Suggestions Thread

[SteveV]

I also want the challenge of having to be concerned with my own losses. As it stands now, as long as I achieve the objectives on time my own casualties are irrelevant. If we could add a condition such as maintain a certain loss ratio while achieving the objectives that problem would be eliminated.

Not if you play the Soviet side, their idea of clearing minefields weas to have troops march across them!

I agree though that the lack of a linked campaign means that losses for both sides in a scenarion are immaterial, if you play as the Axis then winning whilst retaining a cohesive force for the next battle should be one of the challenges.

[Shatner]

I also want the challenge of having to be concerned with my own losses. As it stands now, as long as I achieve the objectives on time my own casualties are irrelevant. If we could add a condition such as maintain a certain loss ratio while achieving the objectives that problem would be eliminated.

Not if you play the Soviet side, their idea of clearing minefields weas to have troops march across them!

I agree though that the lack of a linked campaign means that losses for both sides in a scenarion are immaterial, if you play as the Axis then winning whilst retaining a cohesive force for the next battle should be one of the challenges.

While I agree that, in abstract, having to conserve your losses in one scenario so as not to be outgunned in a later scenario would be cool, I think in practice it would warp the game overly much. UoC is a game about playing out a series of WWII battles with as much historical accuracy as can be crammed on to a hex-grid while being playable in about half an hour. That's a very specific goal and the developers of the game have done an amazing job of making a really awesome, deep, and nuanced game within that conceptual space. To accommodate that narrow conceptual scope, some things have had to be abstracted (e.g. specialists and reinforcements as opposed to an actual industrial production and logistics component; aggressive timelines and prestige to measure operational success) while other things have been removed entirely... such as persistent troop numbers or veterancy between missions.

Don't get me wrong, games like Homeworld and Myth are awesome and the whole "persistent troops" component is part of what makes them great. But those games are trying to be something different, and tell a different story, than UoC. It's not that it would be impossible for UoC to have a game mechanic like that, it's just that it would be both a lot of work and probably not thematically crucial for the type of game UoC is.

All that said, regardless of the shape it takes, I very much look forward to the next installment in the UoC series. Tomislav Uzelac and Nenad Jalšovec; hurry up and give us some new content so I can throw more money at you both.

[mtaylor]

If conservation of force is not part of historical accuracy then what is? I can not think of very many battles where losses were immaterial so long as your side was the last one standing on a few pieces of ground.

[Shatner]

If conservation of force is not part of historical accuracy then what is? I can not think of very many battles where losses were immaterial so long as your side was the last one standing on a few pieces of ground.

You're absolutely right that conservation of force is historically relevant. So is, for example, having Axis forces freezing to death (or at least suffering attrition) in the winter, and yet both sides fight equally well when it's frosty all over. And a hundred other things are also historically accurate but are either beyond the scope of what the developers can deliver, inimical to the gameplay we know and love for UoC, or both. Simply put, you have to draw a line somewhere between when your software stops being a rigorous historical simulation and starts being a game. Which side of that line "conservation of forces" falls is certainly a matter of debate, but arguing that it MUST be in because it is "historically accurate" is simply not a compelling reason by itself.

As is, UoC doesn't pay attention from scenario to scenario beyond the highly abstract mechanic of Prestige; each scenario is painstakingly designed and arranged to match the terrain, disposition of forces, goals and weather of that historical battle as closely as possible for a hex-based game which is meant to be reasonably quick to play. A lot of details have to be lost, or at least heavily abstracted, in the process of this mapping from history to game, but the end result is impressive none-the-less. UoC is lauded for it's historical accuracy AND gameplay, and rightly so. And my concern is that adding variable starts to each scenario (i.e. where one playthrough results in you having more troops than average because you suffered fewer losses than your historical counterparts, and in another you have far fewer... possibly too few to succeed) would make the game harder to balance, harder to develop, and would ultimately not be worth the opportunity cost of the developers improving the game in some other way. Now, whether or not my characterization of conservation of units as going "against the grain" of the game is accurate is a matter of debate. And my dismissal of conservation of units as not being worth it is simply a statement of opinion. Feel free to refute me on either, or both of those fronts... just remember that historical accuracy is an underwhelming argument by itself and keep in mind the combination of developmental and gameplay costs of what you're suggesting.

[SteveV]

Shatner, thats a very cogent argument and obviously makes sense. UOC was designed to be approachable for people who don't have the time or the inclination to click thousands of times just to move one turn along as in something like War In The East. Having said that I don't think any of the external reviews or the marketing by 2x2 described 100% accurately how the Campaign system works. Therefore someone who is used to the idea of a campaign as having a core force which has to be nursed through several scenarios (with the possibility of battle specific reinforcements at certain points) will be taken aback to find their armies (and those of the apparently wiped out opponents) magically regenerating at each stage. This is not a 'campaign' as I or mtaylor understand the term, just a sequence of unrelated set piece battles with the reward of a new battle being unlocked if you perform well enough.

I still really enjoy playing UOC, the campaign issue is in no way a gamebreaker for me but I can see how others may feel slightly misled as to how the whole system is portrayed.

[spillblood]

I guess you're both right, SteveV and Shatner. Since the game is designed around detailed scenarios that don't leave room for changes through consequences of player's actions (because that would break the balance), it would require a big effort to change the campaign system. That could be a thing they could adress in a sequel or further DLCs. But it would be nice to have some more connection between scenarios. It should be avoided to give UoC a core unit system like in Panzer General though, having ultra-strong units that beat all opposition when you do good in a campaign would destroy the historical realism. It's good that they didn't adopt this.

[SteveV]

I guess you're both right, SteveV and Shatner. Since the game is designed around detailed scenarios that don't leave room for changes through consequences of player's actions (because that would break the balance), it would require a big effort to change the campaign system. That could be a thing they could adress in a sequel or further DLCs. But it would be nice to have some more connection between scenarios. It should be avoided to give UoC a core unit system like in Panzer General though, having ultra-strong units that beat all opposition when you do good in a campaign would destroy the historical realism. It's good that they didn't adopt this.

Absolutely understand the balance concept, like I said the game as it is designed is a lot of fun to play, I can't remember the last time I played a wargame where you could finish a turn in five minutes
I know what you mean about the Panzer General type of campaign, but there's no need to have continuous 'Levelling Up' to create superhuman units (although the Grossdeutchland Regiment is already like a tactical nuclear weapon in UOC). You would just keep the same designations as now from Green to Elite, with both sides having the same opportunity to increase experience and effectiveness. Taking large losses would inevitably lead to a drop in the overall effectiveness of your forces making the campaign increasingly difficult.

My only other gripe is that for an operation like Bagration, the Soviets should be given the same overwhelming preponderance of force they had in real life. For example Army Group Centre only had 118 operational tanks across the whole front whereas the Soviets had 2,700. Now this may make the scenario almost impossible for the Axis but hey, they were totally destroyed in reality so why shouldn't the game reflect that?

[Stahlgewitter]

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.

I share in full the distaste for the immersion-breaking folly of, for example, burning several panzer divisions in a mad breakout from the nearest bridgehead in order to clear a path for a 1-step, OOS Axis minor infantry div to capture Stalingrad and win the scenario, even if the Soviets could easily wipe it aside in their next turn.

Granted it would be immensely frustrating to watch the enemy recapture an objective after your final turn, but it might also force the player to put a little more thought into his final few moves.

[mtaylor]

Without accounting for losses or true territorial objectives (i.e. if the Axis abandon Stalingrad at the moment the Soviets counterattack controlling the airfields supplying Stalingrad is pointless) the game fundamentally fails at even superficial simulation of the battles / operations presented. At best it become asymmetrical chess with a historical skin for flavoring. There is so much potential in this game, but at present that potential is unrealized. I have purchased the first two installments, but no more for me unless and until they fix the flawed AI and start accounting for force preservation.

[SteveV]

Without accounting for losses or true territorial objectives (i.e. if the Axis abandon Stalingrad at the moment the Soviets counterattack controlling the airfields supplying Stalingrad is pointless) the game fundamentally fails at even superficial simulation of the battles / operations presented. At best it become asymmetrical chess with a historical skin for flavoring. There is so much potential in this game, but at present that potential is unrealized. I have purchased the first two installments, but no more for me unless and until they fix the flawed AI and start accounting for force preservation.

Its such a difficult balancing act, as you can see from my posts above I agree in principle with what you say but this is essentially a two man operation who tried to find the middle ground between hardcore simulation and a game that almost anyone can pick up and play within half an hour, or less.

Case Blue was never meant to be about capturing Stalingrad, it was supposed to secure the oilfields at Maikop and Grozny and if possible, Baku.
I have played the Decisive Campaigns version of this where (for example) if you play the Axis you have the option of ignoring Stalingrad and using the 6th army as a screening force for the northern flank of the operation. Now on the one hand that gives you the feeling of having more options and a greater sense of immersion in the conflict. On the other hand we are back with the tedious micromanagement of up to 250 units (like Manstein or Zhukov would give orders to a reconnaisance battalion about where to patrol ) and turns for the human player taking an hour or more to complete.

The AI is always on the defence and the Human is always the attacker, battles always start with predetermined forces in fixed starting positions. Thats why the game only clocks in at 160 mb (including the Red Turn DLC). If 2x2 was a larger enterprise then we would be entitled to ask if they could expand the gameplay but as it is for a two man operation its a beautiful looking and essentially enjoyable game within its limitations.