Grozny!

[Agent]

It's impossible to get both of the northern bonus objs in this scenario barring something like an airdrop card, yes? That's what the mission briefing indicates and what it looks like given you only have 1 unit for 2 objectives (ok, there's a second 3 step unit but there is no way to get to the Caspian obj AFAIK). I mean, I actually suggested tongue-in-cheek a while back that they make a scenario where you had one unit for two objectives to make it literally impossible to get them all, to tweak the gold-bonus-complete nerds like myself but I didn't think they'd really do it!

But it looks like they did, yes? Also so far I don't think I've been offered an airdrop card in the Stalingrad DLC, which would make that cheese route off the table too.

[3Form]

I wonder if with something like flying artillery you could maybe get that 3 step unit to the 2nd objective?

As an aside I noticed that the reinforcements on turn 2 are brought in closer to the northern objective so I always went to the east instead.

[Agent]

The idea being to suppress the unit between the 3-step and the bridge, then overrun it with the 3 step and continue movement? It's worth a shot I guess? I don't have the card to test though and I'd rather not redo novorrblahblah by resetting to the conference so I may bite the bullet over that obj.

[Daniel_efc]

Let me spare you the heartache :) There is no way to take both of these.

Cheers!

[Agent]

Hahaha you guys are awesome. My heart hurts but I salute you.

[EgoVermin]

Originally posted by Daniel_efc:

Let me spare you the heartache :) There is no way to take both of these.

Cheers!

I must confess I am a little disappointed to hear this. I have just beaten both the historical and ahistorical campaigns on Classic and greatly enjoyed my experience but does this mean that the 'Grozny' scenario is the only one you cannot achieve "perfection" in throughout the entire game? I am no perfectionist myself and I understand the official word of the devs is "don't try to get every bonus objective" but I respect those who aim for 100% completion and understand why they do so. For this one scenario out of the 130+ currently in the game to be the only one not able to be perfectible is a great shame imo.

The only other gripe I have had with this DLC is the return of the terrible 'fail this objective' milestones. I thought they had gone with Moscow 41 but when I saw that there was a milestone to fail the linkup with Stalingrad my heart sank a little. I don't believe there should ever be achievements, in-game or on Steam, where you have to purposefully fail certain objectives as it goes against the entire purpose of a strategy wargame.

Nonetheless despite these gripes I had a fantastic time with this DLC. It must have been especially hard to code a defensive-wired enemy AI to do the scripted pushes it does in several of those historical scenarios and each of the final 3 scenarios for the DLC were fantastic; both '3rd Rostov' and 'Yerevan' are now among my new favourites that have been made! Congratulations on what you guys have done so far and I look forward to the next UoC 2 content!

[Night_Phoenix]

I also don't get this stuff from a design perspective - kinda curious what the considerations were for making this.
As i can't imagine any player thinking: It's more fun i can never get all the objectives in this one scenario! I'd rather choose than potentially get them both. There is also no historical accuracy or something there - there never was such a choice for the Germans either.

How is putting that there a good thing for your game? I'd think at best people have a neutral opinion about it cause they don't really care, at worst - they dislike the decision to implement that. It's no dealbreaker for the game, overall it's great - but if it can only bring out neutral/negative reaction from your audience, why put that there?

[Agent]

My assumption is that it's to reinforce the idea that they don't intend for us to get every bonus objective in every mission. Like a couple of you guys I have gotten 100% gold and bonus objs in every battle in every DLC to this point and this doesn't bother me although I understand why it does bother others who play the same way. I guess because I half expected it to happen at some point (see my comment that I half-jokingly suggested it after the Blitzkrieg DLC came out).

I just accepted the fail on the Caspian Raid objective and then continue to get all the bonus objs in future missions. It helps if you view the objective as "Do X or Y", and you succeed if you do either rather than there being two objects "Do X" and "Do Y" and one of them fails.

[Soullessweare]

Originally posted by Agent:

I just accepted the fail on the Caspian Raid objective and then continue to get all the bonus objs in future missions. It helps if you view the objective as "Do X or Y", and you succeed if you do either rather than there being two objects "Do X" and "Do Y" and one of them fails.

This is how I played it. If you read the milestone you get for the Caspian Raid you'll understand the two bonus objectives are basically a historical gimmick to represent that one train some lonely German scouts blew up.

[Alexander]

Being unable to get all the objectives feels kind of lame.

[carrotboy]

Originally posted by RodentDung:

Imagine how frustrated y'all would feel being a general in WW2 for real. It was routine to fail to achieve objectives for axis generals and sometimes for allied generals. For the western allies, even being a day late to take objectives created great acrimony amongst the salty brass.

I like the idea of choosing one or the other objective. I also would like the odd super difficult objective thrown in here and there for the elite players to go for (and mediocre rubbish players like me to just muddle through and ignore the hard stuff). I am more of a Monty style general - reliable and gets the job done but without the genius of Rommel and Patton.

While I disagree with attributing to Patton the adjective "genius", I do concur with the sentiments. Time and time again generals on all sides, from the worst to the best, failed to achieve objectives in a timely manner and missed opportunities for a variety of reasons.

[Night_Phoenix]

The main arguments i hear from other people is: i fail objectives so its nice/okey that other people can't get all of them too? Why take away that fun for other people? Why wouldn't you make it so that hardcore people can still get them - and people who don't care for that don't. Let everybody have their fun. Putting objectives in the game for the purpose of failing them (cause that's what historically happened) sounds really strange to me...

[Agent]

I don't disagree really I just think as long as its not a common thing it's more of a laugh than an annoyance. If it started to become the norm then I might feel differently.

[Soullessweare]

Originally posted by Night_Phoenix:

The main arguments i hear from other people is: i fail objectives so its nice/okey that other people can't get all of them too?

Who said anything like that? People simply explained why they weren't bothered by this implementation. I for one, always, eventually, get all objectives that are actually possible to get. It's not about 'getting back' at better players, why would you even assume such a thing?

It's pretty much in line with what the devs have always aimed for, a historical representation of operations in which you're not meant to get all objectives on time, or at all (in the case of bonus objectives).

Of course, in practice, some people can and have gotten 100% on all previous scenarios. And I would agree it would be a bit weird if they implemented an actual impossible combination of bonus objectives without saying so. But in this case they were extremely clear in the description. Either get the one, or the other.

And then to dispel all doubt, the devs confirmed this on the forum. Which was great, because I had actually been playing around with a combination of Air Supply and Flying Artillery.

I guess they could have made it a single objective that would be satisfied by getting either one objective, but maybe the engine just doesn't support such a thing. What's the problem with just playing it like that? You did everything that could possibly be done, you can call it 100% and nobody will disagree.

[Night_Phoenix]

I didn't necessarily mean "getting back at", but just that some people are fine with not getting all of the objectives - so it should be fine for others too. Being "better" isn't even it, you can reload as much as you want, and the same applies for lower difficulties too.

My point is this: you can do 1 of two things:
1: Force people to only get 1 objective, like they did now. Fine - it is what it is, you get one (no effort at all - since both objectives we're talking about are movement only - you move your units 2x and you get the bonus) and fail the other. I don't really feel any achievement at all. You get it - and move on.
2: You allow people to get both through whatever means - can be really hard. And people get a sense of achievement (you think: HA, i was supposed to get 1, but did both!) and that really feels great. For those that don't care about such things, they just default to option 1, and that's fine - everyone is different.

Why would you go for option 1 - and please say 80% of your audience with that decision - if you can also please 100% by going for option 2? (those numbers are obv. just pulled out of a hat)

[Richard East]

Making some objectives impossible is user-hostile design. People will restart scenarios and campaigns to achieve 100%... but their time is wasted if what they are trying to achieve is fundamentally impossible. Devs, please patch the campaign to make all objectives 100% possible.