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.