![]() This alone makes it more fluent and that you can't predict each situation. It has more maps than UOC 1 which feature a large number of units (I mean like, 20+ on each side). Since you can usually buy any specialist steps, you are not that reliant that certain units make the right move, as in the first game. ![]() Same with HQ improvement or the random HQ assets when you take HQ objectives. Many of the cards make crucial differences (I think especially Saturation strike, Naval Bombardement and extra Airborne units) in how you can deal with a scenario. U.O.C 2 is not totally devoid of this (scenarios like "Dragoon" or "Race through France" come to my mind).īut I think because of the following reasons, the game is a lot more flexible: 1 didn't offer you much freedom - usually those where you had small forces but extreme time limits. have lavished on the AI, GUI, and core rules. The campaign itself is crafted with the same care and skill Tomislav and Co. As immersion aids and replay incentives, they function well. I totally second the opinion that some scenarios of U.O.C. Cards, like HQ customisation, are UoC2's way of letting you sculpt the game's persistent armies to suit your play style and cope with anticipated challenges ahead. 2 with a lot of new functions that give you a lot more freedom and possibilities. I also think they logically expanded U.O.C. But somehow everybody wants to do it perfect on the first go, it seems. I mean, you don't need to meet all time goals to win a scenario. Also many are very fixated on the time limits. At least I found some opinions like this on Steam. ![]() 2 it got some buzz before it came out and the presentation is a bit too minimalistic and "indie" and that puts players off which unfortunately don't understand all the concepts, and dismiss it too early. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |