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
The use of cards and considerable variation in the starting capabilities of your forces (both EX and attachments of individual units, and HQ capabilities) mean there are lots of options generally, and many tough decisions.
I never thought UoC1 was all that puzzle-like anyway, though many people did. I found most UoC1 scenarios had a surprising number of workable approaches. Mostly, folks who thought UoC1 battles only had one solution were perhaps displaying a lack of lateral thinking ability...
You may become frustrated by tight time limits on some battles, especially at harder difficulty levels. Personally I like this, as real-world commanders were almost always under immense pressure to get results quickly - before the rains set in, or before the Russians get there first, or before enemy reinforcements arrive, or to deliver a victory just before the next election, etc etc.
So I would not consider that a puzzle really - more opening my eyes to playing the game in full.
I'm not neurotic enough to remember exact turn orders, but I know things like "Ï'll need three units with mobile artillery there" or "cut that supply in turn 3".
It has more variation than UoC1 and is definitely less puzzle like, also because of the fog of war.