Suggestions Thread

Ask, comment, read.
mtaylor
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:32 am

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby mtaylor » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:13 pm

For me it is an unsatisfactory toy. Once I realized the limitations of the AI and accepted the immateriality of losses and actual historical objectives the game ceased to be any fun. It can be a challenging puzzle, but there are better puzzle games on the market. It is failing as what it advertises itself to be:

"Unity of Command is an innovative and refreshing operational-level wargame that covers the entire 1942/43 Stalingrad Campaign on the Eastern Front. Playable from both the Axis and Soviet perspective, it strives to recreate the strategy, the forces involved and the general tension of that crucial period in World War II."

It does not recreate the strategy and to some degree penalizes a player who operates within those strategic constraints. The defensive AI seems to consist only of huddle around the objectives and / or take an opportunity shot at the attacker's supply.

I guess at the end of the day I want the designers to either provide what they advertised or stop what amounts to false advertisement.

User avatar
spillblood
Major General
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 4:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby spillblood » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:47 am

One simple way to give the player some incentive to conserve his forces might be to require him, at least for

a BV / DV, to meet the objectives on time AND hold them through the opponent's next turn.

That's a great suggestion! I think this would be the most simple way to discourage players from just opening up a
path so that ONE unit can reach the final objective (which it couldn't hold for the next turn) which makes them instantly win the scenario .


Once I realized the limitations of the AI and accepted the immateriality of
losses and actual historical objectives the game ceased to be any fun.
It does not recreate the strategy and to some degree penalizes a player who operates within those strategic
constraints. The defensive AI seems to consist only of huddle around the objectives and / or take an opportunity
shot at the attacker's supply.
I guess at the end of the day I want the designers to either provide what they advertised or stop what amounts to
false advertisement.

You're being much too harsh on the game. It achieves what it tries to be, a simplified depiction of the war on the Eastern Front that puts gameplay OVER realism! It doesn't try to be as realistic as possible. If you want a real hardcore wargame you should look somewhere else. Increasing the complexity too much would break the game for sure. The AI could be improved though, you're right with this. But the other users here are right as well, 2x2 is a little studio, they don't have the funds yet to realize a better game, and it really IS the best they could achieve. And I'm pretty sure we WILL see some improvements to the AI through patches.
Another thing I'd like to add: UoC can serve as an entrypoint for players unfamiliar with the wargaming genre to more complex games. It's simply incredibly hard to get into a game like War in the East or some SSG titles compared to UoC. You have to put a lot of effort into learning all the mechanics, and they mostly don't have functioning tutorials whereas you can pick up and play UoC almost immediately (but have to put some effort into learning how to win as well, because the difficulty is pretty high when you don't know the constraints of the AI yet). I find it incredibly tedious to learn a game by having a rulebook handy and following tutorial instructions in it (ESPECIALLY if you've bought the game digitally, have to print out 400+ pages rulebooks if you don't have two screens) opposed to learning it through a good, built-in tutorial. This pretty much makes complex wargames completely inaccessible to casual or even seasoned gamers who have no experience with the genre.

User avatar
strelkovaya
Major
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby strelkovaya » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:59 am

Campaigns where success or failure in previous scenarios adjust the map, units, goals, reserves and other aspects.
I do not mean the game has to track every unit strength all campaign, or require manual replenishment/reorg screens.

Simple, straight forward and historically supported reasoning to provide or remove options from the scenario you are in, depending on the history of your campaign. Ability to toggle this setting on/off.

User avatar
spillblood
Major General
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 4:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby spillblood » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:34 pm

strelkovaya wrote:Campaigns where success or failure in previous scenarios adjust the map, units, goals, reserves and other aspects.
I do not mean the game has to track every unit strength all campaign, or require manual replenishment/reorg screens.

Simple, straight forward and historically supported reasoning to provide or remove options from the scenario you are in, depending on the history of your campaign. Ability to toggle this setting on/off.

I second that. It should be kept simple, but it would definitely benefit the game. Don't follow established models for this, but try to find your own way, just like you did with the main game (compared to other wargames).

User avatar
spillblood
Major General
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 4:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby spillblood » Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:49 pm

Option to choose side in a multiplayer scenario when starting. I don't like that you can't choose your side when you start an internet game. Only Player 2 can do it currently (and he doesn't need to be able to do it because it breaks the game when he chooses the wrong side). BTW, the game really needs more than 5 PvP scenarios!

User avatar
ichadwick
First Lieutenant
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:38 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby ichadwick » Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:43 pm

A few ideas:

In the scenario editor, a basic default size button that creates a map border of X x X hexes in the centre of the current screen.

Equal value victory markers - represent an objective that counts the same for BOTH/EITHER side, not just one or the other. Great for creating "CTF" style PvP games.
Ian
The life so short, the craft so long to learn...
Chaucer, The Parliament of Fowles

pgthinker
Newcomer
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:55 am

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby pgthinker » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:38 pm

There's a simple way to satisfy those players who wants a Core units to take them through the campaign accumulating the experience. You have a Specialist steps now, the same mechanics can be used to implement a Commander steps, with some additional features. After all, the unit is a division - it must have a general in command. Let the player to assign those commanders (say 5-10 officers per campaign from a HQ pool and a few random ones as a reward), to any unit at the scenario map - the same way as it was in the reality. Those Commander steps will gain the experience and will not follow any certain unit - a simple pool with no special interface, exactly like HQ Reserve.

