Replace the perverted titles of 'Combat Engineer' and 'Pioneer Sappers' completely in Warno

[umbral pollen]

1.It causes misinterpretation

https://www.reddit.com/r/warno/comments/1de1ggy/for_military_engineering_in_the_game/

https://www.reddit.com/r/warno/comments/1oq572k/no_entrenched_mechanic_for_engineers_and_other/

https://www.reddit.com/r/warno/comments/1iyricq/why_are_there_no_minelaying_units_in_warno/

3. Incendiary weapons were not issued to Engineers

#cw-historical-discussion message

https://www.verlag-koester.de/buch/die-chemiker-der-nva-und-der-grenztruppen-der-ddr/

https://www.reddit.com/r/warno/comments/1drkbwm/historical_panzergrenadier_spz_squads/

[umbral pollen]

I could be wrong though, be sure to disprove my claim with proofs. Highly educated Engineers assault troops omg 🤯

[glass steppe]

I mean crap we already had Deckungsgruppe in , and they were lowk useful as hell because they were cheap and came in a Marder

[rugged atlas]

Honestly it's probably due to the fact that that's how they did it in SD2, which is their most recent game (before WARNO).

[umbral pollen]

Sorry, I accidentally deleted the post. Here is the original one:

Four reasons:

1. It causes misinterpretation.

Unaware, innocent people did not understand why this elaborate military term had been added to the game without any historical or logical reason, and because of that, they kept asking for defensive constructions, landmines and trenches.

2. It is historically erroneous.

There is no proof that NATO or any Warsaw Pact nation would use their engineers and sappers for a frontline tactical assault; their task is engineering, not fighting. There is also no reason for assault pioneers to be in this game, as there are no obstacles or landmines. Yes, the US engineers have bunker-busting M67s and SMAWs, but there are no bunkers here.

Did the British Royal Engineers flamethrowing the Malaysian Chinese Communists or the Argentinian ? the Soviet sappers tossed mines into Mujahideen's caves ? Or did the USA have their cavalry engineers flechetting the Vietcong in their jungle seek and destroy mission ?

3. Incendiary weapons were not issued to engineers.

The Soviet Land Force and its satellite states had a unit called Chemical Troops. Incendiary weapons were used by Chemical Troops, not Engineers or Sappers.

In the Bundeswehr, Handflammpatronen are just regular weapons for regular soldiers; there is no such thing as a Pioneer flame squad.

The M202 FLASH was used by both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, primarily in infantry units. The Army generally issued one per rifle platoon, while the Marines issued them to dedicated assaultman teams at battalion level.

4. We have many better names for this role: 'assault group', 'assault breacher' in English, 'Stoßtrupp Gliederung' or 'Deckungsgruppe' in German, and 'shturmoviki' in Russian.
   The close quarters combat assault troops of the WG can sometimes be called 'Jäger'.

Why do they have to be engineers ? why why ?

anyway how can i restore my post like uhm idk what the hell happened ?

[tawny forge]

I understand your argument completely, and I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Based on my experience with the French Army and my knowledge of WARNO's mechanics, here's my perspective:

The current implementation is realistic precisely because it reflects real army composition with all its real-world constraints.
In actual military divisions, Combat Engineers and Sappers were integrated into frontline assault formations because armies couldn't afford the luxury of pure specialization. A division needed:

• Engineers for their primary role (obstacles, crossing, reconnaissance)
• But also reliable soldiers who could fight when needed
• So they were dual-purpose: specialists first, combat troops second

WARNO's implementation reflects this reality. Combat Engineers in the game serve as assault troops because that's what real sappers did when integrated into division structures. They participated in assaults not because they were assault specialists, but because they were soldiers integrated into combat operations.

But here's where the problem becomes unavoidable: WARNO doesn't simulate the full constraints of real armies.
In a real division, Combat Engineers existed within a larger tactical ecosystem:

• They had primary responsibilities (bridging, mine-clearing, reconnaissance)
• They participated in assault as a secondary role
• This dual-purpose justified their presence
  In WARNO, because:
• There are no rivers to cross
• There are no minefields to clear
• There is no terrain reconnaissance mechanic(it’s for recon unit)
• There are no fortifications to breach
  ...the engineer's primary role simply doesn't exist. Only their secondary assault role remains visible to players.

This creates a genuine design problem with no perfect solution:
Option A: Preserve Historical Authenticity

• Keep them named "Combat Engineers"
• Accept that the name implies functions that don't exist in-game
• Rely on players understanding that this is a gamified simplification
• Risk: New players are confused about whether they should build fortifications or clear mines

Option B: Prioritize Player Clarity

• Rename them "Assault Infantry," "Assault Squads," or Stoßtrupp
• Make the gameplay role immediately obvious from the unit name
• Sacrifice the historical representation of actual division composition
• Risk: Lose the nuanced representation of how real armies actually functioned

There is a fundamental tension here:

When WARNO was designed to include Combat Engineers, the game designers were making a choice to prioritize historical organizational authenticity over gameplay clarity. They said: "Real divisions had Combat Engineers in assault formations, so we'll include them that way, even if it means the name doesn't fully describe what players see in-game."
This is a defensible choice, many games make similar decisions. But it does create exactly the confusion the player identified.

On specialized weapons, why flamethrowers and incendiary weapons belong to Combat Engineers ?

This is actually a strong design choice in WARNO, you're right to question whether only Combat Engineers should have flamethrowers and incendiary rocket launchers. However, the reality is more nuanced than total generalization would suggest.

This wasn't universal infantry equipment, it was a specialized asset. By giving Combat Engineers priority access in WARNO, you're actually reflecting this realistic scarcity.

The decision to concentrate these weapons creates meaningful tactical choice:
Arguments for keeping them specialized (current WARNO design):

• Differentiation: Combat Engineers are the only unit with access to incendiary weapons, creating a distinct tactical identity and a real reason to include them in your deck
• Identity: Each nation's doctrine gets reflected, Soviet Chemical Troops represented through Engineers, U.S. Assaultmen through Combat Engineers
• Balance: Forcing players to make trade-offs ("Do I need incendiary capability?") creates deck depth and forces meaningful choices
• Historical accuracy: Incendiary weapons were concentrated in specialized units, not distributed to every squad leader

Arguments against generalization:

• Loss of identity: If every unit carried flamethrowers, what makes Combat Engineers special? They become just "another assault squad"
• Balance reduction: Players would lose a strategic choice about specialized capabilities
• Doctrine flattening: Real armies had different doctrines about who controlled these weapons. Generalization erases that distinction

...WARNO has created a functional reason for Combat Engineers to exist beyond just naming confusion. They're not just "assault infantry with a weird name", they're the specialized assault unit with specialized incendiary capability, which reflects real military structures where flamethrower-equipped teams were integrated with engineer/sapper units.

The current implementation is defensible and actually creates meaningful gameplay depth. The problem isn't that Combat Engineers have special weapons, the problem is their name doesn't clarify what they do in WARNO's simplified context.
But the weapons specialization? That's good design because it:

• Reflects historical scarcity (not every soldier had incendiary weapons)
• Creates meaningful deck-building choices
• Gives Combat Engineers a distinct, non-confusing gameplay role
• Maintains some fidelity to actual Cold War doctrine about who controlled these weapons

The real solution isn't generalization, it's better naming + explanation of the specialized assault role, not removing what makes them unique, i think.

Here is my brief reply 😂 . Sorry if it’s not very clear, my English isn’t good enough for me to have written everything directly in English, so I used a few translations.

I want to emphasize that I'm not a historical specialist, and this is far from my domain at Eugen Systems, so I could easily be wrong on many of these points. My analysis is based on general knowledge and game design observations, but the precise historical accuracy and the strategic implications of these design choices really require expertise that goes well beyond my role in QA and community management.