Suggestions Thread
Re: Suggestions Thread
I know somebody else has already suggested it but can I add my plea for an iPad version please? It would work fantastically on a touch screen.
Re: Suggestions Thread
It would be cool to be able to play both sides for every scenario.
Re: Suggestions Thread
How about when a unit captures an enemy supply depot for the first time in the scenario, that single unit would get resupplied again? Besides being realistic (quick thrusts behind enemy lines often led to a capture of valuable materials), it would also result in a more challenging situation in game when a single mobile unit takes 2-3 turns outside enemy control zones to capture a supply base in the back (i.e. the depot couldn't be taken back by a single infantry unit right away).
Re: Suggestions Thread
I was recently pretty soundly trounced my first time playing Orel/Briansk. I extended out too far and did not protect my supply depots and lost all 3 of them over the course of the game. However I was able to comeback in the last 3 turns and capture Orel. I thought that I should have completely lost this scenario and noticed some things that prevented the AI from doing so.
1. The AI captured my two northern supply depots with the 5th and 9th PZDs respectively. Their other three were lost in the south while capturing that supply depot. The AI were unable to rotate out these PZD with less useful infantry IDs even though their were IDs sitting adjacent to the PZDs. This meant that my out of supply army had to contend with a pure infantry force which greatly limited the amount of damage that the AI was able to do. Effectively they had no armor.
2. I was able to call in reinforcements using my prestige even though the supply depots at which they were spawning at were captured. Presumably the reinforcements arrive along the rail lines and if the enemy has captured them it makes sense to deny that reinforcement area.
1. The AI captured my two northern supply depots with the 5th and 9th PZDs respectively. Their other three were lost in the south while capturing that supply depot. The AI were unable to rotate out these PZD with less useful infantry IDs even though their were IDs sitting adjacent to the PZDs. This meant that my out of supply army had to contend with a pure infantry force which greatly limited the amount of damage that the AI was able to do. Effectively they had no armor.
2. I was able to call in reinforcements using my prestige even though the supply depots at which they were spawning at were captured. Presumably the reinforcements arrive along the rail lines and if the enemy has captured them it makes sense to deny that reinforcement area.
-
Tomislav Uzelac
- 2x2 Games
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:24 pm
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Re: Suggestions Thread
Hi first of all, thanks for the suggestions everyone. I'm not replying in this thread so often because I want to keep the discussion out of it as much as possible, just suggestions.
Sometimes supply depots are just that - depots, but more often they're just points at which the rail line enters the playable area. This is why we didn't add any sort of "capture" mechanic for supplies (we thought about it originally).
That should not happen. Only supplied units (but not air-supplied) are eligible to receive reinforcements. If your supply sources were all taken in that turn, then surely all of your units were out of supply. However, if the supply sources were taken by the AI on one of the previous turns, and then re-taken by you, then your units can be supplied and reinforcement is possible.
RambOrc wrote:How about when a unit captures an enemy supply depot for the first time in the scenario, that single unit would get resupplied again?
Sometimes supply depots are just that - depots, but more often they're just points at which the rail line enters the playable area. This is why we didn't add any sort of "capture" mechanic for supplies (we thought about it originally).
wengart wrote:I was able to call in reinforcements using my prestige even though the supply depots at which they were spawning at were captured.
That should not happen. Only supplied units (but not air-supplied) are eligible to receive reinforcements. If your supply sources were all taken in that turn, then surely all of your units were out of supply. However, if the supply sources were taken by the AI on one of the previous turns, and then re-taken by you, then your units can be supplied and reinforcement is possible.
Re: Suggestions Thread
I think he means buying full units from the reserve. Those can be placed as long as there is at least one spawn hex in the player's possession.
-
Tomislav Uzelac
- 2x2 Games
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:24 pm
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Re: Suggestions Thread
RambOrc wrote:I think he means buying full units from the reserve. Those can be placed as long as there is at least one spawn hex in the player's possession.
Ah... you are right. This is legal in game terms, but we still try to avoid totally unrealistic situations by being clever with scenario design. If you encounter something like this again, please post the savegame (or at least a screenshot) - but let's do it in another thread and leave this one for suggestions only.
