This is my opinion on Steel Division; why the game is not as fun as it could potentially be, especially for a mass market.
I believe that Paradox have tried to be too clever by half with the game. They have tried to simulate encounter battles, with phases and units that indicate their idea of a strategy - recon, push, hold. This broad tactic never really changes, so it's a pity that, in my opinion, it doesn't work.
The game is simply too short, and the scoring system too quick, to allow a recon phase. There is not phase of building a defense and scouting units, as you might attempt to do; no sooner have you bum-rushed the middle of the map then a Stug from across the map kills every Honey you might have deployed. You can't probe for weak points, or shore up a defense, because - and here is the crux - the game is, accidentally or not, a game of attrition. You simply hope to kill their units and keep your own, always reinforcing, never really planning and attacking.
The heart of this is the scoring system. I support the idea of percentage points, and like how it escalates, but the change in territory of 1% triggering a flow of points? I think it's too fast, and too balanced, to let one team get the advantage. Perhaps a change of 5% starting the points, or 10% - something that will ad strategy to the initial phase beyond rushing headlong at the centre line. You can't take up positions, because even marginally behind the front line will mean you loose points. It's just not helpful for letting the less confident players, and new ones, learn the game. It becomes, essentially, a race of who has the fastest units - even if you are both equal, in a multiplayer battle, the one who dashed out at the start will win.
This means, as well, there can never be a proper scouting phase. The score change means one player will always be clawing towards the 50% mark, and attacking mercilessly from the start. They're not going to waste their time scouting, when they can attack, trying to reclaim the points difference before it's too late. And the other player will always be reinforcing, adding units to sit on their laurels on the 1% benchmark.
I'm not expecting a HOI4 system of battleplans. I'm not expecting a Total War style "everyone is visible" game. But I am suggesting a change in the pace of the game, so players can formulate plans and drive through. This is what people want, I believe - armored thrusts, proper blitzkrieg style. I don't want a messy brawl, confusing and artillery dominated. I know, of course, that the Hedgerows are not a place for armoured thrusts. But I do want to formulate a plan and see it through, a better plan than sending infantry into a town until it is stopped by a hidden machine gun. I want to be able to scout the machine gun, and counter it.
I know, I'm not the best. I'm not even the least worst. Maybe I'm just not good enough, don't have fast enough reactions, to be good at this game. I know it requires respect, and I have tried to give it that. If you like it, fine. Please, say so and why, so I may appreciate this game. But I think, in trying to create a historical experience, Eugene and Paradox have missed something what makes the game enjoyable.
I believe that Paradox have tried to be too clever by half with the game. They have tried to simulate encounter battles, with phases and units that indicate their idea of a strategy - recon, push, hold. This broad tactic never really changes, so it's a pity that, in my opinion, it doesn't work.
The game is simply too short, and the scoring system too quick, to allow a recon phase. There is not phase of building a defense and scouting units, as you might attempt to do; no sooner have you bum-rushed the middle of the map then a Stug from across the map kills every Honey you might have deployed. You can't probe for weak points, or shore up a defense, because - and here is the crux - the game is, accidentally or not, a game of attrition. You simply hope to kill their units and keep your own, always reinforcing, never really planning and attacking.
The heart of this is the scoring system. I support the idea of percentage points, and like how it escalates, but the change in territory of 1% triggering a flow of points? I think it's too fast, and too balanced, to let one team get the advantage. Perhaps a change of 5% starting the points, or 10% - something that will ad strategy to the initial phase beyond rushing headlong at the centre line. You can't take up positions, because even marginally behind the front line will mean you loose points. It's just not helpful for letting the less confident players, and new ones, learn the game. It becomes, essentially, a race of who has the fastest units - even if you are both equal, in a multiplayer battle, the one who dashed out at the start will win.
This means, as well, there can never be a proper scouting phase. The score change means one player will always be clawing towards the 50% mark, and attacking mercilessly from the start. They're not going to waste their time scouting, when they can attack, trying to reclaim the points difference before it's too late. And the other player will always be reinforcing, adding units to sit on their laurels on the 1% benchmark.
I'm not expecting a HOI4 system of battleplans. I'm not expecting a Total War style "everyone is visible" game. But I am suggesting a change in the pace of the game, so players can formulate plans and drive through. This is what people want, I believe - armored thrusts, proper blitzkrieg style. I don't want a messy brawl, confusing and artillery dominated. I know, of course, that the Hedgerows are not a place for armoured thrusts. But I do want to formulate a plan and see it through, a better plan than sending infantry into a town until it is stopped by a hidden machine gun. I want to be able to scout the machine gun, and counter it.
I know, I'm not the best. I'm not even the least worst. Maybe I'm just not good enough, don't have fast enough reactions, to be good at this game. I know it requires respect, and I have tried to give it that. If you like it, fine. Please, say so and why, so I may appreciate this game. But I think, in trying to create a historical experience, Eugene and Paradox have missed something what makes the game enjoyable.