Arctic-Nation
Major
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby Arctic-Nation » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:52 pm

After having finished the original game and Red Turn, the latter with all BV's and no prestige spent, I've come to the conclusion that I liked prestige more in SC than in RT. Especially for the Germans, with their limited number of units and specialist steps on the battlefield, quickly cracking the Soviet defenses can be a real challenge. The Soviets, on the other hand, have so many specialist steps (and units) that there is simply no need for any caution or tactical thinking. Moving a few specialist steps from the abundantly equipped infantry to the armour is the first thing everyone does, and reducing their number on the field while adding some to the STAVKA pool would make things a lot more interesting. Of course, that might disagree with historical accuracy...

A second annoyance I've had is the increasing number of low-step units throughout each scenario, and again, especially with the Soviets. After the second turn, I'm always left with unusably weak units (with one to three steps), which just remain sitting behind the frontline. One could reorganize them, but at the same time I don't want my reinforcement pool to get clogged with infantry when I might need to shift around specialist steps and tanks. An option to let weak units get absorbed by stronger adjacent ones might be nice in that regard. The normal reorganization and reinforcement rules could apply.

Related to this, an option to shift specialist steps from one unit to an adjacent one, perhaps? This could be used in addition to the normal reorganization, with suppressing the step being shifted, but being active already the next turn instead of on the third. It would make the game easier, obviously...

My final concern: the experience system. While lots of thought has most probably gone into it, I think it fundamentally broken. Experience being earned only with the destruction of enemy steps, I always end my scenarios with depleted armour and unrealistically experienced infantry. While that first result is to be expected, the second one is rather stupid. When cracking a fortified city or an opposing armour unit, the first attackers usually only manage to destroy one or two steps, or sometimes only suppress them, while always losing a step themselves. As a result, my spearheads gradually lose their strength but gain nothing in return. When, in three or four turns, they've only taken out three steps but lost as many themselves, I can't reinforce them without losing their veterancy status, even though they've done the brunt of the work. When any bypassed and cut off unit is finally destroyed, it's always the infantry that gains the experience, while all they've done is standing around and picking their noses till the enemy has become completely suppressed. So, some changes here, perhaps? Attacking a city or armour should give some extra experience, as should suppressing a certain number of steps. Alternatively, a system where reorganized steps retain their veterancy might work, too. As it is now, I find it a bit jarring.

User avatar
Snowwhite
Captain
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:18 am

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby Snowwhite » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:09 pm

The game is great, the graphics and music fantastic, so there is only one thing that I would very much like and that is to be able to zoom in. Being static makes you feel apart from the battle. To be able to zoom in would really increase the immersion.

sourdust
Brigadier General
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:30 am

Re: Suggestions Thread

Unread postby sourdust » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:38 am

First, thank you for such a gem of a game! It reminds me of SSG's old "The Ardennes Offensive" in its deceptive simplicity, aesthetic appeal, and ease of play. I'm just having a blast with this, even after a few run throughs of each campaign.

A few thoughts:

1) A few times I have used forces from Stavka reserve, mistakenly thinking they were simply general reserve forces that wouldn't cost me prestige. I think the "force pool" panel shows stavka reserve if there are no units in the general pool, which can be confusing. The visual cue of the light blue border isn't a prominent & clear enough signal that you're about to spend prestige... an easy interface fix would be simply not to show the stavka reserve unless a player actually clicks on it.

2) At first, I was disappointed that sequential scenarios didn't change depending on my performance in previous ones (except for prestige), but in fact I've gotten used to it, and the scenarios are so well designed and finely balanced that I don't think the game experience as a whole would be improved by tinkering with setup forces, etc. Kepp this as it is - a set of separate battles, very loosely linked in a campaign tree.

3) I like the idea of coordinated attacks, ie two or three units adjacent to an enemy unit seeking to attack together. There should be a chance of failure, in which case the attacks go in separately. But if successful, there could be a slight bonus for each attacker.

4) The experience system could be tweaked a bit - ie, granting experience for all combat, not just where enemy units are killed.

5) Finally, I can't wait for further DLC!! In addition to the obvious suggestions (Africa, Barbarossa, 1939/40 campaign, and western front), can I suggest that this game engine is perfect for the very much underdone land campaigns in Asia during WW2? I can see a fabulously interesting Japanese campaign, which starts with a few scenarios in China, then traces through victories in Malaya, Philippines and Burma, then finishing up with 1944 offensives at Imphal and southern China, perhaps with a few hypotheticals around further advance into India if Imphal had succeeded? There's also a nice chance for an allied campaign here, focusing on China/Burma theatre.

Good luck, can't wait to see what you do next!