Re: Suggestions Thread
Dear Mr.Uzelac, and of course all the staff who worked on this game.
I'm a long time turn based combat and strategy game fan. Playing similar games since my first ever strategy game Storm Across Europe by SSI from 1989. Played almost all Panzer General games, Battle Isles, Civ series and pretty much everything similar. First of all thanks for a great game. I read through the suggestions thread and decided to give my own suggestions. If I repeated a previosuly given suggestion, I apologise. Please note that all suggestions are based on single player game play experience.
This game is very good as it is. However the need for suggestion is to make it an all time hit. The best thing of internet age is that, developers can co-operate with fan base and improve their games vastly. I decided to break my suggestions down to couple of groups.
1- Great parts of the game, that should not be changed at least fundamentally
Difficulty level is good and can(and should) even be increased. We all love a challenge. If you can not handle this, there are far easier games out there. I'm paying (I paid) 30 USD for a challenge.
Very smooth game engine.It is very fast and AI is acceptable. If you can improve it better.
Very elegant minimalist menu and unit design.
Great tool tips and very easy to use UI. If you played any similar game before, you can play right off the box without reading manual.
Not possible to save during scenario. This is great. I hate people saving/loading for each move to beat the game. If you lose you lose. You must try again from the begining. This can also be prevented by recording the outcome of last 5-10 moves, and applying them regardless of save. i.e. you attack and lose and even if you exit and reload, the outcome will be same. Civ4 was using this as an option.
2- UI or general interface suggestions
An option to show supply lines at all times. Supply lines is critical to this game (same as real warfare) so seeing them at all times is important.
Ghost movement. To use ctrl or similar modifier with mouse button to see if you can attack when you move and odds. I think this has been mentioned several times.
3- Gameplay suggestions for current game
Partisans are pretty much useless, they can be changed for a different bonus.
Bridge option is also pretty much useless. This can be given directly to engineering units. For example if they are beside a river hex, the next turn they can be considered a bridge. (similar to real warfare. Engineering brigades construct floating bridges)
4- Future
This game has all the potential to be the game of the next decade in my opinion. But it need several new features implemented. I really would like to see this game develop into a commerical success for the developer and entertainment success for the player base. Following suggestions may be very hard to implement. Maybe even a new game has to be devolped, but if you can pull it off, you can have a long lasting game that will satisfy us in the years to come and sustain you as the developer commercially.
Step 1
Adopt a DLC campaign pack policy. For example WW2 opening campaign.(1939-40), or North Africa campaign. This DLC can include special units (1-or 2 through the new campaign) This will also give you the commercial incentive to continue making new campaigns and keep players interest in the game. After this you can consider Step 2 for future major patch(es) or even a bigger game based on UoC.
Step 2
Major pathces or a new game with following design implementations
-Campaign long units. People love to have a unit with elite experience and use it in the next scenario as a key strategic advantage. They like protecting them, and this will increase playability as they will need to change strategy based on this. They can be limited in number per campaign (i.e. 2) or elite level experience may be required to make it eligible for a custom unit. The AI can agressively attack these custom units, to force the player into protecting them or sacrificing them.
-Military leaders with applicable bonuses (i.e. Rommel for + armor mobility or Vasilevsky for + defense) They can be limited per scenario and pre-attached to certain units instead of the player choosing them. This is a much loved aspect of turn based games.
-Artillery Units. This may be hard to do with game balance and everything but, artillery is a major game changer in warfare. (more so in WW2)
-Air Warfare. Same as artillery but, if you are doing a WW2 wargame, you can not simply use air as support force. Artillery and air warfare can be very hard to add but, it will give a bigger depth to this beautiful game.
-Less rng. I hate attacking at great advantage, only to see half my regiment destroyed because of rng. If I'm attacking from a certain point at a certain time because the conditions are favorable to me. Rng can not be ruled out but its impact should be less. i.e. I deploy an artillery attached unit in a forest, bring it close to a unit, do not attack to wait for next turn to deploy artillery, then attack at advantage of artillery and half my army is destroyed even though the odds show %80 chance of enemy retreat. I can understand it happening at %50 odds, as I'm taking a risk but at almost certain victory?
-Fog of War and ambush and surprise. Fog of War is very good and realistic. In warfare(WW2 era not today) you don't usually know what is going on except the front lines where you have visual contact. You can use intelligence (spying) to learn some bits of information. Partisan asset can be replaced with intelligence asset to remove some of fog of war. Due to non-save nature of UoC, you can hit an ambush inside the Fog of War from a prepared unit and lose a prized unit. However you must take the risk or try to send a recon unit. This also increases the importance of recon units, which can have higher retreat chance, saving them from certain destruction. Also if implemented air units can clear some fog of war in their movement path.
I'm sorry maybe it is too long but, really this is the first time I devoted so much time to write in detail for such a topic. The reason is simple. I want to have a game that I can play for years and see it grow like Civ and its many reincarnations.
TL:DR
Even if you skipped most of the post do read this:
Adopt a DLC campaign pack policy. For example WW2 opening campaign.(1939-40), or North Africa campaign. These DLC's can include special units (1-or 2 through the new campaign) This will also give you the commercial incentive to continue making new campaigns and keep players interest in the game. The game is too short as it is and can be shelved after a few weeks play especially if you will not be doing multiplayer.
I'm a long time turn based combat and strategy game fan. Playing similar games since my first ever strategy game Storm Across Europe by SSI from 1989. Played almost all Panzer General games, Battle Isles, Civ series and pretty much everything similar. First of all thanks for a great game. I read through the suggestions thread and decided to give my own suggestions. If I repeated a previosuly given suggestion, I apologise. Please note that all suggestions are based on single player game play experience.
This game is very good as it is. However the need for suggestion is to make it an all time hit. The best thing of internet age is that, developers can co-operate with fan base and improve their games vastly. I decided to break my suggestions down to couple of groups.
1- Great parts of the game, that should not be changed at least fundamentally
Difficulty level is good and can(and should) even be increased. We all love a challenge. If you can not handle this, there are far easier games out there. I'm paying (I paid) 30 USD for a challenge.
Very smooth game engine.It is very fast and AI is acceptable. If you can improve it better.
Very elegant minimalist menu and unit design.
Great tool tips and very easy to use UI. If you played any similar game before, you can play right off the box without reading manual.
Not possible to save during scenario. This is great. I hate people saving/loading for each move to beat the game. If you lose you lose. You must try again from the begining. This can also be prevented by recording the outcome of last 5-10 moves, and applying them regardless of save. i.e. you attack and lose and even if you exit and reload, the outcome will be same. Civ4 was using this as an option.
2- UI or general interface suggestions
An option to show supply lines at all times. Supply lines is critical to this game (same as real warfare) so seeing them at all times is important.
Ghost movement. To use ctrl or similar modifier with mouse button to see if you can attack when you move and odds. I think this has been mentioned several times.
3- Gameplay suggestions for current game
Partisans are pretty much useless, they can be changed for a different bonus.
Bridge option is also pretty much useless. This can be given directly to engineering units. For example if they are beside a river hex, the next turn they can be considered a bridge. (similar to real warfare. Engineering brigades construct floating bridges)
4- Future
This game has all the potential to be the game of the next decade in my opinion. But it need several new features implemented. I really would like to see this game develop into a commerical success for the developer and entertainment success for the player base. Following suggestions may be very hard to implement. Maybe even a new game has to be devolped, but if you can pull it off, you can have a long lasting game that will satisfy us in the years to come and sustain you as the developer commercially.
Step 1
Adopt a DLC campaign pack policy. For example WW2 opening campaign.(1939-40), or North Africa campaign. This DLC can include special units (1-or 2 through the new campaign) This will also give you the commercial incentive to continue making new campaigns and keep players interest in the game. After this you can consider Step 2 for future major patch(es) or even a bigger game based on UoC.
