Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I have not played too much, ok?, but that randomness makes me feel more real to me.
I do not know if it would be just as fun if battle estimates were 100% real. But, as I said, I have not played too much.
Regular infantry usually won't deal 3 damage to tanks on their own. Either you left them exposed while they were suppressed which tends to be a very bad idea (be careful with overruns and enemy air strikes) or you attacked with poor odds (such as 0:1) which typically isn't worth it because tank steps are too valuable to risk losing for such little benefit.
I will admit I haven't played all scenarios yet, but with a good strategy and a good start (I usually restart if I'm aiming for perfect and miss too many air strikes in the first turn) it's probably possible to achieve at least 50% win rate.
I agree that it would be nice if it was possible to run several campaigns at the same time without manually backing up the save files but the game works best without being able to reload an earlier save in a scenario after bad rolls. The autosave also lets you quit at any time and resume later.
I know this was just bad luck but an autosave at the end of my previous turn would make a hell of a difference! I don't need a quicksave to save/load every single attack until I get what I want. Just something that will save me from becoming incredibly frustrated.
In a perfect world a game would punish me for my mistakes and here it seems that it's dealing punishment at random.
Dear developers, I know this is a lot of additional work for you, but could you maybe consider adding saves to your games in the future?
Decisive Victories (DV) are virtually guaranteed if you know what you're doing. (Taifun and Donbas Nip from the latest Black Turn expansion being the exceptions, requiring a heavy dose of luck for even a DV.) Brilliant Victories (BV) do require luck, ranging from a bit of luck to virtually impossible (e.g. Taifun and Donbas Nip), like rolling sixes across six dice every time for six times; it's designed to be and is technically possible, but the odds are astronomical.
A very important thing to remember is that the in-game estimates are pretty inaccurate. When you become more experienced, you'll develop your own intuitive estimations in your head—and they are very accurate and predictable. Honestly, this isn't a difficult game and 2nd Kharkov is very easy. Some tips to remember:
• Avoid attacking across a river without Engineer steps, even against basic infantry units with far superior . There's a huge combat penalty to
• Specialist steps can drastically change the combat performance of even the most humble basic infantry unit. All of the steps are incredibly powerful, with the only disadvantage coming from towed artillery or towed anti-aircraft (AA) artillery, which become disabled if the unit moves.
• Occasionally there's a single hex on the map that's very biased against attack or defence. This means that there's something about the terrain that simply isn't visible to your as an operational level general. Learn from your mistakes and don't expect that the disproportionately high or low performance in that single hex is due to luck. Try it again and you'll find you're wasting units.
i.e. Save and reload until you get the result you want. I found it odd that you said you don't want to "quicksave to save/load every single attack until I get what I want", but before that you said "an autosave at the end of my previous turn would make a hell of a difference", which is contradictory. Unfortunately, you're saddled with the consequences of your actions.
FYI, you can leave a campaign game unfinished and go back to it without losing any of your progress. In other words, you have a single auto-saved game. Also, you can save games if you're playing an individual scenario.
Hey Serious, the points you make are all pretty obvious but I don't think that any of them relate to my post very accurately. Well, maybe except stating that in-game estimates aren't very reliable. You can say that again!
NO. If you think that quick-save at any point in the game and an auto-save at the end of each turn is the same, we have a very different views on things. Come on, reloading from an auto save, watching computer take it's turn and then replaying the whole turn because one of your attacks didn't go as planned? This is crazy talk, but what if someone would WANT to play this way? Well who cares? It's their time, their life and their game. Some people like to finish FPS games in god mode and if they had fun doing so then who are we to tell them they're wrong?
This. This right here is just turning my whole point around. You d.ouche. The game is NOT punishing you for your decisions when you did everything right and still loose (well, not get a BV, like you said it's hard not to get a solid victory in most cases). The amalgamation of random events makes every game a gamble. If you have a good plan you should be able to win, here it's not even close. Maybe others just shrug and replay the map but I find it very discouraging. Should I really want to play the game again because maybe this time it will be in a mood to let me win?
Replay the same scenario and follow exactly same path and the results can be completely different. If it would be due to AI choosing a different strategy? Excellent! But we both know it's not the case.
