Every other wargame developer just got schooled

Every other wargame developer just got schooled (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Unity of Command Series

Message

Lebatron -> Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/7/2012 6:00:48 PM)
I'm floored by the polish this game received. From very smart initial design choices all the way to the best designed tutorial I ever seen and everything in between. Even the game manual was so intelligently crafted that all I had to do was skim it and read the red tooltips to gather all I needed to jump in and play. I also love the idea of using busts for the infantry. They go so well with the vehicles. Other developers attempts at infantry never looked good to me, so I sometimes played with Nato icons instead. Not in this game! The tanks, cavalry, and infantry icons just click. People, who are not wargamers, that have looked at what I was playing have commented and how neat this game looked. That is saying something.

TPM -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/9/2012 5:45:28 PM)
Totally agree with everything Lebatron said. Although I wouldn't say every other developer has been schooled, about 80% have. There is an elegant simplicity to this game that allows you to concentrate on the important operational decisions, without getting bogged down in details, but at the same time there is enough depth to the game so you don't feel like you're playing Risk on the East Front. The way supply is handled is sublime, the UI is great...can't say enough about it. The developers really hit the sweet spot between Grigsby's War in the East and Panzer Corps...

von Hammer -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 6:46:18 AM)
Totally agree, too.

sabre1 -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 1:35:24 PM)
+3

pzgndr -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 3:48:01 PM)
+1, but... Although the no-stacking 'Panzer General' model is interesting and fun in its own way, I would still like to see a more traditional wargaming model developed that could also be as elegantly simple and emulated by other developers. By traditional, I mean allowing unit stacking and having a separate combat phase for resolving attacks. The PG model programming is no doubt easier, but that's not necessarily a good thing for wargaming. Just a thought for future game development. [8D]

TPM -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 4:13:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr +1, but... Although the no-stacking 'Panzer General' model is interesting and fun in its own way, I would still like to see a more traditional wargaming model developed that could also be as elegantly simple and emulated by other developers. By traditional, I mean allowing unit stacking and having a separate combat phase for resolving attacks. The PG model programming is no doubt easier, but that's not necessarily a good thing for wargaming. Just a thought for future game development. [8D] I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing stacking and separate combat phase as well. And I believe it could be done without over-complicating this design. Especially if stacking were limited to units per hex or something like that...

Lebatron -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 5:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TPM ...Especially if stacking were limited to units per hex or something like that... I think you meant to say 2 or 3 in there? Ya, I see what you guys are saying, but that would make it a different kind of game. For the type it is, I have not seen a more elegant and graphically polished game.

SeaMonkey -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 8:32:10 PM)
If you think about it, the attachment of specialists(assets) kind of depicts stacking, perhaps a little variation to that scheme would suffice.

TPM -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/10/2012 9:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lebatron quote: ORIGINAL: TPM ...Especially if stacking were limited to units per hex or something like that... I think you meant to say 2 or 3 in there? Ya, I see what you guys are saying, but that would make it a different kind of game. For the type it is, I have not seen a more elegant and graphically polished game. Yes, I meant to say 2 units! That being said, I also do agree with you that it would alter the game...I'd still be curious to see if this polished gem could handle it...

jlub -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/12/2012 5:49:17 PM)
I think the lack of stacking and the fact that the movement and combat phases are combined actually sort of cancel each other out. It means you can still get multiple eligible units to attack your target (you just have to do them one at a time; and usually the ones you attack with first take the most casualties). And it SO greatly simplifies the UI that it is totally worth the fiddlyness of having to swap guys in and out of the spaces adjacent to your target.

Hanal -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/13/2012 2:47:19 AM)
The only aspect of this game that I had to get my head wrapped around is no ZOC....it is a bit unsettling to see the enemy blitz through a narrow gap....[;)]

SeaMonkey -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/13/2012 6:54:01 PM)
That explains the look of "walls of units" JP. Not to detract from the fluidity of the game, but no ZoCs doesn't lend to a consequence of deployment, I guess that works well for this game. Do you think that the decision was made because of the scale and the density of unit to hex doesn't promote a unit to spread its influence? Seems to me that ZoC incorporation would decrease the unit density on the map without impeding gameplay, if done correctly. I like uncluttered maps, not that it improves the dynamics of the game, I guess it is just aesthetics.

Forwarn45 -> RE: Every other wargame developer just got schooled (1/14/2012 6:25:21 AM)
There is ZOC, it's just pretty easy to negate in the course of a turn! The AI is quite good at it, certainly.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.3125