Rob Zacny

Episode 242: A Black Turn of Events

Recommended Posts

Pieter de Jong and Tomislav Uzelac join Rob and Bruce to talk about the Black Turn expansion for Unity of Command. They go in-depth on the Eastern Front and principles of scenario design.

 

Listen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely getting Black Turn, though I think I'll be waiting until after the sale so I can give the devs the extra dollar.

 

I'm fascinated to see how they are going to deal with the western front, though I think what I'd really like (now we've got Unity of Command) is to see is something set in an alternate universe where they can explore the implications of their engine without forcing it to conform to historical scenarios.

 

Also, the Korean war might make a fascinating venue for their engine. Or the 30 years war, with all its attendant logistical madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I listened to Pieter and Tomislav apoligize for their war-game being too similar to a puzzle-game, I'm just shaking my head going "But that's why I like this game!" It's nice to hear them respond to the criticism though because It demonstrates their understanding of the criticism and affirms that they made very intentional choices. As far as I'm concerned, they did the balancing act so well that they are now on the platform that the other end of the tight-rope is attached to and they are receiving due applause.

I know far less about the World War II's eastern european-front than any of you war-gamers can imagine. Everything I know is from playing some of the scenarios in Unity of Command. I don't expect the game to express everything about that history, or for it to do so with inarguable accuracy; but as I play it it does feel like I am learning and even empathizing with the tactical decisions that seem to have been necessary (as I play multiple times in order to reveal them to myself). It's strange to me that this would be considered negative criticism, even after listening to you all discuss it with that connotation.

If it becomes too painful to listen to players deriding Unity of Command for being too much of a puzzle-game, I would recommend releasing it again as one and then enjoy the complaints that although it is one of the most original and deep puzzle-games to come out recently, it leans a little too far into war-game territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree. While I understand why the conversation covered the topic of the puzzle-like nature of Unity of Command, to me it's not a particularly interesting question. To score a brilliant victory there is generally a correct solution, however if you're willing to settle for a normal victory there are typically multiple solutions to a particular scenario. Calling a strategy game a puzzle is perhaps valid criticism when you have a strategy game that creates the impression that there are multiple approaches to a strategic problem, but in fact that is a single, correct approach. However when you have a historical war game that is attempting to represent the problems facing commanders in particular scenarios, this criticism sounds more hollow. A designer in that space is considering the question of what range of possibilities could occur in a particular scenario. Depending on circumstances there could be a wider or narrower band of possibility, or the designer could fudge the historical facts to alter that possibility spectrum. So at that point calling this sort of strategy game a puzzle is simply complaining that a designer felt a narrow band more appropriate. Maybe there are good reasons for such a criticism, but on its face there isn't any.

 

I also find criticisms about whether a scenario is too hard or too easy to be not particularly interesting. I'm not particularly good at Unity of Command. My experience with a lot of the scenarios beyond the early ones akin to beating my head against the wall in terms of my ability to make progress. Typically I then take a break from the game, come back to it later, and I either then suddenly figure out how to accomplish the objectives of the scenario, or I fail. At no point in the game have I felt like the game was wasting my time, or that I was having a bad experience, and that's a far more important consideration than the subjective experience I have with the difficulty of the game. I should be able to enjoy a game even if I find the game too difficult or easy. That is certainly the case with Unity of Command.

 

I'm glad you picked the developers thoughts about what they might do next. The idea that there next game might try and tackle information asymmetry sounds promising!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panel discussed the difficult of modelling the sudden shifts of the power balance on the Eastern front in the UoC engine. Might I suggest a board game I'm currently playing: 'No Retreat'? It seems to handle it quite well, by use of a card mechanic. As the Soviets, I find myself retreating, retreating, throwing men into the grinder to slow the German advance, then finally putting together the necessary cards and messing up the Germans' best made plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously a little late to contribute to the discussion, but a few points about victory conditions and puzzle games.

 

It seems to me that most games define a brilliant or decisive victory as very close to the optimal outcome of the game.

 

Unfortunately, an optimal outcome is only likely if you (1) choose the optimal path, (2) if your opponent has multiple strategies possible, they do not choose the most effective, and (3) you have good luck.  Almost by definition, if any of these do not occur, the final result will not be optimal and you'll be denied your briliant victory.

 

While obtaining a brilliant victory does scratch a certain itch (I also go for three stars in Angry Birds), it does mean repeated plays until you learn the optimal strategy, your opponent doesn't choose the best riposte, and you have decent luck.  It becomes a puzzle game with a moderate amount of repetition waiting for stars to align on your virtual dice.

 

However, simply accepting this ignores a very important aspect of computer gaming.  Computer games *can* change the victory conditions to account for (1) experience, (2) enemy strategy, (3) luck.

 

We all talk about the joy of find a successful path out a difficulty situation, but in the world of fixed victory conditions, that's just pulling a marginal defeat out of the jaws of a decisive defeat, not much of a reward for what might be one's finest game play. 

 

I would like games to be able to change the victory conditions so that having rolled virtual 1's on my first 4 river crossing rolls, *now* victory is based on my ability to abandon my original plan of attack and try a risky flank manuever.  Sure, at best I'll pick up 1/3 or the VPs I thought I'd get at the beginning, but that might be now good enough for a briliant victory if I play my cards right.

 

I'd like to go into a squad level game with victory conditions to capture x victory hexes, find out about half way through realize that I'm actually outnumbered 2-1, and victory is not getting wiped off the map.  Or perhaps opposition is much weaker than expected, and now I have to get twice as many VPs!

 

I'd love to see a game where if Hitler does decide to sacrifice the SS to garrison a city, I don't instantly lose - the victory conditions change to what can realistically be achieved given the enemy strategy, but now I have to change my entire strategy on the fly.

 

With situation-dependent victory conditions, you no longer have to minimize the role of luck, or make sure the AI only tries one major strategy.  We can now adapt victory conditions to the fact that in reality you only get to play once.  What's demanded of the first time player of a scenario can be different from the 10th time. 

 

Successfully adapting to an unexpected and changing situation is often the best part of gaming.  But that'll never produce the optimal outcome - only the optimal outcome for the situation.  If victory conditions can't adapt, then we'll never be properly rewarded for our best and most enjoyable play. 

 

And that seems a pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now