Haven't got the game yet as I have my reserve from Morning Sun DLC. Don't really enjoy the scenario design in that so I was wondering is the new DLC scenario design good?
I still find PzC have better scenario design currently playing soviet corps at the moment which I miss those supply and air plane refuel from OOB but I still prefer PzC scenario design much better.
Can any veterans comment on the new DLC so I can make a decision to purchase or not.
Thx in advance
How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I have played the first four, and I like them a whole lot. Every decision seems tougher, there are several ways of approaching the goals, and I felt I had to be even more careful about my supply - and mindful about the supply of the enemy.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I would have to disagree. The "feel" of the Pacific Campaign is really lacking. It may be a game with units called "Marines" where you fight other units called the "Japanese" and the battle occurs on islands there are a lot of things I really did not like in the campaign.
1. Every battle feels like 1942 over and over where you have fight with limited resources and supplies. Even into 1945.
2. Some units are never upgraded. You use 1942 Engineers with no ability to upgrade even into 1945 even though later scenarios require them.
3. Some of the scenario briefings are rather lacking in information and some downright misleading as to victory conditions.
4. The campaign ends on Iwo Jima. What happened to Okinawa or an invasion of Japan?
5. The allocation of support elements is random as to their control. Sometimes you get to control the Naval Support, sometimes you do not and when you do not they can be rather dumb. For example the fire support ships in Iwo Jima stay on station in the south of the Island even though the area has been long cleared.
6. Some scenarios have elements that do not make sense like the half strength supply ships in Iwo or the "Crippled B-29" that is supposed to come in for an emergency landing (would have been cool if had happened) but instead flies around waiting for aJapanese fighter to finish it off or circles over Japanese AA waiting to get shot down. Huh?
There are some elements to like in the Marine Expansion but on the whole I feel it came up rather short when trying to portray the Pacific Theater.
1. Every battle feels like 1942 over and over where you have fight with limited resources and supplies. Even into 1945.
2. Some units are never upgraded. You use 1942 Engineers with no ability to upgrade even into 1945 even though later scenarios require them.
3. Some of the scenario briefings are rather lacking in information and some downright misleading as to victory conditions.
4. The campaign ends on Iwo Jima. What happened to Okinawa or an invasion of Japan?
5. The allocation of support elements is random as to their control. Sometimes you get to control the Naval Support, sometimes you do not and when you do not they can be rather dumb. For example the fire support ships in Iwo Jima stay on station in the south of the Island even though the area has been long cleared.
6. Some scenarios have elements that do not make sense like the half strength supply ships in Iwo or the "Crippled B-29" that is supposed to come in for an emergency landing (would have been cool if had happened) but instead flies around waiting for aJapanese fighter to finish it off or circles over Japanese AA waiting to get shot down. Huh?
There are some elements to like in the Marine Expansion but on the whole I feel it came up rather short when trying to portray the Pacific Theater.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Thx kverdon for the detail reply. I think I will hold off purchase for a while. Revisiting my pzc atm to try to understand why pzc scenario is more fun in design so maybe later can share it with the developer.
Strangely I still find pzc scenario have better design but I love oob mechanics better in terms of supply, unit type for deployment and designated units like AA for big and small planes and plane refuelling and certainly naval battles.
I do hope the developers can spend some time to understand pzc scenario design for better fun play
Strangely I still find pzc scenario have better design but I love oob mechanics better in terms of supply, unit type for deployment and designated units like AA for big and small planes and plane refuelling and certainly naval battles.
I do hope the developers can spend some time to understand pzc scenario design for better fun play
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
The Morning Sun campaign is definitely more interesting than the Marines with that little island hopping. In Marines, I'm glad if allied AI units give me any support, no matter what they attack. I find the allied AI pretty neat in this game that is fun to watch. It would be interesting to also see them as air or ground units more, besides offering escort duties, for example to rescue them from an enemy encirclement. The Men in Blue are often too passive.
What I also always like in scenarios if other allied teams are present with their own reserve points. I don't like to spend my own precious gold coins on aux units that much.
What I also always like in scenarios if other allied teams are present with their own reserve points. I don't like to spend my own precious gold coins on aux units that much.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I like having multiple factions involved in a scenario. This gives the designer tools to tailor resource and command points to each faction.
I'm revisiting my own custom scenarios and moving the relevant units to the new Marines faction.
As for the comparison with Panzer Corps.
I was very much into PzC for a good time, created a bunch of scenarios and a Market-Garden Campaign. I really liked the editor.
But I was not too impressed by the stock scenarios (I played through everything in the mega campaign pack).
Research was often sloppy and many scenarios bore little resemblance to the historical battles.
A couple of examples:
I have done extensive research on the campaign in Norway and the invasion of Crete. I have made scenarios on these conflicts for several game systems.
The PzC treatment was a big disappointment, maps and OOB that were close to free fantasy.
So I'm looking forward to OOB moving into other theaters, then I'll revisit my non-Pacific scenarios again.
I'm revisiting my own custom scenarios and moving the relevant units to the new Marines faction.
As for the comparison with Panzer Corps.
I was very much into PzC for a good time, created a bunch of scenarios and a Market-Garden Campaign. I really liked the editor.
But I was not too impressed by the stock scenarios (I played through everything in the mega campaign pack).
Research was often sloppy and many scenarios bore little resemblance to the historical battles.
A couple of examples:
I have done extensive research on the campaign in Norway and the invasion of Crete. I have made scenarios on these conflicts for several game systems.
The PzC treatment was a big disappointment, maps and OOB that were close to free fantasy.
So I'm looking forward to OOB moving into other theaters, then I'll revisit my non-Pacific scenarios again.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Well, they are cranking out the Winter War DLC pretty quick. Maybe they will put some time into better scenario design. The editors and csv file modding are outstanding in both PzC and OOB. I applaud the devs for this. But I also find better scenarios/campaigns from the modders.
Hate to repeat this once again, but that mod from the Russian guy (Soviet Storm?) for PzC was just great. Here I pay $15 for Soviet DLC and doubt it will be as good. Oh yeah, it was just on sale for $7.50... so I wait for sales on all Slitherine products now. It's a new day!
Hate to repeat this once again, but that mod from the Russian guy (Soviet Storm?) for PzC was just great. Here I pay $15 for Soviet DLC and doubt it will be as good. Oh yeah, it was just on sale for $7.50... so I wait for sales on all Slitherine products now. It's a new day!
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Some of the beta testers said the USM scenarios were among the best so far. Opinions can differ, but I think it's also a fact that people are more likely to write complaints rather than compliments.
As far as I can tell the majority of players seem to enjoy it, and personally I think USM has benefitted a lot from lessons learned during the development of the original Pacific campaigns.
As far as I can tell the majority of players seem to enjoy it, and personally I think USM has benefitted a lot from lessons learned during the development of the original Pacific campaigns.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I know I liked them.Varied scenarios with polish.
I think there are a number of players who may prefer more hard-core scenarios sticking to historic realities as much as possible.
I think there are a number of players who may prefer more hard-core scenarios sticking to historic realities as much as possible.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I think it’s not only about historical correctness, rather often the map scale. Invading tiny single-hex chains of islands with mostly unused water tiles can’t be compared to the larger landscapes of a couple of the 1941 campaign, Morning Sun and soon Winter War maps. More ground tiles simply offer more strategic options with ground troops, and with plenty water tiles, you look for exciting naval engagement which are truly great in this game. With Marines, you hardly get both.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
It is true that history ties the hands of the scenario designer. The Marine campaign was an island slug fest, and that's what we got. Unfortunately, these island battles are rather similar. Hammering away at defenses again and again can get rather tedious (for some). But God help the scenario designer who wavers from history to make their creations more exciting. I would not want ex-Marines or their relatives going after me if I deviated from what actually happened in these bloody battles.
HPS (Squad Battles/Panzer Campaigns) scenario designers solve this problem by including "what if" scenarios. In fact, The Winter War is the only game of theirs I don't own, so I will be tempted to buy OOB's version.
I do apologize for my comment, "Maybe they will put some time into better scenario design." The devs have given us the tools to design whatever scenarios we like, and after 30 years of wargaming, I find some of the best ones are fictional.
OOB is a great game "system" and even appears to be enjoying success on Steam, which is not always the case with wargames. Morning Sun and Winter War were good choices also. I don't think I could stand trudging through Kursk or Stalingrad once again
HPS (Squad Battles/Panzer Campaigns) scenario designers solve this problem by including "what if" scenarios. In fact, The Winter War is the only game of theirs I don't own, so I will be tempted to buy OOB's version.
I do apologize for my comment, "Maybe they will put some time into better scenario design." The devs have given us the tools to design whatever scenarios we like, and after 30 years of wargaming, I find some of the best ones are fictional.
OOB is a great game "system" and even appears to be enjoying success on Steam, which is not always the case with wargames. Morning Sun and Winter War were good choices also. I don't think I could stand trudging through Kursk or Stalingrad once again
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Adherbal, I find your comment too defensive and as a game developer please keep an open mind as all gamers have different expectations and comment like you said so yourself.
Most of these guys who commented are those that play OOB when it first launch and participate in the forum and I saw all of them commenting all the time. Sometimes just because we point out some weak point doesn't mean we are complaining just voicing out our concern and helping you guys to make the game better and get more sales.
I saw most of them commented here that OOB have great potential since the beginning, we all like the supply system, naval battles etc that's a great job no denial on that however there are some rooms of improvement like we all pointed out. Scenario design is the key to a success in these type of games as Erik can comment on the fun on scenario designing. I have also personally commented that the game developer is great but now it seems you have become more defensive which I hope you can keep an open mind.
My reserve on marine DLC was the map and scenario as I am afraid that there is just too much open space and useless ocean hex which some gamers confirm that. Also please take note that we all here support your OOB series as I commented to PzC developers that OOB have great engine. However things like the faction special abilities like kamikaze have not been address yet if I am not mistaken. We all gamers agree that that is pointless when japanese is winning and on morning sun the faction abilities IIRC only limit to 1-2 hence its abit disappointing.
The maps in PzC is not big compare to some of what the OOB have to offer but still the design was good which I often point out. Overall I believe OOB is the future as the game mechanic is more solid but I do hope that you guys can make use of that advantage and get a better scenario design. The thing I love about PzC is that you can never get comfortable for long as the timely counter attack and suddently change of objective is really great even after playing many times I still can't recall all the AI moves. On OOB itself my personal opinion is unit walks a lot to find combat and I find that the AI is too predictable but I gotto say the naval AI is OOB is superb very very good which is why I enjoy it a lot. But again the teleportation of unit of suddently withdrew is disappointing in some scenarios.
For eg I can say that if a scenario is design to save a carrier let's say Yorktown in Coral when it was damage and we are the relieve force with turns limit to save it and evacuate that carrier from enemy it can be a very fun scenario given the correct design. Suprise is game is always great but if overdo it can be tedious hahaha.
Again I would like to say great game, please consider in doing grand campaign style as I would love to bring my newbie train them up and bring them to the next campaign as I will get more attached to that unit etc. Please bear in mind that some gamers like me have no issue at purchasing all your work but it will just sit there in my archieve and I think as a developer you would not wish for that too. I think it's all developer dream that gamers keep revisiting the game even after some time.
Most of these guys who commented are those that play OOB when it first launch and participate in the forum and I saw all of them commenting all the time. Sometimes just because we point out some weak point doesn't mean we are complaining just voicing out our concern and helping you guys to make the game better and get more sales.
I saw most of them commented here that OOB have great potential since the beginning, we all like the supply system, naval battles etc that's a great job no denial on that however there are some rooms of improvement like we all pointed out. Scenario design is the key to a success in these type of games as Erik can comment on the fun on scenario designing. I have also personally commented that the game developer is great but now it seems you have become more defensive which I hope you can keep an open mind.
