Don't really like it so far

Ask, comment, read.
User avatar
spillblood
Colonel
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 4:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby spillblood » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:37 pm

Mandrake48 wrote:
whatever wrote:Bear in mind that specialist attachments can make a huge difference. That will always be represented in the predicted outcome when you are attacking.

Yeah, I'd advise to purchase some specialist steps from OKH/Stavka reserve in your first playthroughs, if you assign Engineer or Recon steps to tanks or Motorized Infantry, they become even more heavy hitting, especially when you play the Germans, and Engineer steps make it easier to flush out entrenched units and to attack over rivers. But in the Stalingrad Campaign German campaign you should take care not too spend too much prestige in the first scenarios because it gets harder and harder, so you will have an easier time in the last scenarios if you keep some prestige.

User avatar
Danielefc
Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby Danielefc » Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:19 pm

spillblood wrote:We can give you some more tips if you upload a savegame here in this thread. If you're playing a single scenario, go to this folder (just copy and paste into the Windows explorer):
%appdata%\Unity of Command\save\
If you're playing a campaign, go here:
%appdata%\Unity of Command\save\campaign\
And just post the .usc file here (when you've finished the scenario). Screenshots would probably help as well as well, but this way we can view your game and give you tips.


This. Its hard to say anything other than "you're wrong" otherwise ;). As others have stated above: German infantry surpasses the Soviets infantry in every way. And a Panzer Division will never ever ever loose to Russian infantry if not for a dramatic terrain disadvantage, being drastically understrength or completely surpressed. Air attacks are devastating and crucial to winning/loosing - but use them in the rain against a dug in unit and they will be wasted...

Anyway - as spillblood said: upload a replay and we'll all be dying to offer some tips and/or explain what went wrong.

whatever
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby whatever » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:35 pm

In order to win a brilliant victory and capture Tsimlianskaia by turn 4 in the 3rd German Scenario, the German Panzer Divisions must be on the river next to Tsimlianskaia by the end of turn 3. Looking at the odds, and with a few air attacks, the Panzer Divisions have to succeed at a couple of overrun attacks at 90% percentile chance, according to the predicted attack odds. Unfortunately, through 4 replays, I have succeeded exactly once out of eight attacks to actually overrun the defender. That's stupid. Either the odds are in fact 90% are they aren't. Obviously they aren't. So why set my expectations at 90%? Why not say that it's actually 12.5% if the odds are 12.5%?
The best I can tell, the only way to win that scenario is to play over and over and over and over until the Panzer Divisions actually succeed in two consecutive overrun attacks, something that should happen according to the predicted results 81% of the time, but in fact happens one out of twenty? Thirty play-throughs?
So if one needs to get a brilliant victory and capture all the objectives on time, the player has to follow the exact same strategy, and play through it, twenty times before the numbers come up.
That's is poor game design.
Why not just tell the truth on overrun odds?

User avatar
HolyDeath
Captain
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby HolyDeath » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:42 am

Why not just tell the truth on overrun odds?

You didn't even bother checking out the manual, right? Because there is no "truth". RNG is RNG. There are people who complain about missing 95% shots in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but the same people don't complain about taking and succeeding when their 25% shot hits/kills the target. You can either accept that 90% won't always go your way or not. What you should do is maximize your chances, because RNG might screw you, but it also can screw your enemy, but with higher chances you're less likely to get the bad end of the stick and more likely to get a good one.

Having said all that I agree that sometime Brilliant Victories are requiring too perfect execution as any slip up can slow you down, so you'll get Decisive instead of Brilliant victory. I wouldn't mind it all that much if not for the fact that sometimes you MUST get Brilliant Victory only to progress through the campaign, so I find myself stacking as much prestige points as possible only to spend them on missions where I want to ensure Brilliant Victory. This is where I think the game should be improved upon, because if you ignore Brilliant Victories and play scenario-like-a-campaign style then you can ignore Brilliant Victories and game is more fun that way. You can also spend prestige too.

whatever
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby whatever » Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:25 am

Well, the RNG is a mighty fail. 90% should happen 90% of the time. The results I am getting at 90% chance are about 5 standard deviations away from expected. The chance that I am getting the results I am at 90% are about 1 out of 10,000. It's broken.
The fact that they require a brilliant victory in order to proceed, and then the chances that you can achieve a brilliant victory based on an optimal strategy is small just based on the broken RNG results is bad game design. I could live with the obviously broken system if they didn't essentially require the player to get a brilliant victory. They have managed to steal whatever joy a person might otherwise find in the game. At some point a designer should sit down and try to figure out what they are trying to accomplish. If this is what they are trying to accomplish, I'm sorry I wasted my money on it, and will warn others away.
Russian Cavalry and Infantry is ludicrously overpowered. I do not understand how a a single cavalry unit can singlehandedly take on three Panzer divisions, two motorized division, and another division, inflicting 14 casualties while completely surrounded.
Russian infantry routinely attacks my German infantry divisions inflicting 2 causalities while taking none, while vice versa causes three casualties to me while inflicting a suppression. I look at the ratings, but clearly I don't understand. Is there a secret rating somewhere? Or is the game simply cheating?
I think I have given this game enough time to give it a fair appraisal. I think the designers were trying to make it 'harder' which they thought would make it more challenging. But they don't understand why adults play games. We don't want things to be hard based on luck, we want a challenge to figure out and solve. This game fails to do that. Forcing a player to repeat the exact same optimal strategy repeatedly, five to ten times, and then have them win based only on the luck finally working out destroys whatever sense of accomplishment they might have. This could have been a good game, but it ultimately fails to deliver a positive experience.

User avatar
HolyDeath
Captain
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby HolyDeath » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:59 pm

Well, the RNG is a mighty fail. 90% should happen 90% of the time.

That's called "Gambler's Fallacy" and is untrue. You've got 90% chance that you'll get the expected result, but 90% ain't 100% so there is always a possibility that you might miss 5 90% shots in a row. Each outcome is independent to each other and only shows the likelyhood of succeeding.

The results I am getting at 90% chance are about 5 standard deviations away from expected. The chance that I am getting the results I am at 90% are about 1 out of 10,000. It's broken.

It's working as intended. Manual, page 21: "Note that, in actual combat, this number is slightly randomized on each lookup to stimulate the inherent uncertainty of real life combat". I'd like to see these "1 out of 10,000" numbers and compare the outcomes to what the in-game manual is saying.

You didn't read the manual and probably don't understand how combat works - at least that's the conclussion I make after reading what you've written here - and you're making your judgement basing on that. To make a proper judgement one must understand the rules to know how to apply them properly. You can as well say that XCOM is based on luck just as well, because you have to shoot aliens basing on luck and either you'll kill them or they'll kill you, so there is no strategy in there either, only luck... Point is that you employ strategy and tactics in a way to tip odds in your favor. You don't have guarantee of success, but by stacking up odds in your favor you incrases chances to go your way.

The game might not be your cup of tea - which is understandable - but calling it broken or badly designed only because your expectations are off and you didn't even care enough to learn what the design was in the first place? This is far from "a fair appraisal" you claim to be making.

User avatar
Danielefc
Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Don't really like it so far

Unread postby Danielefc » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:44 pm

whatever wrote:Well, the RNG is a mighty fail. 90% should happen 90% of the time. The results I am getting at 90% chance are about 5 standard deviations away from expected. The chance that I am getting the results I am at 90% are about 1 out of 10,000. It's broken.
The fact that they require a brilliant victory in order to proceed, and then the chances that you can achieve a brilliant victory based on an optimal strategy is small just based on the broken RNG results is bad game design. I could live with the obviously broken system if they didn't essentially require the player to get a brilliant victory. They have managed to steal whatever joy a person might otherwise find in the game. At some point a designer should sit down and try to figure out what they are trying to accomplish. If this is what they are trying to accomplish, I'm sorry I wasted my money on it, and will warn others away.
Russian Cavalry and Infantry is ludicrously overpowered. I do not understand how a a single cavalry unit can singlehandedly take on three Panzer divisions, two motorized division, and another division, inflicting 14 casualties while completely surrounded.
Russian infantry routinely attacks my German infantry divisions inflicting 2 causalities while taking none, while vice versa causes three casualties to me while inflicting a suppression. I look at the ratings, but clearly I don't understand. Is there a secret rating somewhere? Or is the game simply cheating?
I think I have given this game enough time to give it a fair appraisal. I think the designers were trying to make it 'harder' which they thought would make it more challenging. But they don't understand why adults play games. We don't want things to be hard based on luck, we want a challenge to figure out and solve. This game fails to do that. Forcing a player to repeat the exact same optimal strategy repeatedly, five to ten times, and then have them win based only on the luck finally working out destroys whatever sense of accomplishment they might have. This could have been a good game, but it ultimately fails to deliver a positive experience.



Thats not how odds work... Example:

1. You flip a coin and get heads. The chance of getting tails in the next flip is still only 50/50...
2. You flip it again and get heads. The chance of getting tails in the next flip is still only 50/50...
3. insert above text
4. etc etc...

But anyway... this is all pretty mute as you still don't show any replays. Without them what you say has little credence. Sure you may not like the game - thats a matter of taste. But the stuff you mention about Soviet cavalry taking on panzers and motorized division simply isn't true unless you are completely ignoring the rules of the game (Attacking into a dug in unit in mud over a river... or ignoring supplies... or a million other things). Please upload a replay and we will all be glad to help :).

But if you've decided to not like the game and ignore any attempt of people offering help there is really not much more to say.

EDIT:

whatever wrote:In order to win a brilliant victory and capture Tsimlianskaia by turn 4 in the 3rd German Scenario, the German Panzer Divisions must be on the river next to Tsimlianskaia by the end of turn 3. Looking at the odds, and with a few air attacks, the Panzer Divisions have to succeed at a couple of overrun attacks at 90% percentile chance, according to the predicted attack odds. Unfortunately, through 4 replays, I have succeeded exactly once out of eight attacks to actually overrun the defender. That's stupid. Either the odds are in fact 90% are they aren't. Obviously they aren't. So why set my expectations at 90%? Why not say that it's actually 12.5% if the odds are 12.5%?
The best I can tell, the only way to win that scenario is to play over and over and over and over until the Panzer Divisions actually succeed in two consecutive overrun attacks, something that should happen according to the predicted results 81% of the time, but in fact happens one out of twenty? Thirty play-throughs?
So if one needs to get a brilliant victory and capture all the objectives on time, the player has to follow the exact same strategy, and play through it, twenty times before the numbers come up.
That's is poor game design.
Why not just tell the truth on overrun odds?



Or the player could alter his tactics? The example you mention: If you don't have two panzer divisions at the river then don't risk the attack until airstrikes bring that Soviet unit down to a maximum of one active step. And there are several ways to get two divisions to the river by turn 4 - keeping in mind that one has to be at the river with one division at turn 3 as you mention. Regarding the odds of success when you attack and it says 90%: Apart from the fact that it will always only be 90% no matter how many times you've been unlucky or lucky in the past rolls as mentioned by both me and holydeath. There is also a slight deviation as the game only deals with "10% jumps" in the text that is shown - so actually the chance may vary from 85-99,9% if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway there are ways to get a brilliant victory in pretty much every playthrough of every scenario - without even spending any prestige.

Here is one way it can be done in the scenario you bring up: this particular tactical approach will work 100% of the time assuming rain doesn't hamper the panzer heading for Tsimlianskaia. The save goes in C:/Username/appdata/roaming/Unity of Command/save. "Appdata" may be a hidden folder depending on your settings. I just played this one - and this was first attempt - no luck involved. Even had alot of unlucky rolls attacking Rostov...

Case Blue.usg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “Unity of Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests