Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Unity of Command: Black Hand expansion announced

Whisky

The Solution
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,555
Location
Banjoville, British Columbia
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera
Tags: Matrix Games; Unity of Command; Unity of Command: Black Hand

0035633.jpg


A new expansion for Unity of Command has been announced. Black Turn is to take place before the Stalingrad campaign, focusing on the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.

* The story of the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 13 suspenseful scenarios.
* Campaign extends into what-if territory, pitting the Wehrmacht against extreme odds.
* Separate Soviet scenarios, about the two winter offensives which brought the Nazis to a halt.
* New early-war units, including Axis allies from Romania, Hungary, Italy, Finland and Slovakia

The expansion is expected to be released on December 10th.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
6,657
Location
Rape
There is literally no reason to play Jewnity of Command as it costs 2x as much as it should and has the least depth out of any ww2 wargame I've ever played.

This game should be for mobiles, not pc. Though with panzer corps coming out for android as well, it looks like it has no place there as well.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Well, Unity of Command has always struck me as overly abstract and simplistic.

Though I wouldn't have worded it so strongly. I believe there are people who really like this crisp looking, minimalistic game with (allegedly) good AI, so why not.
 
Unwanted

Likvidator

Unwanted
Queued
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
27
Dumb name.

But there is literally no reason to listen to Jewnity Jew as it dumbs 2x as much as it should since UoC has the most depth out of any wargame I've ever played. (and I have played em all, literally, all)

This game should be for everything, not only pc. Though if you ever played a strategy game on a touch device, you should know better...

In fact, I've decompiled the python sources to look at the AI. And though I was disappointed in how it achieves it's cunning spacial perception and topological reasoning (its needs markers) - it is still really sweet.

It is expensive but considering I bought it from the dev for 8 bucks and the general pricing of wargames, you see how much credibility the Jew moron has. None - writing it out for you, Jew, so youll get it.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Strange name, yes. I always associated the "Black Hand" with Serbia, and the developers are from Ex-Yugoslavia, so it could give wrong ideas.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Actually, the name of the expansion is "Black Turn", not "Black Hand" as the the thread title suggests.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
I also supect that the choice of such weird titles may have to do with search engines. If you type "Black Turn" it will come out on the first page in google.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Skyway (ARMA). BBC (Unity of Command).

I need to play this shit now to be able to prove where he's wrong.
 

Gondolin

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
5,827
Location
Purveyor of fine art
I've played Unity of Command and I can't say I'm particularly impressed with the AI. It knows how to move around and how to cut your units off from supply, but that's about it. I see this as mainly a gimmick game. The only thing the AI does is to try and cut off your supplies in order to stall you for a couple of turns. Since you're always on a tight schedule, that's usually enough to defeat you. The tight schedule also means that you cannot do the same thing to the AI, because you rarely have the time to wait until out of supply suppression kicks in.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
6,657
Location
Rape
Then by all means, elaborate as to where you find all this depth.
Tards (you) first.
I'll give you a hint. Movement. War is about movement above all, if we discount time (but hey, its timespace nowadays so there).
Lolwat.

Movement got nothing to do with it. 9 out of 10 maps are so small and forces set up in such a way that it's painfully obvious where encirclements can and need to happen and supply lines only matter in a handful of battles, such as Case Blue. Not to mention that the AI can't even envelop you properly to save it's life and usually ends up digging it's own hole by rushing in whole lines of units through your broken front without care. Having played multiplayer with a friend in the last week I can say that on average, there is nothing strategic or tactical about it, just a retarded grind. Since you don't need your forces in the next scenario, there is nothing stopping you from sending infantry on suicide assaults to break open enemy lines then pour in panzers, rush to the objective and win the map.

The tight schedule also means that you cannot do the same thing to the AI, because you rarely have the time to wait until out of supply suppression kicks in.

Gondolin beat me to my next point. The game is too narrow for a wargame and time limit pretty much makes supplies pretty much irrelevant for the defender. (except for Kharkov map, only one that comes to mind) It ends up being just a gimmick to stall your advance on some scenarios since the retarded AI can't manage that even when it has a 5:1 numerical superiority.

But hey, game is very suited to sub 50 IQ manboons such as yourself, enjoy your grind with 40 units on a 60x60 map.
 
Unwanted

Likvidator

Unwanted
Queued
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
27
Gondolin
It knows how to move around and how to cut your units off from supply
It doesnt, factually. =(

The only thing the AI does is to try and cut off your supplies in order to stall you for a couple of turns.
Thats planned, offensive, active enemy action! Thats more than any! game AI did to this day, if you dont count "attack weakest unit". It also does sweet defensive regrouping.

The tight schedule also means that you cannot do the same thing to the AI
Thats approx what I dislike too. You cant effectively set up a plan that unfolds in 2 turns or more(like in Chess...). Youve got your first one where you manuever and "half" the next turn cause the AI is too mobile, too many pieces move, the space to constraint.

I see this as mainly a gimmick game.
You are a larper than? Cause UoC is the same as all other abstract gamist wargames. The other type of wargames (the larper shit) is the one with 2 pages of order of battle and where the single thought you have is where to send your Nato symbols and grind them into dust. They also generally feature an absolutely braindead reactionary AI and liberal timelimits. If you guessed right where to grind, you take the objectives. Yay.

Jew
Movement got nothing to do with it.
Roffles. That the defining characteristic of the game (growing out of supply obviously). Are you blind? You are in fact contradicting yourself by saying that 9 out of 10 maps are not prone to encirclements... so its a map problem?
Hell, I didnt even mean the strategic movement. I meant the small scale tactical maneuver, you know, when you neutralize zones of control to advance through. Thats the interesting part!

Not to mention that the AI can't even envelop you properly to save it's life
And they say I have unrealistic expectations... Through imo, it can encircle single units. Happend to me on the Stalingrad map. Could be a fluke.

and usually ends up digging it's own hole by rushing in whole lines of units through your broken front without care.
Are you dumb? The AI aint caring about losses... .. . Its stalling you. Every unit its sets on the rail, you have to push off immediately. If the AI breaks through your lines, you can kiss the Brilliant Victory goodbye (and lets be honest, B.V. thats the only type that counts). If multiple enemy units break through - thats not digging its own grave, its yours...

Having played multiplayer
Its not a MP game.

Since you don't need your forces in the next scenario, there is nothing stopping you from sending infantry on suicide assaults to break open enemy lines then pour in panzers, rush to the objective and win the map.
Just winning the map is childsplay. Suicide attacks are suicide attacks. Dumbest fucking move. There is usually a better way, usually needed for B.V. If there isnt than its not a suicide attack.

But hey, game is very suited to sub 50 IQ manboons such as yourself, enjoy your grind with 40 units on a 60x60 map.
I prefer 16 units on a 8x8 map. Derp derp derp =DDD

In conclusion, youve build pretty strawman and fought bravely but prefering an identical PG clone (which i walked through in hardest difficulty and had 20k prestige on the last map...) over this is a definite mongolism criteria.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
6,657
Location
Rape
The AI doesn't care about losses

Which is pretty much the whole point on why the game is shit on half the maps and just bad on the rest. All you had to do on Voronezh is spend two turns to encircle and kill off half their infantry, airstrike their tanks then walk in without giving a fuck.

I prefer 16 units on a 8x8 map. Derp derp derp =DDD

So you are comparing UoC, aka 100 divisions all bunched up together in a narrow area, to PC, where you had the ground to maneuver and could choose a ton of vectors from which to attack? Redirect yourself to RPGWatch.

That the defining characteristic of the game (growing out of supply obviously).

In 1 or 2 maps. In the rest, supply sources are always safe and near and air drop supply simply wins you the game.

Inbefore Hurr Durr, dun use air supply. If the game design wasn't shit, there wouldn't be any need of it.

ou are in fact contradicting yourself by saying that 9 out of 10 maps are not prone to encirclements...

No, I am not. I was referring to movement as freedom of choice when picking approaches. There is nothing like that in UoC since there is only one way to attack or move the way troops are set up at the start of the game. Truly, a game worthy for tablets and 14 year olds.

It also does sweet defensive regrouping.

Yep, get in one panzer through their line, watch them fall over each other and bunch up their units near the objective. Proceed to bring one motorised unit to cut off the rail and deny them supplies, congrats, you won the map. Rinse and repeat for the rest of the campaign.

Shame the AI can't do the same, since it's so braindead that even with partisans and cavalry running rampant in your backyard it keeps failing hard and refusing to attack non-entrenched hungarian cannon fodder on open fields standing on the rail lines.

CA should hire these people, they really beat their own retards to making a worse AI.

Its not a MP game.

Obviously, since you and your opponent will end up rehearsing the battle of the Somme on an even more narrow scope with more men.



Downloaded a custom map that has the entire barbarossa campaign on it, I'll play it and see if bigger time limit and less force-to-area ratio manages to fix things.
 

Gondolin

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
5,827
Location
Purveyor of fine art
You are a larper than? Cause UoC is the same as all other abstract gamist wargames. The other type of wargames (the larper shit) is the one with 2 pages of order of battle and where the single thought you have is where to send your Nato symbols and grind them into dust. They also generally feature an absolutely braindead reactionary AI and liberal timelimits. If you guessed right where to grind, you take the objectives. Yay.

Ummm, that's exactly how UoC plays. If you want brilliant victories, you don't have alternatives. You just play over and over again until you find how the scenario is supposed to be played. Especially on the smaller maps and especially since, as CJM noted, the game doesn't even let you deploy your own troops.
 
Unwanted

Likvidator

Unwanted
Queued
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
27
Gondolin
that's exactly how UoC plays
Your original thought was that UoC is a gimmicky game. I tell you that every gamist wargame than is a gimmicky game (whatever that is), cept for the 'larpies'. You tell me that UoC is in fact such a game.
No its not. In the whole principle, its not how its played. You have to think how to approach an obstacle, which units moves where and when, attacks who. Easiest example is the demo map. You dont have to think in larper wargames. There is no planning ahead in your own turn. Planning ahead makes seldom sense due to the mechanics. You have to split you forces and hope you guessed right in the fog of war and grind them upon the enemy in a rock, paper, stone way. Same goes for Panzer Coprs even. Air/Arty/Tanks/Infantry, in approx that order usually. The core of PG clones is force composition, its most important metric. But not for UoC. UoC is about movement, a bit like... Chess.

If you want brilliant victories, you don't have alternatives. You just play over and over again until you find how the scenario is supposed to be played.
Questionable hypothesis. I would say completely wrong by a single counterexample. 2nd Kharkov, first map of the campaign is tight. I have won BV in a different manner on both main points of attack than the dude who posted all BV campaign savgame on the offical forums.


Jewdude, summary:
small maps make supply/encirclements irrelevant -> you yourself say that supply matters in some maps... and the judge is out on the encirclement thingy...
ai breaking though is dumb -> is not, cause no BV if it breaks through to your supply/rail
mp is dumb -> it is cause its tacked on, its not an mp game by design, your point is not valid
suicide attacks -> dumb, not gonna work for BV, see edelweiss or any other hard scenarios

game too narrow, supply dont matter -> except for hkarkov, yes, contradiction much? map problem, not game problem
5:1 numerical superiority -> fake argument, there is no 5 to 1 ratio - thats strike 1, numerical is not strenghwise - strike 2


game is shit cause ai dont care bout losses -> ergo all games are shit by that logic...
voronezh example -> makes no sense, there is no logical coherense between the ai no caring about losses and that example
supple always safe -> they arent, the very first 2 maps already have supply issues, kharkov in hte middle, voronezh down which is in the 5th turn objective but you need it much sooner
movement as freedom of choice when picking approaches -> fundamentally a map design problem/question, it is valid as a product cirtique though... 1 point for griffindor
ai predictable in defense, exploitable -> not always true ergo not true, you dont see the ai markers but they are higher priority than the other behaviours
ai cav behind your lines fails -> lie, give me your savegame with it happening

So all your random points are either moot or wrong. Cept for that single one.
Now, formulate your core point fundamentally (and counter argue from my position in your head...) before I waste any more lifehours of my fingerjoints. You keep flip flopping around whachyou want and fightin strawmen.
 

Gondolin

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
5,827
Location
Purveyor of fine art
The core of PG clones is force composition, its most important metric. But not for UoC. UoC is about movement, a bit like... Chess.

If you don't know how to move your units properly, how to keep them together when moving over long distances, you're screwed in Panzer General/Corps. Movement skills are generally important. Of course, PG/C doesn't have the kind of leap ahead movement that UoC has, but that's not terribly important to the human player. It would probably help me turn into brilliant victories the ~5 scenarios I won 1-2 turns late in the Stalingrad campaigns, but... meh. No matter how good you are at moving units, you cannot break through the AI defenses and go straight for the objectives because you're leaving the supply zone. And in the German campaign, the supply situation is usually dicey.

Questionable hypothesis. I would say completely wrong by a single counterexample. 2nd Kharkov, first map of the campaign is tight. I have won BV in a different manner on both main points of attack than the dude who posted all BV campaign savgame on the offical forums.

I'll see your counterexample and raise you one.

Terek: You must strike east with two tank divisions (I doubt one is enough) and build a bridge across the Terek river, a couple of hexes north-west from Mahachkala (edit: in the first turn). I may be wrong, of course, but I don't think there's any other way to reach the second objective in time. I also think it's the only time when you can build a bridge without controlling both sides of the crossing point. I don't remember any other such instance.

Edit: It's not the only instance, but I know I wasn't allowed to build a bridge north of Novorossijsk in Edelweiss before my units crossed over.

Astrahan: If you don't have a unit next to the city by turn 3 or 4, no brilliant victory for you. You can bring the MD conveniently placed in Elista or you can bring a tank from the north. It doesn't matter. The game even throws its entire supply system out the window by giving you parachuted supplies. And even so, the game could still stop you by replacing the unit defending Astrahan on its turn, after it has taken damage. I've seen the AI attack me with a division and then disbanding the division to make room for another, three times in a row, which was quite cool. Too bad it doesn't know how to move a damaged unit out of an objective.

Astrahan is a perfect example of how the game works. You could put a unit across the river and cut off the enemy's supplies, but it's useless. The scenario is 7 turns long, brilliant victory is on turn 5 and I don't think there's any way to reach the supply line before turn 4.
 
Last edited:
Unwanted

Likvidator

Unwanted
Queued
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
27
If you don't know how to move your units properly, how to keep them together when moving over long distances, your are srewed
Moving units that way requires no thought. I never felt that it was necessary to plan, or that it was interesting, taxing. Again, force composition (which is oh so guessable due to experience... and also hardly interchangable by design) is massively more important. The only interesting part about movement in PG clones is the fog of war, which gets solved by... guessing... or force composition or slow movement or sacrifices - depending on what you currently need. Its not interesting as a mental puzzle due to the mechanics. UoC is and you say its gimmicky. I dont get it.

I believe that PG clones are more popular due to the rpg elements (juvenile power fantasy) and easy, mentally satisfying puzzles, in that the solutions feel concrete and repeatable.
UoC is too ambigious, not as satisfying.

I'll see your counterexample and raise you one.
But thats not how falsifiability works. Your point was that the game dictates a single path to BV. This is not true. You cannot now say that there are exceptions and save your point.
 

Gondolin

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
5,827
Location
Purveyor of fine art
As far as I can tell, after going through the game two or three times, what you need to do is to figure out how the AI responds. If you move your units in a certain way, the AI will move its units in a certain way. If you figure that out and if you remember what to do in any given scenario, you will probably win every time. I haven't mastered the movement system and yet I'm getting brilliant victories in 60-70% of scenarios. The game may not dictate a single path to victory, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the time to get creative.

Weather is a much bigger problem than the AI. I hate getting close to the last objective only to find out that rain has moved in and my units have not, in fact, resupplied at all and, therefore, I cannot attack. Coupled with the game's annoying saving system...

The only interesting part about movement in PG clones is the fog of war, which gets solved by... guessing... or force composition or slow movement or sacrifices - depending on what you currently need.

Common sense points to the use of recon units, but don't quote me on that.
 
Unwanted

Likvidator

Unwanted
Queued
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
27
The game may not dictate a single path to victory, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the time to get creative.
Yeah, thats true. Ironman campaign is impossible on first run. Might even be impossible by weather...

Coupled with the game's annoying saving system...
Yeah, UoC does not feel good. Its not a satisfying game. But its not gimmicky.

Recon units are cannon fodder. Waste of a free slot and prestige...
 

Gondolin

Arcane
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
5,827
Location
Purveyor of fine art
I've just finished going through the game one more time. I got 100% brilliant victories in the Axis and Soviet Stalingrad campaigns and 15 brilliant victories out of 17 scenarios in Red Turn (fuck that Leningrad scenario) and I'm somewhat less pleased with the game than before. I dislike the supply thing and its implementation even more.

Some of the scenarios in the Sov-Stgrad campaign are clearly designed to be won by cutting off the enemy's supply. What does that mean? It means sending one of your units to wonder behind enemy lines. It doesn't matter that your unit is also running out of supply and losing its combat worthiness. It doesn't matter than it cannot hold a position behind enemy lines. All that matters is having control of a bunch of hexes at the beginning of the enemy turn because that makes the enemy troops unable to fight. Why? Beats me. Why is a unit suddenly unable to fight if it hasn't been attacked at all? Do armies lose their heads because one lousy enemy unit is being chased around behind their lines?
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,036
Location
NZ
This game felt too much like a puzzle for me. Sort of incredible that even after all these years Panzer General 1 is still unbeaten.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom