Did you read part I?
In the future I think I will wait until I am ready to write a complete review, but that is too late for Unity of Command. It was my first review and I wanted to get something down. I do have some more thoughts about the game.
I wish moving the mouse to the edge of the map scrolled it. It is mildly annoying having to use the arrow keys to scroll the map when I have been conditioned in other games to move the mouse to the edge of the screen.
The variety of units seems a little small and there isn't much differentiation between them. For example, a Germain Mountaineer gets one extra movement over German Infantry. The movement bonus isn't only in mountainous or difficult terrain. Also, they don't get any type of attack or defensive bonus when fighting in the mountains. I do enjoy being able to attach specialists to units to customize their usage. Again, I wish there was a little more variety as it is an enjoyable part of the game.
I do like a challenge and each scenario has made me take my time and think about each and every move. This is good, but I’m not a big fan having to replay scenarios to unlock parts of the game because when I do win it feels a little cheap. It is like a do over and makes the game seem more puzzle-like.
Since I expect the end game to get really tough, I feel like I need to hoard my prestige until the end, and need to try and win without using it. Then and only then do I start to use the prestige. This feels like playing a game instead of pretending I am on an actual military campaign, and it takes something away from the experience. It isn’t the challenge or difficulty that turns me off, just how the difficulty is ‘enforced’. I have been pretty fortunate in that it has only taken 1-3 tries for the most part to get a decisive victory. I would be getting frustrated and bored if I had to replay a scenario 10 times so wasn’t locked out of the next one.
I think I would prefer an approach that allows the player to make his best attempt at a scenario, live with the results and move on without being locked out of parts of the game. Perhaps you are given a scenario score based on how fast you achieve the objectives and how many casualties you suffer. Maybe the prestige limit is more generous, but when you use prestige it lowers your score. That way you analyze the scenario and play like it is for real. Use what you think is necessary, not afraid to use any prestige, but only try and use what you need. It is also a built in difficulty setting. People who don’t do so well can use a lot of prestige to win the scenario, but get a poor score. Perhaps when you get to the end of the campaign, you get a war summary. If you used too much prestige and / or had too many casualties you are informed that you put too much strain on the war machine and while you won the battles, your personal successes caused your side to lose the war.
The tight time constraints put me on edge while playing and is really much of the basis for the difficulty of the game. It feels a little contrived. I appreciate the desire to create a challenging game, but I think there has to be a more enjoyable way then time constraints.
So far I'm finding the Soviet campaign a little bit easier, but still challenging. It could be that after playing so many scenarios I see things a little more clearly.
Overall this is an enjoyable game, providing a good challenge without being impossible. Brilliant victories are very hard to achieve, but decisive victories are within reason. With careful planning I have been able to get decisive or brilliant victories within 1-3 tries, with some scenarios needing a little more effort. The UI is very good at making the necessary information available, but can be improved in a couple areas I mentioned above. Having different assets available in the scenarios provides a bit of variety. After taking some time to plan your initial strategy the turns play out fairly quickly. Unity of Command is a must buy if you enjoy a good turn-based strategy game.