Roguelike save approach REQUIRES an extreme diversity and random of gameplay

[Dorok]

It seems some designers don't understand at all the spirit of a Roguelike approach (like UoC has).

There's no save the game is persistent, there's no reload. This is the design of save in Roguelike. But this can work only if each time you restart the game each phases from begin to end of the game vary a lot and involves a huge diversity of gameplay through random.

Without this required quality no game can work well but for even fewer players than for Roguelike which isn't a very popular genre so design for tinier base of players is absurd.

This can't work because that design of saves will involve a lot of restart from the beginning hence learning the game will involve redo a lot the same stuff again and again. Without a huge random diversity of the gameplay, this is boring for almost all players.

This save approach does work for some players anyway in two cases. The first are action games with some random but that allow learn and apply cautious tactics up to reduce to almost to zero the chance of lost. The second is the extreme diversity of gameplay through random.

Unity of Command fits none of those categories and because of that and its Roguelike save design will fail for most players past few hours of play.

If you read positive comments about this game, take care how long they play it, for most it won't be a lot.

[Ares]

Back up saved game files?

[Atermi]

I totally agree with you OP, I have just learnt from this forum that in this game defeat in one battle = defeat in whole campaign, and I am shocked.
Never lost a battle (finished 4 or 5 missions yet), and now I imagine how frustrated I shall become had I start all over due to turns limit. :(

[Senanima_dev]

Scenarios are meant for quick play. Campaign is meant to be a war. I pirated this game and ended up playing it for many hours and glady bought it and started over after I failed. Exactly what people are complaining about makes me love it. It makes you rethink your approach on a lot of things, because the whole "undo" button isn't creating a serious strategy situation. I completely welcome this aspect and wish more games would stop handing people savegame crutches and infinite lives. I've grown tired of gaming in general because there's just no point in playing a 10-20 hour movie where I mash buttons and occassionally react. I want more hardcore based games with one life, one chance, etc... This game was billed as a tough challenge, there's really deception going on.

Nothing personal, just offering a different perspective here.

[Karpatenhund]

u dont understand it. He is not talking about an "undo" button. Why this game cant save after a scenario in the campaign? Dont talk about "easy" gane. I just play Grand Strategy from Paradox and Wargames fromn Slitherine, i know how challenging a game can be, but this is just fail. I went back to Panzer Corps.

[tomislav.uzelac]

Guys.. you don't need to replay the whole campaign because you lost one scenario.

1. In campaign map, select the scenario you just lost

2. In the lower right of the screen click on "Reload Campaign" button

Cheers!

[Karpatenhund]

wtf...rly? than i take back all my ... and go back :) thx for ur reply.

[Dorok]

Lost scenario can be reload? But playing scenario or past scenario too? In fact I got bored and thrown in trash the game when I was playing a scenario of the campaign and wanted restart it and found no way to do it.

Load the campaign in this state just load the currently played scenario. I'll try with the idea of selecting an older scenario of the campaign but I haven't seen that possibility when the campaign is not lost. If that's possible ok, bad interface design very unclear including the help misguiding.

But if that's not possible it's still tedious design if you can't restart the campaign from any past scenario and need finish current scenario before to be able to restart it.

[Case]

yes you can reset scenerios on the campaign. i loveee this game

[Dorok]

It was my only complain with screen size management in fullscreen wich is tedious but a detail. Seems a nice game otherwise, so if it's possible to restart a campaign at any point, it's ok and I'll probably enjoy this game.

[SeriousCat]

A little bit of nitpicking... for it to be roguelike the scenarios would have to be randomly generated, and not just have permanent death in the game. I love the historical scenarios, but if Unity of Command had an (ahistorical) random battle generator then I'd probably never play anything else!

[Dorok]

I still haven't tried again the game, just because of the very special save/load design, that's weird. If really you can save and load back why it needs have a so uncommon interface for such standard features? I wonder. Well I suppose a day I'll go over it. :-)

[lucmobz]

You basically play a mission and are able to restart it if you're not content with the result (keep in mind some bonus missions won't open up if you don't get a good score).

I have to say that this saving system is perfectly fine, I also love that the game doesn't have difficulty settings. I like when developers make a game and don't dumb it down to balance it. It may be retro, but no savings in match and no difficulty settings really increase the challenge in the game, while on the other hand making it more enjoyable once you finally manage to win a mission.

Good job devs, one of the best games (if not for the lack of multiplayer lobby support) I have played.

[SeriousCat]

It would be nice to play one of the planned ahistorical scenarios (e.g. Operation Sealion), but I guess that once you start moving into ahistorical territory you run the risk of making things too 'gamey'.

[Sonics Agent]

Sealion was also in britain. While this game is based on the east front.

[Andyman119]

i like the hardcoreness of this game, if you lose, you have cost your side the entire campaign, and if you win, you have crept closer to winning the war, i love the concept of the "start from last scenario" and I like that your actions have real consequences