack helicopter should never shrug off 3 direct hits from a MANPAD. A tank should never shrug off 3 direct hits from a heavy ATGM like a TOW 2 or AT14. But they often do and that can make the game feel heavily biased against infantry, which as a result makes the game strange to play. Infantry should be the focal point, with all other assets being a tool to aid the infantry achieve objectives, but instead (as seen here again) a little jeep with a MMG on the roof can run riot when there's no AT present, and high-end armour can just roll into towns and clean house. It will be interesting to see where BA goes in the future, it has a lot of room to grow. For now, I'm inclined to play WARNO and keep an eye on Broken Arrow, at at some point in the future I may well switch over. One thing to consider is the setting. It may only be a small thing for a lot of people, but the technology differences are huge. in Broken Arrow, you can use scout teams to lase targets for F-35s which can lob bombs onto with relative impunity. Tanks can be expected to defeat multiple ATGMs with their APS. Drones serve as your primary aerial recon. The way you fight changes massively because of it. For example, in WARNO, you'd expect a TOW2 team in a building to win the 1v1 against a T-80 say. For a start they'll almost certainly get the first shot off, and drop the cohesion of the T-80 massively, and it'll take a fair few rounds to kill that TOW team which it simply hasn't got the health to do. In Broken Arrow, the reverse is true. Even if the Tow team does shoot first, the tank it's shooting at, probably a T90 or T14 Armata will spot, aim, and engage that team before the missile reaches it, and it's APS will probably shoot the missile down anyway.
@@daredemontriple6 100% agree with everything you said. I think an easy fix would be if they simply increased the probability of critical damage like the engine being disabled, or the targeting/optics being hit, so those effects occur on the 1st or 2nd hit, rather than only applying when the tank/helicopter has like 1 hitpoint left. That would mean that massed tank/helicopter attacks could still overcome a small number of ATGM/manpad squads (as they should, when you consider the difference in point cost), but you wouldn't end up with stupid situations where a single tank with APS deletes multiple ATGM squads whilst barely suffering a scratch itself.
@@tomfahey2823 IMO they need to get rid of the entire concept of 'hit points' and give us either an elaborate semi-realistic damage model like War Thunder's (ideally) or something simpler like Warhammer 40k's rolls to wound. Every shot in real life has the potential to be deadly, but with the way it works when you have hit points, you can shrug off ATGMs with tanks knowing that they simply can't kill you and that changes a lot about tactics and decisionmaking in the game in a negative way.
I have a 5yo laptop with a gtx 1660ti and 9th gen I7 it works fine on medium, dont get me wrong not a smooth performance cause there is frame drops every now and then but its far from unplayable
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Hippie finding out that Kiowas are slow as and Chinooks are fast asf
And again hippie didnt started with : i love broken arrow
According to my TH-cam wrap up, I’m top 0.3 of Hippie fans ❤
Thanks!
you didn't "jaaaaaaa" again - are you alright brother?
Когда противник на войну не приехал
GG
Thanks!
As a warno player I find it difficult to follow what is going on in the game.
wdym lol much more comprehensible than warno and wargame
@@Bandog23 I guess it's just what your used to, for me it's very not very clear what is going on.
Does anyone actually know how to use the laser guidance?
Gg
ty
I can't figure out if this game looks good or not.
You can play it for free and see if it's for you. Tbh I think it's alright, but the income mode and forced 5v5 really annoys me
If you've coming from WARNO, I'd say that it feels like Broken Arrow has more *potential* in the long run, simply due to all of the extra features which it includes.
However it does currently lack a degree of polish compared to WARNO - which shouldn't be surprising, as Eugen has basically been (very slowly) delivering small iterations on what is essentially the same game, for the last 10 years or so.
I think most people who enjoy WARNO will also find Broken Arrow worthwhile at a minimum. If you enjoyed World in Conflict back in the day, then you'll definitely like this.
@@tomfahey2823 Yeah I agree with that sentiment - WARNO is a far more polished game. The graphics are better, the UI is better, the game feels less janky and is a smoother experience. However WARNO suffers the unending wrath of Darricks balancing the game with a sledgehammer based on his latest 1v1 results. Broken Arrow offers a lot of interesting ideas like actual paradrops which for some reason Eugen have never attempted to implement.
I do think Broken Arrow needs to adjust it's damage system - I get that it's not fun spending 500 points on a tank only for a 80 point javelin to kill it in one shot, but that's as much a skill issue as it is balance. The way it stands (And as seen here with those stingers against the MI-28) there are a lot of units in broken arrow that seem far too difficult to kill. An attack helicopter should never shrug off 3 direct hits from a MANPAD. A tank should never shrug off 3 direct hits from a heavy ATGM like a TOW 2 or AT14. But they often do and that can make the game feel heavily biased against infantry, which as a result makes the game strange to play. Infantry should be the focal point, with all other assets being a tool to aid the infantry achieve objectives, but instead (as seen here again) a little jeep with a MMG on the roof can run riot when there's no AT present, and high-end armour can just roll into towns and clean house.
It will be interesting to see where BA goes in the future, it has a lot of room to grow. For now, I'm inclined to play WARNO and keep an eye on Broken Arrow, at at some point in the future I may well switch over.
One thing to consider is the setting. It may only be a small thing for a lot of people, but the technology differences are huge. in Broken Arrow, you can use scout teams to lase targets for F-35s which can lob bombs onto with relative impunity. Tanks can be expected to defeat multiple ATGMs with their APS. Drones serve as your primary aerial recon. The way you fight changes massively because of it. For example, in WARNO, you'd expect a TOW2 team in a building to win the 1v1 against a T-80 say. For a start they'll almost certainly get the first shot off, and drop the cohesion of the T-80 massively, and it'll take a fair few rounds to kill that TOW team which it simply hasn't got the health to do. In Broken Arrow, the reverse is true. Even if the Tow team does shoot first, the tank it's shooting at, probably a T90 or T14 Armata will spot, aim, and engage that team before the missile reaches it, and it's APS will probably shoot the missile down anyway.
@@daredemontriple6 100% agree with everything you said.
I think an easy fix would be if they simply increased the probability of critical damage like the engine being disabled, or the targeting/optics being hit, so those effects occur on the 1st or 2nd hit, rather than only applying when the tank/helicopter has like 1 hitpoint left.
That would mean that massed tank/helicopter attacks could still overcome a small number of ATGM/manpad squads (as they should, when you consider the difference in point cost), but you wouldn't end up with stupid situations where a single tank with APS deletes multiple ATGM squads whilst barely suffering a scratch itself.
@@tomfahey2823 IMO they need to get rid of the entire concept of 'hit points' and give us either an elaborate semi-realistic damage model like War Thunder's (ideally) or something simpler like Warhammer 40k's rolls to wound. Every shot in real life has the potential to be deadly, but with the way it works when you have hit points, you can shrug off ATGMs with tanks knowing that they simply can't kill you and that changes a lot about tactics and decisionmaking in the game in a negative way.
How's the game's performance
Better than the last beta, but still quite poor. Unless you've got a top of the line rig, you will get low performance
I have a 5yo laptop with a gtx 1660ti and 9th gen I7 it works fine on medium, dont get me wrong not a smooth performance cause there is frame drops every now and then but its far from unplayable