Blitzkrieg DLC: Lazy Scenario Design

[Apocalypse]

Consolidating my thoughts from a few posts. I'm a huge fan of the franchise. I own and have played everything that this development team has released - but I very much dislike this DLC- specifically the scenario design.

1. I think the scenario design is lazy- it relies on artificial constraints that levy against the player in order to create a 'challenging' scenario. I do not find them to be challenging or enjoyable. Instead, they are just tedious and frustrating.

2. Short duration scenarios are unforgiving- every turn must be decisive for the player. Any mediocre turn will put you at a massive disadvantage, and any bad turn will be grounds for an immediate restart.

3. The victory conditions and enemy dispositions are completely unfavorable. Previous scenarios at least made the basic win conditions achievable, but offered much more challenging bonus objectives. That is no longer the case.

4. When you deigns scenarios like puzzles then it removes any re-playability in the scenario. I have no reason to replay The Low Countries- Why? There is a correct series of moves that MUST be in place and there is no lee-way to stray from that correct series of turns. Why would I want to replay that? There's no art behind it - it's just a series of correct inputs that achieve a desired results. I cannot actually try different strategies.



Many players were vocal about the scenario design behind some of the UoC I scenarios, and the biggest criticism was that the game felt too much like a puzzle and less of a wargame. We are back to the "puzzle". Crack the code within the first few turns and you might win but probably not.

The UoC II scenarios were much more enjoyable; The designers strayed away from the short-turn scenarios and there was more lee-way given to players- players weren't forced to restart a scenario if they didn't achieve a weird puzzle-unlock during turn 3- they could recover from mediocre and bad turns.

[tomislav.uzelac]

I kindly ask you to not use disrespectful language like "lazy" with respect to the team.

Everyone on the team has worked tirelessly to deliver a solid, polished game and they don't deserve that kind of treatment.

You have made your points, and across multiple threads too. If other players feel the need to add their own comments, I am sure they will. In the meantime - politeness and respect, kindly please.

Cheers!

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by tomislav.uzelac:

I kindly ask you to not use disrespectful language like "lazy" with respect to the team.

I didn't call anyone on the team lazy. It is an adjective to describe the scenario design.

[nigo_BR ᵀᴹ]

The scenario is small. Thats the reason looks like a "puzzle game".


Try the "Fall Braun" scenario and get back here. ;)


This DLC is brilliant.

[ammianus]

FB is amazing. But the Low Countries is fun to play too. And it is not that there is some predetermined set of steps. But encircling helps...

When you get several strong enemies into the trap, and deprive them of supply.

Such a fun

[ElGuapo]

I am in love:-)
When can we expect the next DLC?

[Grahor]

I exactly love it because it's a puzzle. :)

[Steevodeevo]

Slightly in defence of Apocalypse, his use of the word 'lazy' is not a personal insult. In English first language speaking terms it is - as he says - an adjective to describe his views of the scenario design style (it means in this case, simplistic / narrow or one dimensional).

I am 'quite' enjoying Blitzkrieg, but I am drawn back to the original Allies campaign as I too find the Allies campaign more of a 'strategy' wargame and less of a puzzler, with perhaps more solutions and a bit more flexibility. Allies is a bit more forgiving of the odd mistake, which you can recover from.

Blitzkrieg on the other hand has had me flinging down the Mouse in frustration and I have restarted the entire DLC 3 times and scenarios numerous times as errors seem to be brutally punished. But I keep coming back and I am, on balance having fun. I love the new mechanics and the map scale, but Supply (all be it realistic) is driving me nuts.

I would say this:- I don't think that the Devs have 'reverted' to the primarily puzzle based approach of UOC 1, I think they have rather smartly identified the difference in the dynamics, pace and nature of the Allied Campaign versus the Early war Blitzkrieg.

... The Germans had spectacular success in the first 18 months of WW2, but many people do not always appreciate just how a close shave this was to being a complete failure. Many of the campaigns were only completed successfully by a hairs breadth and by the skin of their teeth. They moved so fast to to outflank and cut off 'superior' forces and to prevent reinforcement or entrenchment, that they left supply way behind (as Patton Discovered later in the war).

The German equipment (weapons, armour, arty, transport, bombers, maybe fighters) was largely inferior to the Allied equipment at the start of the war - though their infantry soldiers were top class - and it was speed, tactics and combined forces that had them win in Poland, Low countries France and the early part of Barbarossa. The game seems to faithfully represent just how tight and risky the margins for victory and defeat were in the first year(s) of the war. It is probably THAT that makes the game feel more of a puzzle, as the margins for error and failure were that small.

[Gerfreckle]

Originally posted by Steevodeevo:

The game seems to faithfully represent just how tight and risky the margins for victory and defeat were in the first year(s) of the war. It is probably THAT that makes the game feel more of a puzzle, as the margins for error and failure were that small.

This is a good point. It's important to remember that by the time the Allies started winning in the west (i.e. 1943-44; when the base game begins) they had a significant superiority over the Germans in the air, at sea, and in the quality of their equipment. The Germans were stretched extremely thin and had to defend hundreds of kilometres of coastline, from the Low Countries to France, and then all of Italy and the Balkans. The Allies could strike wherever they wanted and fairly quickly achieve local superiority in numbers before the Germans could react quickly. This is how they won in Sicily and Normandy. As the campaign goes on, your overwhelming superiority in division count starts to add up, as the American war machine kicks into full gear. Such is the context of the real history and how it's reflected in the game.

The fact is, this expansion isn't excessively hard; it's appropriately difficult for the battles it's depicting. If anything, it's the base game that was easy, because, overall, in real life the Allies almost always had the upper hand in these campaigns.

In 1939-40, no one expected Hitler to win like he did. In 1944-45, everyone knew the Allies were going to win. Important difference in the type of difficulty to be expected.

I feel like when the devs eventually get around to making missions for the Eastern Front, we'll see a much more "neutral" type of difficulty, because the German/Soviet campaigns of 41-43 where much less one-sided compared to the campaigns we've seen so far. Sometimes the Germans won, sometimes the Soviets won. The Germans never achieved all of their objectives, and it took the Soviets quite a while to achieve theirs. It isn't like the current campaigns of "Allies constantly win" and "Germans constantly win".

[ammianus]

Originally posted by ;2995417914196396431:

Slightly in defence of Apocalypse, his use of the word 'lazy' is not a personal insult. In English first language speaking terms it is - as he says - an adjective to describe his views of the scenario design style (it means in this case, simplistic / narrow or one dimensional).

I am 'quite' enjoying Blitzkrieg, but I am drawn back to the original Allies campaign as I too find the Allies campaign more of a 'strategy' wargame and less of a puzzler, with perhaps more solutions and a bit more flexibility. Allies is a bit more forgiving of the odd mistake, which you can recover from.

Blitzkrieg on the other hand has had me flinging down the Mouse in frustration and I have restarted the entire DLC 3 times and scenarios numerous times as errors seem to be brutally punished. But I keep coming back and I am, on balance having fun. I love the new mechanics and the map scale, but Supply (all be it realistic) is driving me nuts.

I would say this:- I don't think that the Devs have 'reverted' to the primarily puzzle based approach of UOC 1, I think they have rather smartly identified the difference in the dynamics, pace and nature of the Allied Campaign versus the Early war Blitzkrieg.

... The Germans had spectacular success in the first 18 months of WW2, but many people do not always appreciate just how a close shave this was to being a complete failure. Many of the campaigns were only completed successfully by a hairs breadth and by the skin of their teeth. They moved so fast to to outflank and cut off 'superior' forces and to prevent reinforcement or entrenchment, that they left supply way behind (as Patton Discovered later in the war).

The German equipment (weapons, armour, arty, transport, bombers, maybe fighters) was largely inferior to the Allied equipment at the start of the war - though their infantry soldiers were top class - and it was speed, tactics and combined forces that had them win in Poland, Low countries France and the early part of Barbarossa. The game seems to faithfully represent just how tight and risky the margins for victory and defeat were in the first year(s) of the war. It is probably THAT that makes the game feel more of a puzzle, as the margins for error and failure were that small.

Can I declare this comment as the answer?

[Apocalypse]

I really do enjoy UoC. I have purchased everything the developer has published for this franchise.

I gave my honest assessment of the latest DLC. I have also had to restarted the entire campaign several times. I do not find that to be enjoyable. I think there are better ways of challenging the players. I blasted my way through the Allied campaign, and went back 2 more times to play it.

This thread, my opinion, has earned me a warning for inappropriate comments from the developer.

This makes me wonder if the developer is open to criticism of his game. A game that I have supported very much since its first release.

Edit- some more context

I am also a scenario designer- both virtually and in real life (Army, 15 years- serving at all levels up to Brigade). I understand design and design concepts. I do not wish to make this personal against the developer- I didn't intent to...ever. But I do stand with my comments.

I think the DLC could have been better developed.

[solahistoria]

Originally posted by Steevodeevo:

Slightly in defence of Apocalypse, his use of the word 'lazy' is not a personal insult. In English first language speaking terms it is - as he says - an adjective to describe his views of the scenario design style (it means in this case, simplistic / narrow or one dimensional).

I am 'quite' enjoying Blitzkrieg, but I am drawn back to the original Allies campaign as I too find the Allies campaign more of a 'strategy' wargame and less of a puzzler, with perhaps more solutions and a bit more flexibility. Allies is a bit more forgiving of the odd mistake, which you can recover from.

Blitzkrieg on the other hand has had me flinging down the Mouse in frustration and I have restarted the entire DLC 3 times and scenarios numerous times as errors seem to be brutally punished. But I keep coming back and I am, on balance having fun. I love the new mechanics and the map scale, but Supply (all be it realistic) is driving me nuts.

I would say this:- I don't think that the Devs have 'reverted' to the primarily puzzle based approach of UOC 1, I think they have rather smartly identified the difference in the dynamics, pace and nature of the Allied Campaign versus the Early war Blitzkrieg.

... The Germans had spectacular success in the first 18 months of WW2, but many people do not always appreciate just how a close shave this was to being a complete failure. Many of the campaigns were only completed successfully by a hairs breadth and by the skin of their teeth. They moved so fast to to outflank and cut off 'superior' forces and to prevent reinforcement or entrenchment, that they left supply way behind (as Patton Discovered later in the war).

The German equipment (weapons, armour, arty, transport, bombers, maybe fighters) was largely inferior to the Allied equipment at the start of the war - though their infantry soldiers were top class - and it was speed, tactics and combined forces that had them win in Poland, Low countries France and the early part of Barbarossa. The game seems to faithfully represent just how tight and risky the margins for victory and defeat were in the first year(s) of the war. It is probably THAT that makes the game feel more of a puzzle, as the margins for error and failure were that small.

[Nase36Nase]

so i stopped playing the game now. i am very frustrated.

i played on normal to Sichel-Schnitt, but i cant progress. now i have the only option to restart the whole campaign on easy, second i havent had upgraded my HQs enough. i thought i could farm the prestige.

but i dont want to restart the whole campaign.

the difficulty on UoD2 vanilla and Blitzkrieg are different worlds. vanilla was fun, blitzkrieg isnt

[Kiwirob]

I have to disagree with the view that the Blitzkrieg scenarios are unplayable, or that they need a perfect sequence of moves.

I play on Hard, which means I don't expect to win every time. I'm used to failing to crack a scenario, sometimes more than once - I have no idea how many times I've had to restart Dragoon, but it was plenty.

After the comments in the forum, I played the French scenarios carefully. I didn't play the Low Countries perfectly - having used Flying Artillery to capture Eben Emael, I sent my paratroopers to pointlessly and unsuccessfully try to take Rotterdam. But I saw that the Devs wanted me to focus on the Dutch Capitulation, so I made sure I got there, then captured it turn three by cycling through feinting units (just like the AI plays the Germans...). Getting the capitulation was a "Hey Cool" moment. Not plain sailing from there, as my veteran pioneer and arty-equipped infantry captured Brussels to get slaughtered in response. A turn late there and on Mons, but otherwise everything complete. Sickle Stroke was less pretty, but I got the basic objectives last turn while missing all the final bonuses. Dunkirk was almost a pushover by comparison, all objectives complete but losing one armour step too many. Then 100% on Fall Rot West bar one final bonus objective.

My point is that I've done waaay worse than that at times on the basic game. Winning at UoC is sometimes a puzzle, true, in that it often requires you to study the map ahead of starting a scenario to work out matters such as future logistics requirements several turns into the game. But personally I prefer the scenarios that challenge me and that I have to replay to get right over those that I sail through. What I strongly disagree with is the view that the Blitzkrieg scenarios reflect lazy design. I find it difficult to believe that I hit on some sequence of perfect moves each time.

In my view the scenarios are a superb recreation of the challenges of the war with a minimum of complexity, in marked contrast to the simple but unrealistic mechanics of Panzer General/Panzer Corps, or the off-the-scale depth and complexity of titles like War in the East. Sickle Stroke is difficult, but this was one of the greatest operational gambles in history, only succeeding due to paralysis in the French command, and that the consequence of a German attack could lead to a 6-week defeat of France was the one of the most improbable in military history. As has been separately pointed out on these forums, it is right that these scenarios should be challenges.

[vicentlazar]

I also disagree with the fact that the Axis scenarios are designed worse than the Allied ones. More difficult yes, but they should be like that. What the Germans achieved in the first two-three years of the war was pretty amazing considering the fact that they mostly faced insurmountable odds. I don't expect Barbarossa to be easy either in the next DLC. The Germans play differently to the Allies in my opinion. You cannot go about in the German campaign doing the same stuff as you did in the Allied ones. You need to use your resources better and only take the most advantageous of fights. I think every scenario is doable and I only play on classic and aim for all objectives (primary and secondary) every time.

[eskuche]

Issue is sometimes you need a perfect start, and I understand how this can be supremely frustrating. First time I tried Fall Braun, my paratroopers actually died at the easy crossings, and there was mud in the south. Ditto Polish Plains, where inauspicious mud the first turn meant I could not reach Lvov by turn 4 no matter what I did.