Well i'd like to see the ability to form scratch units out of reformed unit bits. In particular the Germans did this a lot.
Otherwise, perhaps something to get in command structure a bit more in the game ? HQ units perhaps ?
Suggestions Thread
-
Imperial Dane
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:12 pm
Re: Suggestions Thread
Imperial Dane wrote:Well i'd like to see the ability to form scratch units out of reformed unit bits.
That would be great, especially with tanks. Often for one reason or another, there are a number of tank steps available, but no unit to enhance them with.
-
Stahlgewitter
- Colonel
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:22 pm
Re: Suggestions Thread
A couple of things
- I realise this would unbalance a number of scenarios, Terek and Edelweiss come to mind, but you really shouldn't be able to send a unit to a crossing point, throw a bridge across it, retreat (or get wiped out), watch as the enemy hordes capture both ends of the still-to-be constructed bridge, and the thing STILL goes up on schedule next turn. If you can't guard the bridge under construction, it shouldn't complete - if they're strong enough to brush your defences away, the bridge engineers aren't exactly going to be left alone to finish the job so you can cross later when the strike force comes along.
- Just to reduce clicks - and since there are few enough cases when you want to spread the Logistics theatre ability over multiple supply sources in a single scenario - how about having it as default that if you have Logistics in the bank at the end of the turn, that is automatically added to the last supply source you enhanced?
- I realise this would unbalance a number of scenarios, Terek and Edelweiss come to mind, but you really shouldn't be able to send a unit to a crossing point, throw a bridge across it, retreat (or get wiped out), watch as the enemy hordes capture both ends of the still-to-be constructed bridge, and the thing STILL goes up on schedule next turn. If you can't guard the bridge under construction, it shouldn't complete - if they're strong enough to brush your defences away, the bridge engineers aren't exactly going to be left alone to finish the job so you can cross later when the strike force comes along.
- Just to reduce clicks - and since there are few enough cases when you want to spread the Logistics theatre ability over multiple supply sources in a single scenario - how about having it as default that if you have Logistics in the bank at the end of the turn, that is automatically added to the last supply source you enhanced?
-
Stahlgewitter
- Colonel
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:22 pm
Re: Suggestions Thread
Another thing: make weather a fixed map-wide modifier and do away with the nonsensical 'floating mud cloud of doom' that doesn't make any sense on an operational level, and moreover can unilaterally wreck your game regardless of performance based merely on RND.
Re: Suggestions Thread
Enjoying this game immensely since getting it in April. Convinced a wargaming friend to buy it last week and have played it pvp a couple of times. Even though the AI in this game is very good, a human player can "see" things that AI cannot and this raises the game to a new level of excellence and engagement.
My suggestions are based on our recent pvp internet experience.
The un-do button should be allowed in pvp just as it is in single player. An irrevocable "mouse slip" move can ruin a pvp game even more so than a solo game (where you can just start over!). Attacks, of course, can never be un-done but moves should be "un-do-able".
In both single player and pvp it should be possible to see not only your own supply situation but that of the opponent. It avoids you "wasting" time counting hexes to determine exactly where the opponent's supply lines end. My suggestion for both pvp and solo is that the first click on the supply icon shows your own supply and the second shows the opponent's while the third removes the supply overview.
Finally, in pvp I would suggest that the non-moving player be able to see terrain, supply, objective and weather info. This would help plan the next turn.
Great game - I want to see the expansion and more and more stuff until the entire East Front 1941-45 is covered and then the entire war!
PS Is it possible to see the opponent's Force Pool and Reinforcements? If not, in both pvp and solo I think this should be an option
My suggestions are based on our recent pvp internet experience.
The un-do button should be allowed in pvp just as it is in single player. An irrevocable "mouse slip" move can ruin a pvp game even more so than a solo game (where you can just start over!). Attacks, of course, can never be un-done but moves should be "un-do-able".
In both single player and pvp it should be possible to see not only your own supply situation but that of the opponent. It avoids you "wasting" time counting hexes to determine exactly where the opponent's supply lines end. My suggestion for both pvp and solo is that the first click on the supply icon shows your own supply and the second shows the opponent's while the third removes the supply overview.
Finally, in pvp I would suggest that the non-moving player be able to see terrain, supply, objective and weather info. This would help plan the next turn.
Great game - I want to see the expansion and more and more stuff until the entire East Front 1941-45 is covered and then the entire war!
PS Is it possible to see the opponent's Force Pool and Reinforcements? If not, in both pvp and solo I think this should be an option
Re: Suggestions Thread
Hi, I played UoC for two weeks and had a lot of fun. I would like to mention few things that you shouldn’t change and few that need some attention.
Don’t make the game easier, right now it is quite challenging (im new to computer wargaming). It is easy to win a scenario but then i always try to achieve DV and BV and that’s the most enjoyable part of gaming evening.
I find weather too powerful. In most scenarios It was impossible for me to achieve DV in bad weather. Usually when i saw “black cloud of death” over my supply lines i restarted the game. I know it is historically accurate, but not very enjoyable.
I like short and difficult scenarios like Terek because I can try different approaches fast and without a lot of mass clicking. I would like to see more of that kind in expansion
btw. please change “building bridge in enemy territory” bug.
Great game.
Don’t make the game easier, right now it is quite challenging (im new to computer wargaming). It is easy to win a scenario but then i always try to achieve DV and BV and that’s the most enjoyable part of gaming evening.
I find weather too powerful. In most scenarios It was impossible for me to achieve DV in bad weather. Usually when i saw “black cloud of death” over my supply lines i restarted the game. I know it is historically accurate, but not very enjoyable.
I like short and difficult scenarios like Terek because I can try different approaches fast and without a lot of mass clicking. I would like to see more of that kind in expansion
btw. please change “building bridge in enemy territory” bug.Great game.
Re: Suggestions Thread
I fell the lack of a final statistical table after the battle.
I think it would be interesting a final table with for example a list
of Unity / division lost and also the total step lost (aka human losses).
axis_______unity________soviet
..5...........infantry...........11..
..2............tank...............5...
.48..........step lost..........103..
..7.......step disbanded.......13..
..4.......step recovered.......10..
--0.......step replacement....12..
nikdav
I think it would be interesting a final table with for example a list
of Unity / division lost and also the total step lost (aka human losses).
axis_______unity________soviet
..5...........infantry...........11..
..2............tank...............5...
.48..........step lost..........103..
..7.......step disbanded.......13..
..4.......step recovered.......10..
--0.......step replacement....12..
nikdav
Re: Suggestions Thread
Hi,
Fantastic game - I havnt had this much fun with a turn based operational level game since the old Eastern Front on win 95.
My suggestions is allow playing both sides on all scenarios vs ai. I would love to be able to play the defender role against the ai in battles such as Stalingrad. I know the game leans towards giving the attacker the advantage but that only makes it more interesting to play.
Secondly it would be nice to be able to have both Soviet and Axis campaigns saved independently - and to be able to replay any of the missions without having to reset all campaign progress.
Thanks for a great game and I hope the retail sales support future developments, I know I will be recommending this game to everyone I know.
Best wishes.
Fantastic game - I havnt had this much fun with a turn based operational level game since the old Eastern Front on win 95.
My suggestions is allow playing both sides on all scenarios vs ai. I would love to be able to play the defender role against the ai in battles such as Stalingrad. I know the game leans towards giving the attacker the advantage but that only makes it more interesting to play.
Secondly it would be nice to be able to have both Soviet and Axis campaigns saved independently - and to be able to replay any of the missions without having to reset all campaign progress.
Thanks for a great game and I hope the retail sales support future developments, I know I will be recommending this game to everyone I know.
Best wishes.
Re: Suggestions Thread
Just an email that I've sent to the UoC team with suggestions.
Here goes:
+++++
Dear Sirs,
I'm a fan of strategy games since the 1980's, from the time of the spectrum and (very) early PC's (and also the commodore Amiga and AtariST).
As such, I've been playing stategy games since then, but to my disapoitment the games, mainly on PC, are very awkward and excessive complicated, compared to the late 1980's games, eventhough the now available processing capacity and memeory and storage and graphics.
It was a pleasure to see your game. I've downloaded the demo and tried for a while, until I've decided to buy it yesterday.
You've capatured the simplicity and easy of use of a startegy game (of what should be) and enhanced with the superior computer capacity of today.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest a few things that you may use as ideas for an update of your game or new versions.
These are taken from a series of strategy games dated from 1985-1987, from the author R.T.Smith and the CCS publisher (doesnt exist anymore). The games where: Arhem, Desert Rats and Vulcan, being the later the best of its kind. It was reelase initially for the zx spectrum, but there are also version for the amstrad CPC and PC-MSDOS. The versions for AMIGA aand ATARIST are rubish. These are available for download in the spectrum sites or in the abandonware for the pc (I can give you the links if you like).
These are a couple of suggestions:
1/ hidden movement as an option-> The game should have a possibility to hide the enemy forces from the current player (being AI or Human) and only display the ones that are adjacent to each other. This way the level of difficulty is greater and would represent the real thing, i.e. the commander of each side doesn't know where the enemy forces are located! A exception to this would be the usage of airplanes with a "recon" option. This would display the units around the recon location (and eventually round it ...). For example it could identify the unity on the hexagon and show only a undentified unit on the hexagons around the location (perhaps this is not good 'cos each hexa is 20km and it would nbot represent the reality ...)
2/ planes recon and bombing -> the possibility to use the plane assets for either bombing or recon (noth both simultaneously). The recon would be a perfect companion if your select hidden movement (point 1).
3/ concetration of forces and attacking/defending -> this represents the mechanics of combat. I'm not realy sure if your current approach of attacking/defending is the correct one. I understand that each hexagon is 20km and the units in command are divisions or corps, but even so, probably it would be nice to stack units on the same hexa according to some set of rules (include battalion level? or allow stacking divisions when they are not in full strenght ?, etc).
As regards to the method of attacking defending I would suggest not a real time attacked/defend method as it is now (when you issue and attack it will be carried out immediatly) but a delayed method that considers the number of attacking units to a location, meaning:
3a/ if you attack an adjacent unit (on a hexagon) with three of your units, the attack should use the combined (multiplied) strengh of the attacking units in order to calculate the damaged on the attcaked unit. The same way the defending unit response should be divided amoung the attacker units. This would give more realism to the game. You can arge that the size of the hexagons (20km) would make this unlikely, which is true to a some level, but let me give you a sample that makes the current game attacking mechanics a bit odd:
3b/ imagine you have three attacking units to a enemy unit, using your current one to one attack method. Your units are of different strenghts (one is weak, the other is medium and the later strong). If you start the attack with the strong unit then the medium and then the week it could be possible that the attacked units is so weak that your weak unit is able to destroy it. But if you start your attack with your weak unit and then the medium and later the strong it would be possible that your weak unit is wiped out and your medium unit would had high damage and only your strong unit would be able to inflite damage to the enemy unit. As you see the outcomes are different for the same tactical attack. To my view your approach could be revised, but I understand it would change the game mechanics.
4/ zones of control -> you implement this concepts but I'm not sure that it represents the most real approach. I think a unit should have a zone of control around it and any enemy unit should always stop (any type of movement including travelling by road) when it reaches it. I don't think that a unit, in reality, would pass by a enemy unit without confrontation as it is implemented now. Also the supply would be cutted out if a unit has its zone of control of a road.
5/ fortifications -> you have the dig in concept but it would be nice to have also the fortification concept that would give the defender additional protection. It would mean to lay mines, put barbed wire, fox holes, etc. This would protect better the infantry when attacked by tanks. So when a unit is stop it could be digged in or fortified. Fortity would consume more supplies than digged in or just stopped.
6/ cummulative campaign -> it would be nice to have an option of a complete campaign where the start of a new step would be the situation on the previous step of the campain and not to start as the initial positiions (this could be an option in order to play what ifs).
7/ why the hexagons -> finally, why the hexagons approach? I know its taken from the baord games, but it is enough to have a map and the units over it with a certain size which represents the scale. I know this is an option and either way it works well.
Please play a bit of the "Vulcan" game (and get the users manual) in order to see how the things were implemented, functionaly.
If you could implemented this on the "unity of command" series would be a real killer.
Well, it's my opinion and hope you will consider it.
Let me know your comments on it.
Thank you for your attention and best regard,
Carlos Figueiredo
Here goes:
+++++
Dear Sirs,
I'm a fan of strategy games since the 1980's, from the time of the spectrum and (very) early PC's (and also the commodore Amiga and AtariST).
As such, I've been playing stategy games since then, but to my disapoitment the games, mainly on PC, are very awkward and excessive complicated, compared to the late 1980's games, eventhough the now available processing capacity and memeory and storage and graphics.
It was a pleasure to see your game. I've downloaded the demo and tried for a while, until I've decided to buy it yesterday.
You've capatured the simplicity and easy of use of a startegy game (of what should be) and enhanced with the superior computer capacity of today.
Nevertheless, I would like to suggest a few things that you may use as ideas for an update of your game or new versions.
These are taken from a series of strategy games dated from 1985-1987, from the author R.T.Smith and the CCS publisher (doesnt exist anymore). The games where: Arhem, Desert Rats and Vulcan, being the later the best of its kind. It was reelase initially for the zx spectrum, but there are also version for the amstrad CPC and PC-MSDOS. The versions for AMIGA aand ATARIST are rubish. These are available for download in the spectrum sites or in the abandonware for the pc (I can give you the links if you like).
These are a couple of suggestions:
1/ hidden movement as an option-> The game should have a possibility to hide the enemy forces from the current player (being AI or Human) and only display the ones that are adjacent to each other. This way the level of difficulty is greater and would represent the real thing, i.e. the commander of each side doesn't know where the enemy forces are located! A exception to this would be the usage of airplanes with a "recon" option. This would display the units around the recon location (and eventually round it ...). For example it could identify the unity on the hexagon and show only a undentified unit on the hexagons around the location (perhaps this is not good 'cos each hexa is 20km and it would nbot represent the reality ...)
2/ planes recon and bombing -> the possibility to use the plane assets for either bombing or recon (noth both simultaneously). The recon would be a perfect companion if your select hidden movement (point 1).
3/ concetration of forces and attacking/defending -> this represents the mechanics of combat. I'm not realy sure if your current approach of attacking/defending is the correct one. I understand that each hexagon is 20km and the units in command are divisions or corps, but even so, probably it would be nice to stack units on the same hexa according to some set of rules (include battalion level? or allow stacking divisions when they are not in full strenght ?, etc).
As regards to the method of attacking defending I would suggest not a real time attacked/defend method as it is now (when you issue and attack it will be carried out immediatly) but a delayed method that considers the number of attacking units to a location, meaning:
3a/ if you attack an adjacent unit (on a hexagon) with three of your units, the attack should use the combined (multiplied) strengh of the attacking units in order to calculate the damaged on the attcaked unit. The same way the defending unit response should be divided amoung the attacker units. This would give more realism to the game. You can arge that the size of the hexagons (20km) would make this unlikely, which is true to a some level, but let me give you a sample that makes the current game attacking mechanics a bit odd:
3b/ imagine you have three attacking units to a enemy unit, using your current one to one attack method. Your units are of different strenghts (one is weak, the other is medium and the later strong). If you start the attack with the strong unit then the medium and then the week it could be possible that the attacked units is so weak that your weak unit is able to destroy it. But if you start your attack with your weak unit and then the medium and later the strong it would be possible that your weak unit is wiped out and your medium unit would had high damage and only your strong unit would be able to inflite damage to the enemy unit. As you see the outcomes are different for the same tactical attack. To my view your approach could be revised, but I understand it would change the game mechanics.
4/ zones of control -> you implement this concepts but I'm not sure that it represents the most real approach. I think a unit should have a zone of control around it and any enemy unit should always stop (any type of movement including travelling by road) when it reaches it. I don't think that a unit, in reality, would pass by a enemy unit without confrontation as it is implemented now. Also the supply would be cutted out if a unit has its zone of control of a road.
5/ fortifications -> you have the dig in concept but it would be nice to have also the fortification concept that would give the defender additional protection. It would mean to lay mines, put barbed wire, fox holes, etc. This would protect better the infantry when attacked by tanks. So when a unit is stop it could be digged in or fortified. Fortity would consume more supplies than digged in or just stopped.
6/ cummulative campaign -> it would be nice to have an option of a complete campaign where the start of a new step would be the situation on the previous step of the campain and not to start as the initial positiions (this could be an option in order to play what ifs).
7/ why the hexagons -> finally, why the hexagons approach? I know its taken from the baord games, but it is enough to have a map and the units over it with a certain size which represents the scale. I know this is an option and either way it works well.
Please play a bit of the "Vulcan" game (and get the users manual) in order to see how the things were implemented, functionaly.
If you could implemented this on the "unity of command" series would be a real killer.
Well, it's my opinion and hope you will consider it.
Let me know your comments on it.
Thank you for your attention and best regard,
Carlos Figueiredo
-
earnorbust
- Cadet
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:21 pm
Re: Suggestions Thread
You have created a great game.
But I believe it needs three changes to achieve top rating:
1) No prestige minimum-limit to get prestige points. What you earn - you should recieve because great players don't need prestige points - the weaker players do!
2) Ending the campaign after Stalingrad just because you don't win by decisive or brilliant victories is a de-motivating game design. Invent a "hard/easy" setting-button to let players chose their own achievement level.
3) Multiplayer features and maps where players can contest each other with equal equipment and no game goals.
Robert Simms
But I believe it needs three changes to achieve top rating:
1) No prestige minimum-limit to get prestige points. What you earn - you should recieve because great players don't need prestige points - the weaker players do!
2) Ending the campaign after Stalingrad just because you don't win by decisive or brilliant victories is a de-motivating game design. Invent a "hard/easy" setting-button to let players chose their own achievement level.
3) Multiplayer features and maps where players can contest each other with equal equipment and no game goals.
Robert Simms