Step 2
Major pathces or a new game with following design implementations
-Campaign long units. People love to have a unit with elite experience and use it in the next scenario as a key strategic advantage. They like protecting them, and this will increase playability as they will need to change strategy based on this. They can be limited in number per campaign (i.e. 2) or elite level experience may be required to make it eligible for a custom unit. The AI can agressively attack these custom units, to force the player into protecting them or sacrificing them.
-Military leaders with applicable bonuses (i.e. Rommel for + armor mobility or Vasilevsky for + defense) They can be limited per scenario and pre-attached to certain units instead of the player choosing them. This is a much loved aspect of turn based games.
-Artillery Units. This may be hard to do with game balance and everything but, artillery is a major game changer in warfare. (more so in WW2)
-Air Warfare. Same as artillery but, if you are doing a WW2 wargame, you can not simply use air as support force. Artillery and air warfare can be very hard to add but, it will give a bigger depth to this beautiful game.
-Less rng. I hate attacking at great advantage, only to see half my regiment destroyed because of rng. If I'm attacking from a certain point at a certain time because the conditions are favorable to me. Rng can not be ruled out but its impact should be less. i.e. I deploy an artillery attached unit in a forest, bring it close to a unit, do not attack to wait for next turn to deploy artillery, then attack at advantage of artillery and half my army is destroyed even though the odds show %80 chance of enemy retreat. I can understand it happening at %50 odds, as I'm taking a risk but at almost certain victory?
-Fog of War and ambush and surprise. Fog of War is very good and realistic. In warfare(WW2 era not today) you don't usually know what is going on except the front lines where you have visual contact. You can use intelligence (spying) to learn some bits of information. Partisan asset can be replaced with intelligence asset to remove some of fog of war. Due to non-save nature of UoC, you can hit an ambush inside the Fog of War from a prepared unit and lose a prized unit. However you must take the risk or try to send a recon unit. This also increases the importance of recon units, which can have higher retreat chance, saving them from certain destruction. Also if implemented air units can clear some fog of war in their movement path.
I'm sorry maybe it is too long but, really this is the first time I devoted so much time to write in detail for such a topic. The reason is simple. I want to have a game that I can play for years and see it grow like Civ and its many reincarnations.
TL:DR
Even if you skipped most of the post do read this:
Adopt a DLC campaign pack policy. For example WW2 opening campaign.(1939-40), or North Africa campaign. These DLC's can include special units (1-or 2 through the new campaign) This will also give you the commercial incentive to continue making new campaigns and keep players interest in the game. The game is too short as it is and can be shelved after a few weeks play especially if you will not be doing multiplayer.
Re: Suggestions Thread
One thing that would make partisans more valuable for human players: show on mouseover which hexes would change control. This is often not as easy to anticipate, sometimes I cut the railway line with one partisan placement less than I expected, but sometimes it needed one more than I anticipated.
Re: Suggestions Thread
i like this game a lot, but i find the unability to save/load campaigns very frustrating.
- when faced with a tough decision, i like trying out what if scenario's
- the auto save keeps me from playing when i'm tired (or whatever) cause i'm afraid to mess up
- having to start all over again, doing the same scenario's over and over, doesn't sound like fun in the long run
apparantly, some folks like the saving mechanism as it is. i can see why, but disagree.
why not make the abiility to save manually in single player campaigns a toggleable option? that would make everyone happy, i guess.
or is there a manual work around, perhaps?
EDIT: apparantly, there is: http://unityofcommand.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=692
should have looked for a work around before posting i guess, sorry about that.
- when faced with a tough decision, i like trying out what if scenario's
- the auto save keeps me from playing when i'm tired (or whatever) cause i'm afraid to mess up
- having to start all over again, doing the same scenario's over and over, doesn't sound like fun in the long run
apparantly, some folks like the saving mechanism as it is. i can see why, but disagree.
why not make the abiility to save manually in single player campaigns a toggleable option? that would make everyone happy, i guess.
or is there a manual work around, perhaps?
EDIT: apparantly, there is: http://unityofcommand.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=692
should have looked for a work around before posting i guess, sorry about that.