My reserve on marine DLC was the map and scenario as I am afraid that there is just too much open space and useless ocean hex which some gamers confirm that. Also please take note that we all here support your OOB series as I commented to PzC developers that OOB have great engine. However things like the faction special abilities like kamikaze have not been address yet if I am not mistaken. We all gamers agree that that is pointless when japanese is winning and on morning sun the faction abilities IIRC only limit to 1-2 hence its abit disappointing.
The maps in PzC is not big compare to some of what the OOB have to offer but still the design was good which I often point out. Overall I believe OOB is the future as the game mechanic is more solid but I do hope that you guys can make use of that advantage and get a better scenario design. The thing I love about PzC is that you can never get comfortable for long as the timely counter attack and suddently change of objective is really great even after playing many times I still can't recall all the AI moves. On OOB itself my personal opinion is unit walks a lot to find combat and I find that the AI is too predictable but I gotto say the naval AI is OOB is superb very very good which is why I enjoy it a lot. But again the teleportation of unit of suddently withdrew is disappointing in some scenarios.
For eg I can say that if a scenario is design to save a carrier let's say Yorktown in Coral when it was damage and we are the relieve force with turns limit to save it and evacuate that carrier from enemy it can be a very fun scenario given the correct design. Suprise is game is always great but if overdo it can be tedious hahaha.
Again I would like to say great game, please consider in doing grand campaign style as I would love to bring my newbie train them up and bring them to the next campaign as I will get more attached to that unit etc. Please bear in mind that some gamers like me have no issue at purchasing all your work but it will just sit there in my archieve and I think as a developer you would not wish for that too. I think it's all developer dream that gamers keep revisiting the game even after some time.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Well, a summary of the first 4 posts in this thread is:Adherbal, I find your comment too defensive and as a game developer please keep an open mind as all gamers have different expectations and comment like you said so yourself.
"Are the USM scenarios good?"
"Yes"
"No"
"Ok, thanks I won't buy it yet"
Such a quick conclusion is a shame because I personally put a lot of time into them! I'm very sensitive to negative feedback - probably much more than I should be. The greatest difficulty in scenario design is probably striking a balance between historical accuracy and just making it "fun". Either way you go, someone is going to complain
As for specialisations, the system is going to be revamped soon. The plan is to award the player with "Specialisation Points" on completing objectives and scenarios. These points can then be used to "buy" various specialisations, layed out in a sort of tech tree. This is a much more flexible system in which nations can share some of the same specs and we can have a much larger set of simple and more powerful specs. Hopefully we'll have the time to implement this after the Winter War update.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Having modded PzC extensivley I'd say that modders have a certain advantage in that they can decide to go into pretty much any direction they want without making *any* compromises.Rosseau wrote:Well, they are cranking out the Winter War DLC pretty quick. Maybe they will put some time into better scenario design. The editors and csv file modding are outstanding in both PzC and OOB. I applaud the devs for this. But I also find better scenarios/campaigns from the modders.
Devs have the advantage that they can add stuff to the game normal modders can't (usually - some games offer really far-reaching moddability these days, but it often requires a lot of knowledge and effort then), but they often also have to balance a lot of different things: from different expectations, playing styles to vastly different hardware configs.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I like the idea of a specialization revamp. Maybe even add some trigger/event that can add a specific specialization to a single scenario on a later turn.
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Looking forward to this. I think I'll replay all the campaigns when these changes are implementedadherbal wrote: As for specialisations, the system is going to be revamped soon. The plan is to award the player with "Specialisation Points" on completing objectives and scenarios. These points can then be used to "buy" various specialisations, layed out in a sort of tech tree. This is a much more flexible system in which nations can share some of the same specs and we can have a much larger set of simple and more powerful specs. Hopefully we'll have the time to implement this after the Winter War update.
Author and maintainer of Unit Navigator Tool for Order Of Battle (http://mfendek.byethost16.com/)
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Adherbal, I don't mean to criticize your work and I know a lot of effort have been put into OOB and its a hard feeling when you put in effort and not getting appreciated as expected, in lives their is always a few instance where these will pop up and it doesn't mean we stop listening hehehe once you stop listening you will stop improving.
I do hope you understand we all like OOB and its a good game which we all would love that you guys make it into a great game which is why we even bother to take our time to comment back. It's hard to strike a balance between historical accuracy and game play which I fully agree.
The reason I am holding back on marine is because I am kinda busy these days hence I wanna make sure I get my leisure time to be a good investment as I have very little leisure time at the moment hahahaha. When I am not busy I play all games hehehe but when I am busy I need to be more selective. I haven't even started my Starcraft II LOTV which is sitting in my PC since last year hahaha. I still think OOB have great potential and I do hope you guys make the best out of it so that it can be a game that I keep replaying over and over again. I will get the game by this weekend hehehe and will comment once I play it again thx
I do hope you understand we all like OOB and its a good game which we all would love that you guys make it into a great game which is why we even bother to take our time to comment back. It's hard to strike a balance between historical accuracy and game play which I fully agree.
The reason I am holding back on marine is because I am kinda busy these days hence I wanna make sure I get my leisure time to be a good investment as I have very little leisure time at the moment hahahaha. When I am not busy I play all games hehehe but when I am busy I need to be more selective. I haven't even started my Starcraft II LOTV which is sitting in my PC since last year hahaha. I still think OOB have great potential and I do hope you guys make the best out of it so that it can be a game that I keep replaying over and over again. I will get the game by this weekend hehehe and will comment once I play it again thx
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Also take note adherbal that I personally support OOB more than PzC as I think the mechanic is far better so far however the scenario design is just not on par with PzC.
Take for example Pearl harbor scenario as it is still fresh in my mind. There is no other combinations to react to it and once you figure it out how to move you get all secondary objective and even trying other combinations does not get you the secondary objective which I find it abit boring especially when you have played a dozen times unlike GC PzC of Poland the first scenario where you can try air power, ground unit of cavalry or inf move or even arty armor combo which will get you the win as well.
I would love to see that Pearl harbor allied sode for example gets 2 option ie rush A point to get AA as core or rush B point to get fighters which you can't have both. That makes the game much replay able as it affect the core army in the long run. It's still about saving the battleship just how you do it. That's the choice that I like when it comes to tactical game long term gain vs short term gain choices. Like downing certain amount of planes means less experience enemy I like that a lot. It gives you the tactical choice you have to made for the entire campaign but I hope chasing aircraft means losing the battleship hahahaha again choices on tactical basis which will make the game a lot better in my opinion.
I really don't mind investing in your company to make a great game as I have always said because I see the big potential in it. Also like some player noted before a library of the information on hardware is great to learn about ww2, dun send the players to wiki hahahaha as you would prefer them to be in game hahahaha.
Also I do hope you guys can comes up with a grand campaign style like PzC I will buy that for sure no matter the price hahahaha as I can't get enough of OOB if the context is heavy. You still haven't covered Hong Kong, malaysia, Singapore, Burma etc. That's a lot to ask I know but I would love to sink prince of Wales my self hahahaha. I really enjoy grand campaign style better as I am bring my core from 1 champaign to the next makes me have more feel with my units. Morning sun and pacific have no link in terms of unit carry over, it's like having 2 kids and not a single kids that we nurture hahahaha. Keep up the great work. Thx for the game again
Take for example Pearl harbor scenario as it is still fresh in my mind. There is no other combinations to react to it and once you figure it out how to move you get all secondary objective and even trying other combinations does not get you the secondary objective which I find it abit boring especially when you have played a dozen times unlike GC PzC of Poland the first scenario where you can try air power, ground unit of cavalry or inf move or even arty armor combo which will get you the win as well.
I would love to see that Pearl harbor allied sode for example gets 2 option ie rush A point to get AA as core or rush B point to get fighters which you can't have both. That makes the game much replay able as it affect the core army in the long run. It's still about saving the battleship just how you do it
. That's the choice that I like when it comes to tactical game long term gain vs short term gain choices. Like downing certain amount of planes means less experience enemy I like that a lot. It gives you the tactical choice you have to made for the entire campaign but I hope chasing aircraft means losing the battleship hahahaha again choices on tactical basis which will make the game a lot better in my opinion.I really don't mind investing in your company to make a great game as I have always said because I see the big potential in it. Also like some player noted before a library of the information on hardware is great to learn about ww2, dun send the players to wiki hahahaha as you would prefer them to be in game hahahaha.
Also I do hope you guys can comes up with a grand campaign style like PzC I will buy that for sure no matter the price hahahaha as I can't get enough of OOB if the context is heavy. You still haven't covered Hong Kong, malaysia, Singapore, Burma etc
. That's a lot to ask I know but I would love to sink prince of Wales my self hahahaha. I really enjoy grand campaign style better as I am bring my core from 1 champaign to the next makes me have more feel with my units. Morning sun and pacific have no link in terms of unit carry over, it's like having 2 kids and not a single kids that we nurture hahahaha. Keep up the great work. Thx for the game again-
Stephen1024
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:34 pm
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
Firstly the guys that make this game are right, most people complain but few will congratulate.
Secondly there positives and negatives both OOB and PzC. I have both games and have all add ons to date. I will be buying both winter war and the grand US campaign.
I love both games very much, I am very happy to see them doing well, especially in a world where most companies don't really care about customer just throw money at what ever will make money. Companies involved with OOB and PzC all have a love for what they are doing, its that which drives them, so they much better for it.
There also correct modders are allowed to do as they want, doesn't matter to modder how many play or like that mod. Devs have to balance to what they believe the large base of fans would want to see in the game.
Personally, I like supply system of OOB, I just wish I had transport plane drop supplies to units especially para's, or count para's out supply for bit longer. This will also be needed for other special forces. Merrill's marauders are example of this.
Naval combat of OOB is amazing, look forward to naval war in other theaters.
Air combat is great.
Experienced vs green I would like to see experience give more benefits to units, I also would like to see medals that give bonuses to units.
I think the game would benefit from more diffculty adjustments. Some days I am looking for a challenge and will push myself hard, other days want to adjust so I can enjoy the game more and push myself less. Like PzC I go with adjustable prestige, and adjustable number turns etc.
Building DLC's I suggest trying a path of mix and match, by this I mean build a grand campaign, build little campaigns too, mix the challenge levels and some should see lots possible upgrades others should be more challenge less prestige less equipment. Burma path in pacific was side show as such would be a very challenging campaign as it lacked a lot of equipment, and men. There is a fun aspect to some fantasy too, what if Japanese reached America etc. Also be nice I not seen in OOB or PzC special forces campaign, would be interesting to try learn the best tactics to employ special forces, examples of mission SAS in Africa and Europe, long range desert group, Merrill's marauders.
I really like the idea specialisations but think it needs changing which I am aware that your planning changes and I look forward to seeing new changes.
I like having commanders that give strengths to different aspects of the mechanics.
I like that the units support each other, anti-tank should support infantry during attacks, so should arty support and anti-air. I think a nice idea would be to add medic and mechanic units that will repair or heal unit with out a loss of experience, then people can choose to do more with less units or pay prestige to heal.
I think it was a great idea to have the ability build things like airfields, harbor and or defensive works.
I will remind people PzC is 5 years old and OOB is very new so it is unfair to overly criticise OOB compared to PzC when PzC had a lot longer to remove bugs and work on that produce.
At this point, I would like to say thank you to the Devs and everyone I have totally enjoyed OOB, and what ever you do choose to do I am sure I will always find aspects I love and hate haha, but I know I always have great fun playing. I appreciate all the time and effort you put in.
Secondly there positives and negatives both OOB and PzC. I have both games and have all add ons to date. I will be buying both winter war and the grand US campaign.
I love both games very much, I am very happy to see them doing well, especially in a world where most companies don't really care about customer just throw money at what ever will make money. Companies involved with OOB and PzC all have a love for what they are doing, its that which drives them, so they much better for it.
There also correct modders are allowed to do as they want, doesn't matter to modder how many play or like that mod. Devs have to balance to what they believe the large base of fans would want to see in the game.
Personally, I like supply system of OOB, I just wish I had transport plane drop supplies to units especially para's, or count para's out supply for bit longer. This will also be needed for other special forces. Merrill's marauders are example of this.
Naval combat of OOB is amazing, look forward to naval war in other theaters.
Air combat is great.
Experienced vs green I would like to see experience give more benefits to units, I also would like to see medals that give bonuses to units.
I think the game would benefit from more diffculty adjustments. Some days I am looking for a challenge and will push myself hard, other days want to adjust so I can enjoy the game more and push myself less. Like PzC I go with adjustable prestige, and adjustable number turns etc.
Building DLC's I suggest trying a path of mix and match, by this I mean build a grand campaign, build little campaigns too, mix the challenge levels and some should see lots possible upgrades others should be more challenge less prestige less equipment. Burma path in pacific was side show as such would be a very challenging campaign as it lacked a lot of equipment, and men. There is a fun aspect to some fantasy too, what if Japanese reached America etc. Also be nice I not seen in OOB or PzC special forces campaign, would be interesting to try learn the best tactics to employ special forces, examples of mission SAS in Africa and Europe, long range desert group, Merrill's marauders.
I really like the idea specialisations but think it needs changing which I am aware that your planning changes and I look forward to seeing new changes.
I like having commanders that give strengths to different aspects of the mechanics.
I like that the units support each other, anti-tank should support infantry during attacks, so should arty support and anti-air. I think a nice idea would be to add medic and mechanic units that will repair or heal unit with out a loss of experience, then people can choose to do more with less units or pay prestige to heal.
I think it was a great idea to have the ability build things like airfields, harbor and or defensive works.
I will remind people PzC is 5 years old and OOB is very new so it is unfair to overly criticise OOB compared to PzC when PzC had a lot longer to remove bugs and work on that produce.
At this point, I would like to say thank you to the Devs and everyone I have totally enjoyed OOB, and what ever you do choose to do I am sure I will always find aspects I love and hate haha, but I know I always have great fun playing. I appreciate all the time and effort you put in.
-
grenadier98
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:37 am
Re: How's the scenario design for OOB Marine?
I came back to OOb with the Marines Campaign. I like it so far.
Don't get me wrong I like PzC too, it's a good game, but it feels a littel like chess. OOB on the other hand is tactical more challenging and gives you more opportunities to outmaneuver the enemy. This is because of much better game mechanics than PzC and especially the supply system.
But still there are some things in OOB which are not to my liking. The effect of experience is to small and its way to expensive to use elite replacements. Also it's annoying that you cannot take controll of certain "blue auxillary units". After all you're the commander of the area, so why can't I controll all units?
All in all I like the scenarios, but what I don't like is that there are important scenarios missing. This was especially true in the original campaigns with big steps in the timeline between the scenarios where additional important ones would have fitted in perfectly and it seems this is also true for USMC especially if it really lacks Okinawa. After all the price is a little heavy for just one campaign.
Sp for me it just needs longer campaigns with more scenarios and an adjustment to the experience/elite replacement system and the it's by far the best hex-turn-based-ww2 tactical/operational game so far.
Don't get me wrong I like PzC too, it's a good game, but it feels a littel like chess. OOB on the other hand is tactical more challenging and gives you more opportunities to outmaneuver the enemy. This is because of much better game mechanics than PzC and especially the supply system.
But still there are some things in OOB which are not to my liking. The effect of experience is to small and its way to expensive to use elite replacements. Also it's annoying that you cannot take controll of certain "blue auxillary units". After all you're the commander of the area, so why can't I controll all units?
All in all I like the scenarios, but what I don't like is that there are important scenarios missing. This was especially true in the original campaigns with big steps in the timeline between the scenarios where additional important ones would have fitted in perfectly and it seems this is also true for USMC especially if it really lacks Okinawa. After all the price is a little heavy for just one campaign.
Sp for me it just needs longer campaigns with more scenarios and an adjustment to the experience/elite replacement system and the it's by far the best hex-turn-based-ww2 tactical/operational game so far.