My biggest complaint about the game.

[robc04_1]

First, let me start off by saying that I am really enjoying the game and am glad I purchased it. This is something that not only bugs me about this game but others too. I do like a challenge and each scenario has made me take my time and think about each and every move. This is good, but I'm not a big fan of replaying scenarios over and over because when I do win it feels a little cheap. It is kind of like a do over. Also, it seems more puzzle-like. Since you feel like you need to hoard your prestige until the end, you need to try and win without using them. Then and only then do I start to use the prestige. I feel like I need to play it as a game instead of pretending I am on an actual military campaign, and it takes something away from the experience. It isn't the challenge or difficulty that turns me off, just how the difficulty is 'enforced'. I have been pretty fortunate in that it has only taken 1-3 tries for the most part to get a decisive victory. I would be getting frustrated and bored if I had to replay a scenario 10 times so wasn't locked out of the next one.

I think I would prefer an approach that allows you to make your best attempt at a scenario, live with the results and move on without being locked out of parts of the game. Perhaps you are given a scenario score based on how fast you achieve the objectives and how many casualties you suffer. Maybe the prestige limit is more generous, but when you use prestige it lowers your score. That way you analyze the scenario and play like it is for real. Use what you think is necessary, not afraid to use any prestige, but only try and use what you need. It is also a built in difficuty setting. Perhaps when you get to the end of the campaign, you get a war summary. If you used too much prestige and / or had too many casualties you are informed that you put too much strain on the war machine and while you won the battles, your personal successes caused your side to lose the war.

How do others feel about this aspect of the game?

[Toby42]

I agree with the gist of what you are saying. One thing that bothers me is that there is no penalty for lost units. The AI attacks and sacrifices units to cut your supply. They get destroyed, but sometimes they delay you enough to lose you the game. Pretty gamey from both sides! I've had cases where the AI cut off all of my supply points, and I cut off all of the AI's supply. All of a sudden neither side can attack!!! You lose the scenario by default.... Not right?

[Fintilgin]

Yeah, I like the game systems, and it's a smooth and polished game, but it does feel more like a 'puzzle' game then the sort of wargame I really enjoy digging my teeth into.

In my opinion the lack of a 'grand campaign' really hurts the game and its replay value.  It makes the campaign feel really disconnected.  I liked it well enough, but I doubt I'd buy a UoC 2 unless it was a little more ambitious as far as an overarching campaign.

[HansHafen]

It has to punish both sides for extreme loses in the next scenario of the "campaign". If you lose all of your units on this map, you will be a very hurting puppy on the next map. It doesn't do that. Unless this is the way the real war went with the Russians being able to bring up tons of men no matter what.

[cherryfunk]

I agree -- it does feel more or less like a puzzle game; once I've "beaten" a scenario there's no desire to go back.  With a true open campaign, I can play over and over again.  I would love to see this elegant system used for a more open, strategic style of gameplay, though I understand that would basically be an entirely new game.
 

[pzgndr]

I agree -- it does feel more or less like a puzzle game; once I've "beaten" a scenario there's no desire to go back.

It would be nice to have a variable setup option of some sort. One possibility would be to randomly shift units around from their assigned starting positions. Another possibility would be to allow free setup for some or all units, like for a boardgame. If every game had slightly different initial conditions, then it would be a new puzzle to solve every time.

[AZKGungHo]

I agree with pzgndr, but fear if you did that you'd unbalance the scenario. It seems to me that these scenarios have been very carefully crafted, and I'll bet moving one or two units would really throw a monkey wrench into the works!

[sabre1]

Agree with what has been posted, but all in all a really elegant game. I'm looking forward to more from the developers.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[gdrover]

I really agree with this.
And this is really the driving force behind my desire to play this system in a much longer 'grand-scenario' with prestige awarded as you capture objectives.
I believe that this would offset the puzzle-solving feel of the smaller, linked scenarios.

[PKH]

On the whole it's a beautiful and well made game, but I have some issues:
- Victory conditions tied to taking locations in order before a certain turns restricts available strategies. IMO, it would be better to tie victory to taking all locations by a certain turn.
- Using extra reserves and specialists has a cost for the player, but the AI is free to spend at will.
- Losses have no consequences as long as you can win the scenario. I'd like a campaign mode where units are transferred between scenarios.
- If you're unlucky with weather or airstrikes, you might as well restart if you're trying to get a good score.

[demyansk]

I wish the ending of games was more clear with numbers etc