And why am I so fixed on BVs? Well, I am used to be rewarded for going above expectations (no, not even several years of having a day job cured me of this condition;). So when I get a solid victory I would expect to get some extra prestige. Nope. It's hard to upgrade few units with specialists and still come out with increased prestige at the end of a day. So the game makes me feel that if I don't get a BV I merely got by. Not very motivating.
In the end I think I just approached this game with wrong expectations: I saw screen shots and though: "Hey! new Panzer General!" and it's not that. It's something between PG and those small strategy games for mobile devices. Nothing wrong with them but it is a completely different experience. This is a much more accessible game but at a cost of being simplified.
TL;DR
Too much randomness is taking away some of the satisfaction from winning. It wasn't me, it wasn't my 'strategic genius' (lol) it was luck. The game LET me win. That's no fun.
I'll try to approach it more like an arcade game than a "dead serious" strategy and see if this helps.
PS. Just though I'll make one thing clear in the end: I still enjoy the game! Seriously, I wouldn't argue ppl on the internet about something I don't care about at all.
Lately I have been getting such bad weather on this level. Moreover, Panzer strategies are hard to employ here. If I use my Panzers in deep penetration operations and leap frog with good infantry and mechinised units my supply lines get cut off and my rear echelon f$%ks get wiped out. If I destroy units in place I am too slow. if I left or right flank I get bogged down. This is really not an easy level.
Recently I had a steller run till the 5th turn and looked like getting 300 (BV) but 3 bombers, 3 tanks, 1 mechanised and 2 infantry attacks ( I ♥♥♥♥ you not) got crushed by the last objective without hardly a dent!
Besides the aforementioned discussion; what strategies do people find work best to get 300 prestige, irrespective of weather etc.
The way I got my perfect was to use airstrikes so I could take out the two exposed armor units first. Second turn I used the airstrikes to help secure the bridge closest to the top objectives (up to this point I had fairly good luck with retreats.) After that I was unstoppable in the north. In the south I just started with cutting their formation in two and kept them busy (or dead) so they couldn't help defend the north flank during the 5th turn. In the end I killed pretty much every enemy unit on the map (one I couldn't reach without taking the objective).
Try to not expose your armor units too much, because they can get destroyed really fast if they get hit by airstrikes.
You're conveniently ignoring one simple fact: The randomness doesn't create that much variation. The thing you don't want to face is that you're just not that good at Unity of Command. There's nothing wrong with that, but criticising the game for your own shortcomings instead of focusing on getting better is counterproductive. If the randomness was legitimately causing losses of mere victories (i.e. not DV or BV), then I would understand your criticism. (Indeed, I believe it to be the case for Taifun and Donbas Nip only.) Since there are only two exceptions and victory by a large margin is virtually guaranteed with a solid plan, how can the game's mechanics be heavily based on the luck of the roll?
Also, you resorted to name-calling pretty early on. Panzer General are far more simplistic even though they have more unit variation, since their supply mechanics are very 'gamey'. If you want a game like Panzer General, I suggest you look at Panzer Corps.
Example: I got a BV at Edelweiss and it has proven my point beyond any doubt: I've surrounded Maikop with 2 panzers and mechanized infantry unit. Only one enemy unit there, defending the city. 3 attacks of superior units and each took down only 1 step from the defender. Result: no BV, so following map stays locked -> Mission Failed, restart.
Next day I played it again, done pretty much the same moves as previously: First panzer unit causes like 4 steps of damage, breaks defender's entrenchment and forces it out of the city. Because LOGIC ><
And as you can see by simyj_harry's post I'm not the only one who has this kind of "luck".
This is probably due to your having done too poorly in all the other scenarios (i.e. not getting enough DV). I played through the entire campaign without ever getting a BV and only some DVs, so clearly you're doing something different. Try not doing so poorly in the other scenarios and you'll progress through the campaign.
Also, thanks for for calling me names and not apologising.
This doesn't only apply to videogames.
I don't know what game did you play, but in mine there are requirements to unlock certain scenarios. For example in Edelweiss you need a BV to progress to Terek.
I would avoid trying to use sarcasm in such a hamfisted manner as the humour doesn't translate in online discussions. What you call 'cheap tricks' is referred to as "logic". Your logical argumentation is as follows:
P1: Luck is a significant factor in getting a DV
P2: Luck is a significant factor in getting a BV
P3: A significant number of DV and BV are required to progress in the campaign
P1 + P2 + P3 → C1: Luck is a significant factor in progressing in the campaign
For every scenario, Premise 1 and 3 are false; luck is a minor factor in getting a DV and even less of a factor when getting multiple DVs spread across many scenarios of varying difficulty. For almost every scenario, Premise 2 is false; luck is usually not a factor for the easier scenarios, sometimes for the medium scenarios, and occassionally for the hard scenarios. Since your argument relies on all premises being true, your conclusion is false.
More name-calling. There's nothing wrong with being less than perfect at playing a game. Why is your sense of self-worth tied to playing this game well? It just makes no sense.
False (please see above). Why are my friends and I having such an easy time getting DVs on all scenarios in Stalingrad Campaign and almost every scenario on Red Turn and Black Turn? Since we haven't hacked the game and I can assume you haven't hacked the game to make it more difficult for yourself, given that you're complaining about the difficulty being too high, we can presume that we are playing using different styles.
Let's move onto something more productive. What is your basic strategy for 2nd Kharkov? Please provide compass directions and I'll try to replicate what you're doing and compare.
I've just beaten Stalingrad with a BV, so it's possible. Well, seeing my otherwise useless Romanian infantry withstand 3 consecutive attacks and hitting back (at least 2 first times) was a bit surprising. Having one of my panzers destroy 3 enemy units in one turn helped a lot (yea, that was pure strategy, not luck at all, no sir! ;). And luckily (again!) weather broke over the city and surrounding hexes only on turn 7 and I already had my units in position for the final assault (I've taken first of 2 city hexes at this point). My air support did an outstanding job this time - they caused some damage on turn one only after a third re-start today!
So I guess that my point stands: keep trying till everything plays in your favor.
Was is all that satisfying? Hm, not all that much, but it was fun nevertheless.
This BV opened two more scenarios for me and hopefully I won't rage much when trying to beat those, although I'm not going to try it today - I think I've used up all my luck for one day ^^,
For those that like to compare themselves with others: Stalingrad fell on day three of my attempts - my patience wears really thin sometimes and I go do something else before re-attempting a level.
Part for Serious - everyone else can (should) skip this part, just my silly argument with him here - whining and childish insults guaranteed.
Really, there's nothing interesting here, move along please!
Ok, let's get it over with, shall we?
Humor is invalid in online arguments? Right, because your patronizing attitude works so much better.
I've never claimed that... wait. No, I'm not going through this again. Your post is again super passive-aggressive, full of misinterpretations, lies and poorly concealed insults.
Also, if you want to have a moral high ground you really need to ACT like a better person, not just claim that the other guy is worse (rightfully or not).
So, seeing how the quality of this "discussion" is going from bad to terrible, I'm going to stop answering to your posts from now on. Please, feel free to write whatever you feel like below and have your last word.
I'm done.
Disagreement is not in itself passive-aggressive and you inject far too much emotion into the discussion. When I provide evidence that your logic is faulty you reply with a blanket refutation with no explanation and with more name-calling, which somehow means that I am being 'passive-aggressive'.
I have tried to engage your issues with gameplay by asking you how you tend to play 2nd Kharkov, which I intended to replay and compare with my own plans, but you have ignored me. I have graciously overlooked your name-calling, boorish behaviour and tried to be helpful. There's little more I can do. I just don't understand what you expect from me.
(I'm assuming the scenario is Luga to Leningrad from Black Turn.) On my first try I got 540/600 Prestige for a DV by Turn 8.
My problem seems to be that I'm putting too much mobile forces through the centre of the northern part of the map, capturing Krasnogvardiyisk then Shlisselburg, and finally Chudovo. To get a BV, I should be capturing Krasnogvardiyisk then Chudovo, and then Shlisselburg, which means I'll have to split my force in two to get the first two objectives in quick succession. It's always risky when splitting your force and I definitely avoid it during multiplayer games.
I'll try again and see if the new plan works.