My job in the marine corps was a 0511 MAGTF Planner. I spent years working in plans and operations offices. Center of Gravity analysis was always a critical part of “strategy”. It’s essentially breaking down what is your critical advantage over the enemy based on the mission, and how do you best protect that advantage. I’d argue that UO’s feature of creating cohesive squads replicates that philosophy very well.
I could not have put it better myself. Certainly it's a different kind of strategy, but it is undeniable that it is in the first place. You can absolutely screw yourself over if you just slap together whatever and play however and pay zero attention because you're just so distracted by all the LOVINGLY drawn jiggly bits.
@@thant0s I agree, and it definitely takes "strategy" to build the squads. My only issue with UO is that it takes the strategic mind of a 3-year-old to build effective teams and walk through the game with minimal resistance, even on higher difficulties.
People mistake tactics with strategy. Strategy is litterally the planning while tactics is the "moving around the map", or simply put : tactics are the actions you take to make the strategy happen. Strategists are people that shape a plan from a meeting room whereas tacticians are on the field moving troops. Those people use the word "strategy game" to describe tactical rpgs. Now I'd still argue Unicorn Overlord is pretty tactital on top of being a great strategy game but the "moving on the map" argument would at least make some kind of sense if they were talking about UO lacking tactical depth, not strategic depth.
Agreed. You strategize your troops formation, how they fight, and how they combo off eachother. Then you tactically position and move your troops around to fight what they would be best to fight against to win the mission.
@@reinach77 It really is pointless like trying to differentiate between power and strength , people that min/max things do this and in some cases yes you can split them but these are very niche environments where you'd do this, to where like you said "pointless debate"
Strategy is the way of approach to problem solving Tactics are actions Example: Task: Going from place A to B Strategy: Fast Tactics: Running Thats all. Strategy is simplification of the mindset.
Saying “Unicorn Overload is not a strategy game” is so unhinged that it might was well be a shitpost. It’s like saying it’s the “Best baseball game of 2024” with a straight face. I wouldn’t pay those comments any mind.
"all of the best laid, masterfully thought out plans are immediately thrown out the window, when the first bullet is fired." - Quote from my military commander. UO is a war strategy simulator, more so than a turn based or real time strategy game. It has multiple elements that are not seen in traditional strategy games those casuals are used to playing. Strategy comes in many flavors, from chess and Tetris, to TCG and tabletop games, to sports and games and even your daily life. It is all about planning and UO has that.
While saying it’s not a strategy game is a pretty low IQ take, I think they could have done some things better in map/enemy AI design. Could have used some more fog of war maps like the ONE blizzard stage, more variable objectives and lose conditions, more aggressive enemies, there was definitely some lost potential. But calling it not a strategy game because of the map design is like calling StarCraft or red alert not a strategy game.
I do agree, though the desert had the intermittent fog of war which honestly sucked so bad. From a broader design perspective it seems to me like their philosophy was giving a handful of standard small liberation quests, a couple standard main quests with harder enemies, and 1 or 2 main quests with a particular 'gimmick', like the defense chapter in Drakenhold , Blizzard, The Elheim fire map, and the pseudo-defense map in Albion where your command post is completely surrounded (not that it's particularly hard. Albion in general just seems fairly undercooked) I do see how that wouldn't be enough, arguably, but I think it does generally work. Fundamentally I think the greater issue was the complete lack of variable AI, which makes for very samey units. At the same time, it's already like a 40 hour game, and taking several minutes to adjust your own tactics for each individual encounter --including the amount of time to understand how the enemy unit works-- would absolutely spiral into a tedious slog. I do think the game would benefit from just being cut down significantly so that each mission/unit can feel more unique.
@@peculiaroreo Yeah perhaps you're right, I didn't mind doing the liberation missions though as it was nice to have something to do when I didn't have the time to commit to a whole mission. And Albion was definitely a bit rough, I think they perhaps thought the difficulty spike of the featherbows blind was going to be more impactful but by then my units were so strong I could either just brute force my way through those units, or equip one guy with blind immunity and not worry about it. As far as units go, I felt that most were actually very unique and I had a lot of fun min-maxing with different things and trying to use different story characters instead of hiring a bunch of the same ones. Up until the feather units, which all just felt a bit underwhelming to me. Even early game Ochlys just felt like a single-target griffon rider to me.
@@EbiLMunkeY Oh, I don't mean player units, I'm referring to enemy units. The player unit design is incredibly fun and I love it dearly, it's just absolutely not matched by most enemy design
They also had a sandstorm stage but developers of strategy rpgs don't attempt to use weather obstacles in games because they haven't been able to figure out a way to apply them fairly against the player most of the time. It's why, I read recently, a bigger game series like Fire Emblem only used them briefly up to Fire Emblem 7 and then cut them for the most part. To implement them well in Unicorn Overlord they would have to give Wereowls frequent access to their farsighted skill. This would have led to multiple sizable circle gaps popping up and disappearing on the maps where you and your opponent could kind of see a set distance ahead of you and if said maps had forts you had to attack continually churning out troops, well, the purpose of the map would be pointless as you could just guesstimate your way to the nearest fort by paying attention to the circumference of troops' vision compared to your own while they were coming towards you, instead of using the farsighted crystals or skill provided to actually help locate places.
@ I mean the blizzard map was “trivial” because on anything less than TZ difficulty you could just spam farsight orbs, but it added a sense of tension because you weren’t sure if you missed something. And there are tools like watch towers and such that could be positioned along the way. Some of my favorite moments were the times when enemy units would just suddenly appear out of the trees and ambush me and forcing me to make some quick thinking decisions. On the topic of fire emblem, to this day my most memorable map is the one from FE fates conquest where the wind blows you around and even sends your units to other platforms if you’re not careful. It wasn’t the hardest map in the game, but it made you rethink how you position your units and approach strategy in general.
Strategy is decided in the planning phase. Tactics is the impromptu manueverings of troops in furtherance of or to get back to the overall goal. I agree with you 100%
In this game you can't even control characters directly in battle, instead it's all about how you prepare units for combat, the game is basically nothing but about strategy and only a really special type of contrarian would think that is in dispute.
The internet is a strange, sometimes dark but wonderful place. This falls into the strange category. You don't know if this is a genuine thought (or lack thereof) or somebody trolling. Unicorn Overlord is very much a strategy game.
The only reason I feel it's real, is it's an argument I've seen multiple people make since the game's release. So even if one or two aren't serious, I'm sure many are. 🥲
I am not a strategy game fanboy as I do not have much experience with these games, but I have to say that UO was the reason why I got interested by this genre. Compared to other strategy games I am playing (Triangle Strategy, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission) I understand that it is a different king of strategy, the mentioned games are mostly related at creating the right mix of troups and answer to enemy actions, UO is more releted to the prediction of the results of mixing troups and how these answer to enemy. Understanding how your troups will reply to the conditions of the mission and to the enemy is vital since you cannot directly command your troups during each encounter.
I loved this game. 100%’d it with all achievements at the highest difficultly, even before you got through your online play-through. Fantastic game. You shared some builds that were super fun that I hadn’t considered either!! Having said that, I do think it’s odd that you can change the “strategy” RNG by simply moving a character from one square to the next. Ends up becoming a trial/error spiral if you mess up your initial plan. Still an SRPG, but definitely on the easier side.
I agree that whoever says that Unicorn Overlord isn't a strategy game is wrong but wtf do you mean with you can't get flanked and map movement is not a thing in FE and FFT?, in FE your forces can absolutely get flanked (depending on map and game of course but Unicorn Overlord also has straight line maps wo much going on) and FFT has an individual unit flanking mechanic; as far as map movement goes you are completely ignoring terrain effects in FE and elevation in FFT. Also, let's be honest, a massive part of the strategy in UO happens on the units menu rather than on the map; that being said, I assume that when people say it is not a "strategy" game they wither refer to not having a lot of tactical decisions like FE and FFT or not a lot of strategic decisions like grand strategy games.
Y’know Tom, if there’s only one thing about you that I find more relatable than our shared lives of SRPGs/TRPGs? It’s that both of us seem to struggle with nonsensical arguments… I can hear it in your voice, my man.
Too bad they don't really have newgame+ or postgame content. Bcs the marquesses unit is nuts, but don't really have any chance to shine, like elgor equiped with dancer anklet, or that fire guy who have invinite moves 😂😂
I also like when children say that the game has no gameplay since the units act on their own in battle. Really outing themselves as freshly spawned with that take, lol.
Strategy is a vague term, I have criticized UO for being a low skill SRPG that is lacking in the strategy department if strategy = the player making meaningful tactical decisions, which is what we mean when we analyze a tactics game. The game boils down to making broken preset units that auto win every encounter even when you ban a lot of classes/mechanics. The major decisions you make once you have your broken autowin squads are move unit to boss and win. There are rarely interesting interactions with the enemy squads or interactions with the enemy squads maneuvering. As someone who covered this game in a ton of detail I believe it has a low skill ceiling with a lot of easy methods of abusing the combat system to achieve huge results with little to no tactical skill or execution. I am open to debating this topic with you also.
I think more than anything else the campaign is very forgiving. Both in the mechanics being able to see battle predictions in advance, change equipment/tactics/position all mid encounter, and in the generous amount of resources provided to you from experience to equipment and units. All of these allow you to easily compensate for tactical errors or mistakes quite easily and you don't end up getting penalized for those decisions. Even if squads were to get completely wiped you can reload your mid game save, retry the map instantly, or simply bring them back to life with no downside. That being said I don't agree with low skill ceiling being the correct term here. Broken strategies exist in the majority of Fire Emblem titles yet many of those are still considered difficult and high skill. I think a lot of this is more due to the unforgiving nature of the games and lack of abundant resources rather than the complexity of tactics or strategy. I do not believe Dark Souls to be low skill ceiling because magic exists nor do I think UO is a low skill ceiling because Elemental Roar/Sniper amber lens/high movement units exist. There are still many other ways of playing the game (most of them intended) that require more interaction on a tactical and strategic level. I think if anything, low skill floor is more accurate. And while I can understand why someone would not regard online PvP or running difficult campaign routes in their assessment of the game those are certainly both aspects of UO with very high skill ceilings.
As someone who genuinely enjoys UO, I agree. The OP here is conflating options with strategy - UO has a *ton of options*, but isn't tightly balanced enough to require exacting use of most of them. I made judicious use early after identifying squad formations that could roll over most everything. I definitely wouldn't agree with an assessment that UO isn't a strategy game, but the point it isn't a demanding strategy game I would concur. Still, very enjoyable experience. I give Vanillaware a lot of leeway because they're not a huge studio. They do something different each game, too, and I respect that despite the warts.
I feel that unicorn overlord is somewhat similar to the mechanics of Anno 1800. Wherein in Anno 1800, you mostly deal with the logistics of your trading routes and how to make them efficient in order to prevent delays and therefore make sure your settlements will not experience any interruptions. In unicorn overlord is the same but in building your unit and make sure you are able to sync all the different characters into this monstrous/specialized unit. I love that part though I cannot master it since theres just so many things to consider. But the act of planning the unit composition is strategy.
Funny enough Xenoblade gets the same dumb kind of comments (maybe from the same dumb group of people) that it's not even an RPG. People love to diminish a game's mechanics either because they didn't engage with them, they played on easy mode, or they just don't understand them. Then they go and say the game doesn't have any depth.
I love XB2 but if I'm being honeat I hated it until I watched Enel and while XB3 was a little better with teaching it still kinda threw too much at you.
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen - generally considered one of the best strategy RPGs on consoles. Spiritual successor Unicorn Overlord - maybe not strategy? I need more coffee.
For me this game is so strategic that it can feel somewhat challenging to optimize squads. I loved trying to figure out which units paired best together, but trying to determine the best squad formations was definitely tricky! When I eventually play this game on hard mode I am curious as to how I fair because I had difficulties at the end of the game on normal mode and I can only imagine how much harder the game is on higher difficulty settings!
I see a lot of people dogging on the dificulty of the game, im primary a turn based rpg player and fighting game player, i NEVER played a strategy game, normal mode was fairly challenging mainly because i had no idea of what i was doing, but i had a BLAST playing it, i beat the true final boss with a squad with my favorites lmao Point is, the game being so welcoming to beginners made me a fan of the genre
I think the problem is (I I kinda think you also fell into that) is thinking on a strategy game as turn base games, real time strategy games are also a thing and I believe Unicorn Overlord has more in common with them than with turn base strategy games at least in the battle map, the way units move is much more similar to a RTS than a turn base is just that the fight screen kinda mess the perception
Something really funny I notice is that if I didn’t know anything about UO and just watch the last minutes of this video I could have easily thing you are playing a RTS with K&M for how you move the units trying to storm the city 😅
I wish they would add the ability to save party compositions, because as the game is now, it greatly discourages experimenting and trying new things, as you would need to remember what your setup was, or write it down on a piece of paper if you want to change anything. That, and only being able to make 10 units, are Unicorn Overlord's most glaring flaws. Let us field 10 units but there is no need to restrict how many we can make. I also would have liked to have seen more interaction from the villains. That we do not fight Berengaria at least once in Cornia before she joins us, is honestly a travesty in storytelling. There should have been a few Zenoiran counter attack battles. They could have both reused maps with us on the defensive instead of offense, and fleshed out the story in the part where it is most lacking. Would've been a comparatively easy and obvious thing to implement, and makes me all the sadder they're not doing anything post launch with UO.
Haven’t played a strategy game in many years but I picked up this demo and cannot put it down. Feels like there a lot of strategy and really enjoy all the options and mobility. Definitely going to pick up the full game.
Not the best comparison with FEE, X-COM2 or FFT but I get it, those were game you were familiar with, but are of a different sub-genre. Unicorn Overlord is more like Battle for Middle-Earth I`d say.
I love creating different strategies and tactics in this game so much I disband all my units and redeploy new units based on the enemies on the map. Its possible to make mega-units and speed run (or speed fly) the game. But that takes the strategy out of it. So it depends in the player. I love real-time strategy over turn-based strategy so its my game of the year.
My only complain about Unicorn overlord is that i feel like it was a little too easy to steamroll the game. I played at the hardest starter dificult and at some point i just stop caring to optimize much of my strategies and builds because unleast i'm facing a hardcounter, anything was able to one turn any basic unit with minimum to no damage taken. Don't know if the true zenorian(?) difficult is worth playing, but i would love to see a Unicorn Overlord 2 with a step up on difficult.
Gotta love those kinds of arguments. "It's not a beige toyota Corolla, like I had, so clearly it's not a car " Usually these takes are kids discovering stuff and having no context, but plenty of ego.
People in the middle ages all around the world used entire dioramas of a battle field or country with handcrafted figurines to plan battles, figure out how to move equipment or educate future troops. Such maps are still in use today albeit digitally. To call Unicorn Overlord anything but a strategy RPG when it uses the exact same methods to represent troops in the game is absolutely wrong in my eyes. You might as well not call Fire Emblem one either because a game like that has moved into the realm of 3D and in hub worlds within the games you're now literally walking around through your army encampment or occupied city and interacting with NPCs. Whatever goes through these people's heads...
making the argument that this game isn't a strategy game is simply reductive and not useful when there are valid arguments that both exist and more accurately describe the game's inability to provide certain types of strategic challenges. saying the map movement isn't strategic is basic and untrue. saying the map design, objectives, time limits, and NPC behavior don't converge in a way that forces you to apply a proportionately relevant amount of strategy to your movement when compared to squad building and the actual squad v squad combat (especially at lower difficulty levels, which i assume lots of people played on based on not playing this style of game previously) is a much more valid point and has a level of nuance worthy of discussion and debate
I mean, I don't agree with them but I can sort of see where they're coming from if maybe they're used to something like Crusader Kings or Europa. Using the definition of tactics vs strategy presented I can understand it being underwhelming on the strategy front compared to those two. But considering UO on the micro level vs. the macro that those games go for, yeah. It's absolutely a strategy game. "My goal is to get to this capital on this continent and I need to overtake X Y and Z cities, bases and strongholds to get there." Just because it's not drawn out into some 500 hour epic doesn't mean strategy isn't involved.
To be fair, the macro level has very little strategy. Conquering certain continents and getting certain heroes earlier or later makes very little difference since this game is fairly easy. Even Sengoku Rance, which is fairly railroady since it's a visual novel, has more strategic depth than Unicorn Overlord.
Pretty sure people who said that Unicorn Overlord isn't a strategy game are people who played the game in Story mode, thinking they are playing in Normal mode because they don't know that Story mode as renamed Normal mode when the game was released, lol.
I can get why some may find the strategy aspects of UA to be a bit lacking: there are some incredibly busted squad combinations that steamroll every fight, map layout can feel like a bunch of corridors at times, and items feel like something you just throw at problems to undo your mistakes. It can make the game feel kind of easy. Except so many other strategy games have these same issues, and that doesn't discredit them from the genre. Some of the takes you highlighted in this video were absolutely brain-dead.
This is a pure strategy game. I don't think the purpose of the map is to be just there to be presented to the player. For me, I describe this like it's a semi Tower Defense game. I have to spread out who will attack north or south. Which unit will engage first and who will finish up. People just wanted to make things needlessly complicated.
I think there has been a mixup of genres since Unicorn Overlord does not fit into both "Strategy" and "Tactics" on the examples you mentioned. Casual players will think of "Strategy" games such as Civ, Stellaris(X4), Age of Empires and Starcraft(RTS) as these type of genre, while "Tactics" games will be thought of games such as Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, XCOM which mostly consist of grid type combat, and what do you know, Unicorn Overlord do not fit in any of these genre. I think it would be helpful for both you and the viewers if you would define what a strategy game in the context of the list, and as you mentioned strategy as a methodology doesn't need to be specifically be used only on specific types of games.
While I do see what you're saying, at the same time, what else could it be than a Strategy and Tactics defined game? Imagine if there was a category for best Strategy game on some awards show (maybe they have, haven't been paying attention), mentioning only strategy since "tactics game" is not really a mainstream term, but for the sake of the argument, if there was no strategy category and only a tactics game category I would still argue my following point : should it not be on that list simply because it does not rigidly adhere to those guidelines you outlined even though it is very obviously a strategy/tactics game?
@@Shamax0 That is why I suggested that he defines what is a strategy game in context of his video or list. That way comments like there is no strategy would immediately be invalidated. The reason tactics game is there is because of his example. On what I can infer in this video he deems tactics game a strategy but I do not. Hence It is very important what he defines what is a strategy and why the games is on that list. Should it not be on that list? Who cares? It is up to the creators decision if it goes to the list or not.
It does fit both strategy and tactics. Strategy is planing before the battle so building your squad and equip them with weapons/items/abillities. Tactics is moving them on the field and deploying/use items/use abillities to clear the map. To think games only can fit one gengre is just wrong and most of the examples you mentioned is including both.
@@Shamax0 because there is strategy in EVERYTHING, using strategy this way you could call baldurs gate a strategy game where it mainly is a roleplaying rpg. Your strategy would be to plan your party and their equipment. YOu could call tetris a strategy game in how you apply row clearing and so on.....there need to be a clear cut definition of what you consider what to have this kind of dicussion. Personally I consider tactics and strategy games interchanged to the point that I consider srpg/trpg the same genre ( strategy vs tactics ) but not all view it as such. To switch perspective personally I consider bullet heaven ( basicly what some call vampire survivors and similar games) a dumb genre definition and prefer the MUCH older bullet hell as bullet hell actually don't define if it is your or the enemy bullets that is involved....only that there is alot of bullets. Bullet hell involve all those space and top down plane/space ship games where you move left/right/up/down and dodge enemies while normally shooting at them. Those that claim games like vampire survivors are bullet heavens have a single argument for it and that it is your bullets being a hell for the enemy...that is it wanderbots who came up with it had REALLY thin ice he stood on in the stream he argued for this ( I was there and a decent number of us was not impressed) ignoring smupps and all those space/plane games that goes all the way back to arcade supernintendo/sega days. Hence why if you want to have this kind of discussion make sure you DEFINE your terms first.
personaly, i too think calling the game strategy less is objetibly wrong and so far i only played til the dark knight mission on the desert side of the map, but i get why someone could delude themselfs into beliving theres no strategy, im playing on hard, and theres hardly a need to strategize, its more of rocks paper scissor situation, and some map just drag on for waaaay too long. so either i advance slowly whit my presets, take 30 or mins on preparation to makes specific counter matches, or (the route i dont want to do) grind xp until everyone is at the same lv as the enemy and just steam roll throught the levels. if they played on normal, i dont see much value on strategy, if they played on hard, theres hardly any player agency after you get the right key for the right hole in the fighting match ups, you just.. conecct dots, there may be more to what i can actually do, but 90% of the time is either not necesary or a point less struggle because using an item to make up for any deficiency is better than planning out anything. i think they are just angry and venting frustrations, the game aint bad, and has strategy, its just that, after doing the kill the betrayer general mission, our actions feel waaaay more pointless than before. also the continous new units kinda become a detriment, why give me like 1 new unit each map, when their class acomplishes nothing particualy new or necesary at the time, sure some are unique but they make the desert area feel bloated whit units that dont do anything particulary new or better. why would i need the esgrima guys, when i already have better more reliable options that fit into a bigger range of jobs that i need to be done. also, on the same line, why some clases share stats ? feels weird when the hammer soldiers and the claymore soldiers have the same base stats, whit the claymore advantage beign only their "call reinforcements" ability. honestly i want someone to clarify that one xd
Stats and classes unique roles and effects start growing more obvious as the levels grow, promote and gain all their class skills. By later game you will actually be looking at what each class does and how it combines with others to make the unit as a whole peak at their role. This is because late game enemy stats and unit builds are never optimal for winning a fight but get really good at delaying / weakening your units to the point they won't win against the boss. So you need to get creative in figuring out how to clear the mobs while maintaining strength and resources to beat the boss, I.E Alpha strike unit, zombie unit, flyer rush, cav blitz, ect.
I think the game has a level of openess and a good sandbox of tools to take on any obstacle. If the critics of this game are playing each map a linear way that isn't satisfying for them maybe they should try a higher difficulty. There is abdolutely plenty of strategy if they are willing to interact with it on a harder difficulty where you can't brute force your way through as much stuff.
Agreed. I played on Normal, I think. And many strategies were viable, but there many team comps that were not viable. And both in terms of unit vs enemy and map. I thought: oh mage + armor knight = super good unit. I was not wrong... but they were so SLOW! As with Fire Emblem, the all cavalier unit was very OP in the late game (but you can only have that many cav units, so part of the strategy is how you manage all other units, and even worse if you try to play with all unique characters/unique characters only)
@@icarue993 when I started out I had cavalry mixed with griffin knights and thought that would be good. Turned out to be awful because I would end up being weak to both archers and flying units. There is definitely a lot of strategy with just team composition. I found swordmasters and griffin knights with an archer in the back were better. And if i was going to use cavalry it would be a pure cavalry unit so only that unit would be weak to flyers and it would just carve a path through infantry for the rest of my ground units
DragonLance SSI game. War of the Lance. One of the first fantasy strategy games i knew of. I think about lot of young folk wouldn't count it based on this video
And, like, if Unicorn Overlord isn’t a strategy game, what the hell kind of game is it? Genuinely, call me a filthy casual, but I have no clue how else to categorize it
🙌🏿Unicorn overlord. Brought such a uniqueness and Delivery to its game. That is that it feels like the common player couldn't comprehend what they were playing. The last time I played a game with such uniqueness. It was on a PSP😅 ( Growlanser: Wayfarer of Time🖖🏿)
Best TRPG of the decade. Not only that but RPG, tactical and strategic mechanics are all equally heavy and deep. The maps might not have topographic complexity but they have all sorts of terrain, permanent and temporary structure and enemy placement aspects that affect both strategy and tactics.
i will eventually play it but i have to admit that having no classical control over the characters actions in battle was a huge turn off. Now playing ff tactics modded 2.5; i enjoy so much mixing skills and choosing in battle what i'm gonna do and how to react to each moment. UO is a different approach, interresting, and i will pick it up sometime, but i hope the community can stay capable of discussing contructively on these topics
I'd love the people who say there's no strategy in this game to go into one of the later maps and try and beat it without getting their units killed. Hell if you go into some of the earlier maps you're dead within the first 5 minutes. It makes no sense at all
I wouldn't go as far as claim such a thing but I do get the idea, assuming it's referring to how Unicorn Overlord kinda dropped the ball with map layouts and varied objectives (has anyone ever gotten a game over from having their base captured?). Although the unit building system is a solid 10/10 or 11/10 even, even if I don't really like the way they implemented non human classes. But yeah saying it's not strategy due to its shortcomings is like saying Fire Emblem 7 is not a strategy because you can just drop Marcus with a Hand Axe into 50 dudes and turn off your brain
I wonder what these folks think about Starcraft or other RTS games that Unicorn Overlord share some similarities with. Hell the original Ogre Battle games are where UO draws a lot of inspiration. It's weird to have such a terribly myopic perspective that some of the biggest strategy games on the planet don't count because they're not rigidly on a grid.
Fun game, I wanted more than 10 squads, though. Didn't like the time limit. I'm coming from Ogre Battle, other than those two gripes. Still a great game.
I love that they are saying it shouldnt be considered a strategy game because its not turn based. okay thats like saying the blizzard real time strategys are not actually strategy games. another thing to consider is that other real time strategy games exist on the switch, namely northgard.
I feel like people are misinterpreting the strategy aspect of a strategy game with the action and direct feedback if gameplay. UO feels like once you set things up, the game plays itself. People just aren't smart enough to realize that setup is the strategy, not moving your archer up 3 spaces and hitting attack.
it might not be a true RTS like Total war or Starcraft, it might not be a true Turn based SRPG like Fire emblem, FFT, or Xcom. its carved out a unique space in between the two. RT SRPG? however, I don't think there is any denying that Strategy is in whatever combination of words you choose to describe the wonderful game that is Unicorn Overlord.
One of the biggest reasons some people are thinking UO isn't a strategy game might come from its lack of difficulty. Steamrolling through the game with strong unit combinations is fairly easy to do, removing a lot of agency over what happens on the field. It's not that there's no map strategy in the game, it's just that if you manage the "rpg" side of the game well enough, you just make the map strategy irrelevant to some degree.
Doesn't that happen only on lower diffs? To add, past tactical diff, I don't think steamrolling is any way possible beyond Drakenhold. Heck, wyvern riders with sorceress are cracked.
Lol whoever said that mustve played "Story Mode". UO's very nice way of wording "so easy you can just relax and enjoy the story because youre too dumb for this"
this is a strategy and tactical RPG. so the guy who said that is an idiot. In fact, UO is one of the best in genre, like top 5 for sure. Arguably, i'd personally put it as the GOAT srpg/trpg. I'd take UO over FFT, TS, XCOM, ANY FE AND TOR.
I guess you could make the argument that UO is more tactical (short term) than strategic (broad, long term planning.) But then, that’s how most strategy video games are; I mean, it’s the name of the genre. What are they comparing it to? Are there any long term planning video games? Total War series, maybe? Civilization? Ultimately, whether you call it a strategy game or squad based tactical RPG, it’s just semantics.
The other games you listed are not, for the most part, "Strategy Games." They are turning based strategy, squad tactics games. X-Com is the notable exception to that with its global map, but the strategy portion of that game is often called its weakest or most boring part. What these people clearly mean is UO isn't a squad tactics game. And they are 100% correct. I wonder if they even realise that a single fight in UO represents an entire small map from something like Fire Emblem the Sacred Stones?
This seems like the semantic argument between genres that are the same but have clear gameplay differences. The biggest example is super smash bros vs any non platform fighting game, especially street fighter and tekken. Smash is clearly a game where the objective is to fight the opponent and win but the mechanics are fundamentally different than most other fighting games because there are no health bars and the movement options are completely different. Smash Bros is a fighting game but it is also in its own sub genre. Unicorn overlord is the same. Its a tactics game for sure but it doesn't play like the most popular in the genre, fire emblem. If you are expecting fire emblem you may think this is not apart of the genre but when you just boil the genre down to the existence of tactical combat, unicorn overlord does fall into the genre.
The problem here comes from a gross misunderstanding of genre. Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, and X-Com are not Strategy games, they're Tactical Skirmish games. The first two are Tactical RPGS, and the latter a Tactics sim. They include strategy but strategy is not their main draw.
Longtime Listener first time caller here. I’ve been binging your videos since I got unicorn overlord for Christmas and I gotta say your strategies have helped me out. So I don’t care what anyone says. It’s a strategy game to me. You’ve got yourself a new subscriber man.
Unicorn Overlord is possibly more strategic than 95% of all the SRPGs out there. Like, keeping close to your allies so you can cover for each other and they are able to provide some ranged bombardment support is what you expect something to happen in actual wars and the groups that are isolated or doing their own thing are at greater risk and also the ones that get absolutely slaughtered if they meet a bigger battalion.
This kind of thing always happens when a niche game gets some main stream hype. Theres a bunch of brain dead call of duty enjoyers who will buy whatever the internet tells them too then get mad when their niche strategy game isnt what they expected.
I allways think people can not be stupid enough to shock me but they prove me wrong every time. If this is not a strategy game then nothing is. Strategy does not need to be turn based or grid based. To me Unicorn Overlord has been the best game I have played 2024 and can still not get enough of it.
The only way I can see people not thinking unicorn overlord has no strategy is if they played it on normal. My first playthrough of the game I chose that setting and steamrolled the game. If you play anything harder though you see where you'd need to learn more about the games mechanics
That was my experience. I remember thinking I really don't need to strategize. My next play through I suppose will need to be in a harder difficulty, when I decide I want to. 70+ hours in a row is enough for me right now
People who think this game lacks strategy clearly have not played. Past the demo. I'm willing to bet they didn't even complete the demo. There are plenty of maps with strategy. And plenty of places where you can't just slap your best equipment on your best units and win, which I would argue as a FE player does work fairly often.
UO didn’t really land with me. The art is 10/10, the music is astounding, the concept is great! I just didn’t connect with it. That said…it most definitely IS a strategy RPG.
If IGN really printed something as clueless as Unicorn Overlord has "No ACTUAL Strategy" then its just another nail in the coffin of that complete trash website. I haven't gone to IGN in many years. Seem like no reason to go back.
Sadly I wasn't commenting on anything IGN related, just comments I've gotten over the year since release. That said, if IGN did ACTUALLY say that, that's horrifying.
I'm actually lost in thought, every single aspect of UO involves strategizing, planning, considering costs and benefits adjusting and adapting to adverse circumstances... I call shitpost on this one fam...
If Unicorn Overlord isn't a Strategy game, then Fire Emblem Warriors is not a Strategy game. ...Though to be fair, Unicorn Overlord can be beaten in less than 40 minutes nowadays.
After 70 hours of playing the game I've come to the conclusion that I believe this game was going to be made as a phone game. There are just somethings that reminds me of a phone game. The coliseum having a cap on pvp matches that count for raising your ranking is one. I think it was a late decision to make it a console game.
I mean, there's no behind the scene information that supports that theory. I can get why you'd come to that conclusion based on gut feeling but there isn't evidence for it in this case.
Did you know that there was group of "JRPG-fans" in Facebook who could make shtpost and terrible takes about JRPG? Yep, I thought it was a group for sharing JRPG games because of the name but it turns out they HATE JRPG (including Vanillaware) or any Asian games into fullblown rcist. I'm starting to believe that they are Journalist from Kotaku, IGN, and Gamerant.
My job in the marine corps was a 0511 MAGTF Planner. I spent years working in plans and operations offices. Center of Gravity analysis was always a critical part of “strategy”. It’s essentially breaking down what is your critical advantage over the enemy based on the mission, and how do you best protect that advantage. I’d argue that UO’s feature of creating cohesive squads replicates that philosophy very well.
I could not have put it better myself. Certainly it's a different kind of strategy, but it is undeniable that it is in the first place. You can absolutely screw yourself over if you just slap together whatever and play however and pay zero attention because you're just so distracted by all the LOVINGLY drawn jiggly bits.
Ok
@@thant0s I agree, and it definitely takes "strategy" to build the squads. My only issue with UO is that it takes the strategic mind of a 3-year-old to build effective teams and walk through the game with minimal resistance, even on higher difficulties.
People mistake tactics with strategy. Strategy is litterally the planning while tactics is the "moving around the map", or simply put : tactics are the actions you take to make the strategy happen. Strategists are people that shape a plan from a meeting room whereas tacticians are on the field moving troops. Those people use the word "strategy game" to describe tactical rpgs. Now I'd still argue Unicorn Overlord is pretty tactital on top of being a great strategy game but the "moving on the map" argument would at least make some kind of sense if they were talking about UO lacking tactical depth, not strategic depth.
Strategy and tactics are the same things at different scales. It's very subjective to call something strategy or tactics. It's a pointless debate.
Agreed. You strategize your troops formation, how they fight, and how they combo off eachother.
Then you tactically position and move your troops around to fight what they would be best to fight against to win the mission.
@@reinach77 It really is pointless like trying to differentiate between power and strength , people that min/max things do this and in some cases yes you can split them but these are very niche environments where you'd do this, to where like you said "pointless debate"
Strategy is the way of approach to problem solving
Tactics are actions
Example:
Task: Going from place A to B
Strategy: Fast
Tactics: Running
Thats all. Strategy is simplification of the mindset.
You're right and yet this game does have both. Granted its heavier on strategy than tactics
Saying “Unicorn Overload is not a strategy game” is so unhinged that it might was well be a shitpost. It’s like saying it’s the “Best baseball game of 2024” with a straight face. I wouldn’t pay those comments any mind.
"all of the best laid, masterfully thought out plans are immediately thrown out the window, when the first bullet is fired." - Quote from my military commander.
UO is a war strategy simulator, more so than a turn based or real time strategy game. It has multiple elements that are not seen in traditional strategy games those casuals are used to playing.
Strategy comes in many flavors, from chess and Tetris, to TCG and tabletop games, to sports and games and even your daily life. It is all about planning and UO has that.
While saying it’s not a strategy game is a pretty low IQ take, I think they could have done some things better in map/enemy AI design.
Could have used some more fog of war maps like the ONE blizzard stage, more variable objectives and lose conditions, more aggressive enemies, there was definitely some lost potential.
But calling it not a strategy game because of the map design is like calling StarCraft or red alert not a strategy game.
I do agree, though the desert had the intermittent fog of war which honestly sucked so bad.
From a broader design perspective it seems to me like their philosophy was giving a handful of standard small liberation quests, a couple standard main quests with harder enemies, and 1 or 2 main quests with a particular 'gimmick', like the defense chapter in Drakenhold , Blizzard, The Elheim fire map, and the pseudo-defense map in Albion where your command post is completely surrounded (not that it's particularly hard. Albion in general just seems fairly undercooked)
I do see how that wouldn't be enough, arguably, but I think it does generally work. Fundamentally I think the greater issue was the complete lack of variable AI, which makes for very samey units. At the same time, it's already like a 40 hour game, and taking several minutes to adjust your own tactics for each individual encounter --including the amount of time to understand how the enemy unit works-- would absolutely spiral into a tedious slog.
I do think the game would benefit from just being cut down significantly so that each mission/unit can feel more unique.
@@peculiaroreo Yeah perhaps you're right, I didn't mind doing the liberation missions though as it was nice to have something to do when I didn't have the time to commit to a whole mission.
And Albion was definitely a bit rough, I think they perhaps thought the difficulty spike of the featherbows blind was going to be more impactful but by then my units were so strong I could either just brute force my way through those units, or equip one guy with blind immunity and not worry about it.
As far as units go, I felt that most were actually very unique and I had a lot of fun min-maxing with different things and trying to use different story characters instead of hiring a bunch of the same ones. Up until the feather units, which all just felt a bit underwhelming to me. Even early game Ochlys just felt like a single-target griffon rider to me.
@@EbiLMunkeY Oh, I don't mean player units, I'm referring to enemy units. The player unit design is incredibly fun and I love it dearly, it's just absolutely not matched by most enemy design
They also had a sandstorm stage but developers of strategy rpgs don't attempt to use weather obstacles in games because they haven't been able to figure out a way to apply them fairly against the player most of the time. It's why, I read recently, a bigger game series like Fire Emblem only used them briefly up to Fire Emblem 7 and then cut them for the most part. To implement them well in Unicorn Overlord they would have to give Wereowls frequent access to their farsighted skill. This would have led to multiple sizable circle gaps popping up and disappearing on the maps where you and your opponent could kind of see a set distance ahead of you and if said maps had forts you had to attack continually churning out troops, well, the purpose of the map would be pointless as you could just guesstimate your way to the nearest fort by paying attention to the circumference of troops' vision compared to your own while they were coming towards you, instead of using the farsighted crystals or skill provided to actually help locate places.
@ I mean the blizzard map was “trivial” because on anything less than TZ difficulty you could just spam farsight orbs, but it added a sense of tension because you weren’t sure if you missed something. And there are tools like watch towers and such that could be positioned along the way. Some of my favorite moments were the times when enemy units would just suddenly appear out of the trees and ambush me and forcing me to make some quick thinking decisions.
On the topic of fire emblem, to this day my most memorable map is the one from FE fates conquest where the wind blows you around and even sends your units to other platforms if you’re not careful. It wasn’t the hardest map in the game, but it made you rethink how you position your units and approach strategy in general.
Strategy is decided in the planning phase. Tactics is the impromptu manueverings of troops in furtherance of or to get back to the overall goal. I agree with you 100%
Very strange take. Maybe they were confused by the lack of one tile choke points that could be held off indefinitely by your starting pre-promote.
What are you trying to say?...
In this game you can't even control characters directly in battle, instead it's all about how you prepare units for combat, the game is basically nothing but about strategy and only a really special type of contrarian would think that is in dispute.
The internet is a strange, sometimes dark but wonderful place. This falls into the strange category. You don't know if this is a genuine thought (or lack thereof) or somebody trolling.
Unicorn Overlord is very much a strategy game.
The only reason I feel it's real, is it's an argument I've seen multiple people make since the game's release. So even if one or two aren't serious, I'm sure many are. 🥲
Literally who is spouting this kind of nonsense?
Reddit
stupid peoples
IGN
White women, probably.
🤔
I am not a strategy game fanboy as I do not have much experience with these games, but I have to say that UO was the reason why I got interested by this genre. Compared to other strategy games I am playing (Triangle Strategy, Tactics Ogre, Front Mission) I understand that it is a different king of strategy, the mentioned games are mostly related at creating the right mix of troups and answer to enemy actions, UO is more releted to the prediction of the results of mixing troups and how these answer to enemy. Understanding how your troups will reply to the conditions of the mission and to the enemy is vital since you cannot directly command your troups during each encounter.
I loved this game. 100%’d it with all achievements at the highest difficultly, even before you got through your online play-through. Fantastic game. You shared some builds that were super fun that I hadn’t considered either!! Having said that, I do think it’s odd that you can change the “strategy” RNG by simply moving a character from one square to the next. Ends up becoming a trial/error spiral if you mess up your initial plan. Still an SRPG, but definitely on the easier side.
I agree that whoever says that Unicorn Overlord isn't a strategy game is wrong but wtf do you mean with you can't get flanked and map movement is not a thing in FE and FFT?, in FE your forces can absolutely get flanked (depending on map and game of course but Unicorn Overlord also has straight line maps wo much going on) and FFT has an individual unit flanking mechanic; as far as map movement goes you are completely ignoring terrain effects in FE and elevation in FFT.
Also, let's be honest, a massive part of the strategy in UO happens on the units menu rather than on the map; that being said, I assume that when people say it is not a "strategy" game they wither refer to not having a lot of tactical decisions like FE and FFT or not a lot of strategic decisions like grand strategy games.
Y’know Tom, if there’s only one thing about you that I find more relatable than our shared lives of SRPGs/TRPGs? It’s that both of us seem to struggle with nonsensical arguments… I can hear it in your voice, my man.
I'm actually quite proud I beat and recruit amelia with a level 30 party on first playthrough with tactical diff.
Too bad they don't really have newgame+ or postgame content. Bcs the marquesses unit is nuts, but don't really have any chance to shine, like elgor equiped with dancer anklet, or that fire guy who have invinite moves 😂😂
I also like when children say that the game has no gameplay since the units act on their own in battle.
Really outing themselves as freshly spawned with that take, lol.
I usually assume that the people dont actually know what strategy (or whatever other word) means, and are using it as a byword for "thing i like"
Strategy is a vague term, I have criticized UO for being a low skill SRPG that is lacking in the strategy department if strategy = the player making meaningful tactical decisions, which is what we mean when we analyze a tactics game.
The game boils down to making broken preset units that auto win every encounter even when you ban a lot of classes/mechanics. The major decisions you make once you have your broken autowin squads are move unit to boss and win. There are rarely interesting interactions with the enemy squads or interactions with the enemy squads maneuvering.
As someone who covered this game in a ton of detail I believe it has a low skill ceiling with a lot of easy methods of abusing the combat system to achieve huge results with little to no tactical skill or execution.
I am open to debating this topic with you also.
I think more than anything else the campaign is very forgiving. Both in the mechanics being able to see battle predictions in advance, change equipment/tactics/position all mid encounter, and in the generous amount of resources provided to you from experience to equipment and units. All of these allow you to easily compensate for tactical errors or mistakes quite easily and you don't end up getting penalized for those decisions. Even if squads were to get completely wiped you can reload your mid game save, retry the map instantly, or simply bring them back to life with no downside.
That being said I don't agree with low skill ceiling being the correct term here. Broken strategies exist in the majority of Fire Emblem titles yet many of those are still considered difficult and high skill. I think a lot of this is more due to the unforgiving nature of the games and lack of abundant resources rather than the complexity of tactics or strategy. I do not believe Dark Souls to be low skill ceiling because magic exists nor do I think UO is a low skill ceiling because Elemental Roar/Sniper amber lens/high movement units exist. There are still many other ways of playing the game (most of them intended) that require more interaction on a tactical and strategic level. I think if anything, low skill floor is more accurate.
And while I can understand why someone would not regard online PvP or running difficult campaign routes in their assessment of the game those are certainly both aspects of UO with very high skill ceilings.
As someone who genuinely enjoys UO, I agree. The OP here is conflating options with strategy - UO has a *ton of options*, but isn't tightly balanced enough to require exacting use of most of them. I made judicious use early after identifying squad formations that could roll over most everything.
I definitely wouldn't agree with an assessment that UO isn't a strategy game, but the point it isn't a demanding strategy game I would concur.
Still, very enjoyable experience. I give Vanillaware a lot of leeway because they're not a huge studio. They do something different each game, too, and I respect that despite the warts.
I feel that unicorn overlord is somewhat similar to the mechanics of Anno 1800. Wherein in Anno 1800, you mostly deal with the logistics of your trading routes and how to make them efficient in order to prevent delays and therefore make sure your settlements will not experience any interruptions. In unicorn overlord is the same but in building your unit and make sure you are able to sync all the different characters into this monstrous/specialized unit. I love that part though I cannot master it since theres just so many things to consider. But the act of planning the unit composition is strategy.
"Unicorn Overlord is not a strategy game" is not a serious discussion.
Funny enough Xenoblade gets the same dumb kind of comments (maybe from the same dumb group of people) that it's not even an RPG. People love to diminish a game's mechanics either because they didn't engage with them, they played on easy mode, or they just don't understand them. Then they go and say the game doesn't have any depth.
I love XB2 but if I'm being honeat I hated it until I watched Enel and while XB3 was a little better with teaching it still kinda threw too much at you.
It's essentially a real time Fire Emblem with no perma death. 6 hours in and its a great game.
Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen - generally considered one of the best strategy RPGs on consoles. Spiritual successor Unicorn Overlord - maybe not strategy? I need more coffee.
I think you're going to need whiskey before that argument starts to make sense.
There's more strategy to this than the gacha games trynna disguise themselves as tactical when it's about powercreep p2w mechanics most of the time.
For me this game is so strategic that it can feel somewhat challenging to optimize squads. I loved trying to figure out which units paired best together, but trying to determine the best squad formations was definitely tricky!
When I eventually play this game on hard mode I am curious as to how I fair because I had difficulties at the end of the game on normal mode and I can only imagine how much harder the game is on higher difficulty settings!
I see a lot of people dogging on the dificulty of the game, im primary a turn based rpg player and fighting game player, i NEVER played a strategy game, normal mode was fairly challenging mainly because i had no idea of what i was doing, but i had a BLAST playing it, i beat the true final boss with a squad with my favorites lmao
Point is, the game being so welcoming to beginners made me a fan of the genre
I think the problem is (I I kinda think you also fell into that) is thinking on a strategy game as turn base games, real time strategy games are also a thing and I believe Unicorn Overlord has more in common with them than with turn base strategy games at least in the battle map, the way units move is much more similar to a RTS than a turn base is just that the fight screen kinda mess the perception
Something really funny I notice is that if I didn’t know anything about UO and just watch the last minutes of this video I could have easily thing you are playing a RTS with K&M for how you move the units trying to storm the city 😅
The only thing I'd like to see added to this game is a difficulty mode that removes the battle result preview altogether
😂 That would be a nightmare and I would love it.
I wish they would add the ability to save party compositions, because as the game is now, it greatly discourages experimenting and trying new things, as you would need to remember what your setup was, or write it down on a piece of paper if you want to change anything.
That, and only being able to make 10 units, are Unicorn Overlord's most glaring flaws. Let us field 10 units but there is no need to restrict how many we can make.
I also would have liked to have seen more interaction from the villains. That we do not fight Berengaria at least once in Cornia before she joins us, is honestly a travesty in storytelling. There should have been a few Zenoiran counter attack battles. They could have both reused maps with us on the defensive instead of offense, and fleshed out the story in the part where it is most lacking.
Would've been a comparatively easy and obvious thing to implement, and makes me all the sadder they're not doing anything post launch with UO.
Haven’t played a strategy game in many years but I picked up this demo and cannot put it down. Feels like there a lot of strategy and really enjoy all the options and mobility. Definitely going to pick up the full game.
Not the best comparison with FEE, X-COM2 or FFT but I get it, those were game you were familiar with, but are of a different sub-genre. Unicorn Overlord is more like Battle for Middle-Earth I`d say.
I love creating different strategies and tactics in this game so much I disband all my units and redeploy new units based on the enemies on the map.
Its possible to make mega-units and speed run (or speed fly) the game. But that takes the strategy out of it. So it depends in the player.
I love real-time strategy over turn-based strategy so its my game of the year.
I'm a simple man, I see a TL video about UO and I watch it asap.
My only complain about Unicorn overlord is that i feel like it was a little too easy to steamroll the game. I played at the hardest starter dificult and at some point i just stop caring to optimize much of my strategies and builds because unleast i'm facing a hardcounter, anything was able to one turn any basic unit with minimum to no damage taken.
Don't know if the true zenorian(?) difficult is worth playing, but i would love to see a Unicorn Overlord 2 with a step up on difficult.
Gotta love those kinds of arguments. "It's not a beige toyota Corolla, like I had, so clearly it's not a car "
Usually these takes are kids discovering stuff and having no context, but plenty of ego.
Unicorn Overlord is a great game, so good that I don't care how other people choose to label it. People literally say anything online now.
People in the middle ages all around the world used entire dioramas of a battle field or country with handcrafted figurines to plan battles, figure out how to move equipment or educate future troops. Such maps are still in use today albeit digitally. To call Unicorn Overlord anything but a strategy RPG when it uses the exact same methods to represent troops in the game is absolutely wrong in my eyes. You might as well not call Fire Emblem one either because a game like that has moved into the realm of 3D and in hub worlds within the games you're now literally walking around through your army encampment or occupied city and interacting with NPCs. Whatever goes through these people's heads...
making the argument that this game isn't a strategy game is simply reductive and not useful when there are valid arguments that both exist and more accurately describe the game's inability to provide certain types of strategic challenges. saying the map movement isn't strategic is basic and untrue. saying the map design, objectives, time limits, and NPC behavior don't converge in a way that forces you to apply a proportionately relevant amount of strategy to your movement when compared to squad building and the actual squad v squad combat (especially at lower difficulty levels, which i assume lots of people played on based on not playing this style of game previously) is a much more valid point and has a level of nuance worthy of discussion and debate
I feel like whoever said that played on easier difficulties where you can get away breezing through battles with any team comp
True. Played on easiest level then unga bunga'd with Adel and Clive
I mean, I don't agree with them but I can sort of see where they're coming from if maybe they're used to something like Crusader Kings or Europa. Using the definition of tactics vs strategy presented I can understand it being underwhelming on the strategy front compared to those two.
But considering UO on the micro level vs. the macro that those games go for, yeah. It's absolutely a strategy game. "My goal is to get to this capital on this continent and I need to overtake X Y and Z cities, bases and strongholds to get there." Just because it's not drawn out into some 500 hour epic doesn't mean strategy isn't involved.
To be fair, the macro level has very little strategy. Conquering certain continents and getting certain heroes earlier or later makes very little difference since this game is fairly easy. Even Sengoku Rance, which is fairly railroady since it's a visual novel, has more strategic depth than Unicorn Overlord.
God bless you for keeping Unicorn Overlord on my mind, I fucking loved this game.
In a way, it's the most strategy game as you main interaction is planned tactics and moving groups eith no interuptions available.
Pretty sure people who said that Unicorn Overlord isn't a strategy game are people who played the game in Story mode, thinking they are playing in Normal mode because they don't know that Story mode as renamed Normal mode when the game was released, lol.
I can get why some may find the strategy aspects of UA to be a bit lacking: there are some incredibly busted squad combinations that steamroll every fight, map layout can feel like a bunch of corridors at times, and items feel like something you just throw at problems to undo your mistakes. It can make the game feel kind of easy.
Except so many other strategy games have these same issues, and that doesn't discredit them from the genre. Some of the takes you highlighted in this video were absolutely brain-dead.
terrain effects and enemy placement already voids that comment lol. Very happy to see more Unicorn Overlord videos pop up in my feed though :)
This is a pure strategy game. I don't think the purpose of the map is to be just there to be presented to the player. For me, I describe this like it's a semi Tower Defense game. I have to spread out who will attack north or south. Which unit will engage first and who will finish up. People just wanted to make things needlessly complicated.
I think there has been a mixup of genres since Unicorn Overlord does not fit into both "Strategy" and "Tactics" on the examples you mentioned.
Casual players will think of "Strategy" games such as Civ, Stellaris(X4), Age of Empires and Starcraft(RTS) as these type of genre, while "Tactics" games will be thought of games such as Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, XCOM which mostly consist of grid type combat, and what do you know, Unicorn Overlord do not fit in any of these genre.
I think it would be helpful for both you and the viewers if you would define what a strategy game in the context of the list, and as you mentioned strategy as a methodology doesn't need to be specifically be used only on specific types of games.
While I do see what you're saying, at the same time, what else could it be than a Strategy and Tactics defined game?
Imagine if there was a category for best Strategy game on some awards show (maybe they have, haven't been paying attention), mentioning only strategy since "tactics game" is not really a mainstream term, but for the sake of the argument, if there was no strategy category and only a tactics game category I would still argue my following point : should it not be on that list simply because it does not rigidly adhere to those guidelines you outlined even though it is very obviously a strategy/tactics game?
@@Shamax0 That is why I suggested that he defines what is a strategy game in context of his video or list. That way comments like there is no strategy would immediately be invalidated. The reason tactics game is there is because of his example. On what I can infer in this video he deems tactics game a strategy but I do not. Hence It is very important what he defines what is a strategy and why the games is on that list.
Should it not be on that list? Who cares? It is up to the creators decision if it goes to the list or not.
It does fit both strategy and tactics. Strategy is planing before the battle so building your squad and equip them with weapons/items/abillities. Tactics is moving them on the field and deploying/use items/use abillities to clear the map. To think games only can fit one gengre is just wrong and most of the examples you mentioned is including both.
@@Shamax0 because there is strategy in EVERYTHING, using strategy this way you could call baldurs gate a strategy game where it mainly is a roleplaying rpg. Your strategy would be to plan your party and their equipment. YOu could call tetris a strategy game in how you apply row clearing and so on.....there need to be a clear cut definition of what you consider what to have this kind of dicussion.
Personally I consider tactics and strategy games interchanged to the point that I consider srpg/trpg the same genre ( strategy vs tactics ) but not all view it as such. To switch perspective personally I consider bullet heaven ( basicly what some call vampire survivors and similar games) a dumb genre definition and prefer the MUCH older bullet hell as bullet hell actually don't define if it is your or the enemy bullets that is involved....only that there is alot of bullets. Bullet hell involve all those space and top down plane/space ship games where you move left/right/up/down and dodge enemies while normally shooting at them.
Those that claim games like vampire survivors are bullet heavens have a single argument for it and that it is your bullets being a hell for the enemy...that is it wanderbots who came up with it had REALLY thin ice he stood on in the stream he argued for this ( I was there and a decent number of us was not impressed) ignoring smupps and all those space/plane games that goes all the way back to arcade supernintendo/sega days.
Hence why if you want to have this kind of discussion make sure you DEFINE your terms first.
personaly, i too think calling the game strategy less is objetibly wrong
and so far i only played til the dark knight mission on the desert side of the map, but i get why someone could delude themselfs into beliving theres no strategy, im playing on hard, and theres hardly a need to strategize, its more of rocks paper scissor situation, and some map just drag on for waaaay too long. so either i advance slowly whit my presets, take 30 or mins on preparation to makes specific counter matches, or (the route i dont want to do) grind xp until everyone is at the same lv as the enemy and just steam roll throught the levels.
if they played on normal, i dont see much value on strategy, if they played on hard, theres hardly any player agency after you get the right key for the right hole in the fighting match ups, you just.. conecct dots, there may be more to what i can actually do, but 90% of the time is either not necesary or a point less struggle because using an item to make up for any deficiency is better than planning out anything.
i think they are just angry and venting frustrations, the game aint bad, and has strategy, its just that, after doing the kill the betrayer general mission, our actions feel waaaay more pointless than before.
also the continous new units kinda become a detriment, why give me like 1 new unit each map, when their class acomplishes nothing particualy new or necesary at the time, sure some are unique but they make the desert area feel bloated whit units that dont do anything particulary new or better. why would i need the esgrima guys, when i already have better more reliable options that fit into a bigger range of jobs that i need to be done.
also, on the same line, why some clases share stats ? feels weird when the hammer soldiers and the claymore soldiers have the same base stats, whit the claymore advantage beign only their "call reinforcements" ability. honestly i want someone to clarify that one xd
Stats and classes unique roles and effects start growing more obvious as the levels grow, promote and gain all their class skills. By later game you will actually be looking at what each class does and how it combines with others to make the unit as a whole peak at their role. This is because late game enemy stats and unit builds are never optimal for winning a fight but get really good at delaying / weakening your units to the point they won't win against the boss. So you need to get creative in figuring out how to clear the mobs while maintaining strength and resources to beat the boss, I.E Alpha strike unit, zombie unit, flyer rush, cav blitz, ect.
@@SolusLupi True, and more so on "True Zenoiran", getting washed out by 3 rushing wolves and 2 running bears on bastorias at 2 stamina is WILD.
Would also like to say Drakenhold is key and lock as it is piss easy. Beyond that on hard and above needs more than unga.
I think the game has a level of openess and a good sandbox of tools to take on any obstacle. If the critics of this game are playing each map a linear way that isn't satisfying for them maybe they should try a higher difficulty. There is abdolutely plenty of strategy if they are willing to interact with it on a harder difficulty where you can't brute force your way through as much stuff.
Agreed. I played on Normal, I think. And many strategies were viable, but there many team comps that were not viable. And both in terms of unit vs enemy and map.
I thought: oh mage + armor knight = super good unit. I was not wrong... but they were so SLOW! As with Fire Emblem, the all cavalier unit was very OP in the late game (but you can only have that many cav units, so part of the strategy is how you manage all other units, and even worse if you try to play with all unique characters/unique characters only)
@@icarue993 when I started out I had cavalry mixed with griffin knights and thought that would be good. Turned out to be awful because I would end up being weak to both archers and flying units. There is definitely a lot of strategy with just team composition. I found swordmasters and griffin knights with an archer in the back were better. And if i was going to use cavalry it would be a pure cavalry unit so only that unit would be weak to flyers and it would just carve a path through infantry for the rest of my ground units
But it is hilariously easy.
No point in having complex mechanics and options when you can just ignore most of them and power through everything.
DragonLance SSI game. War of the Lance. One of the first fantasy strategy games i knew of. I think about lot of young folk wouldn't count it based on this video
I absolutely loved this game, and it makes me desire a fire emblem esc game or turnbased rpg game from vanillaware.
And, like, if Unicorn Overlord isn’t a strategy game, what the hell kind of game is it? Genuinely, call me a filthy casual, but I have no clue how else to categorize it
I totally 100% agree with you. In fact, this is the best strategy/tactical RPG game I’ve ever played since Final Fantasy tactics on the PS1
I can confirm that the statement is bullshit. I'm bad at strategy games and I'm bad at this game, therefore this game is definitely a strategy game.
🙌🏿Unicorn overlord.
Brought such a uniqueness and
Delivery to its game.
That is that it feels like the common player couldn't comprehend what they were playing. The last time I played a game with such uniqueness. It was on a PSP😅 ( Growlanser: Wayfarer of Time🖖🏿)
Easily one of my favs last year
Best TRPG of the decade. Not only that but RPG, tactical and strategic mechanics are all equally heavy and deep. The maps might not have topographic complexity but they have all sorts of terrain, permanent and temporary structure and enemy placement aspects that affect both strategy and tactics.
It's more of a strand game
i will eventually play it but i have to admit that having no classical control over the characters actions in battle was a huge turn off. Now playing ff tactics modded 2.5; i enjoy so much mixing skills and choosing in battle what i'm gonna do and how to react to each moment. UO is a different approach, interresting, and i will pick it up sometime, but i hope the community can stay capable of discussing contructively on these topics
I'd love the people who say there's no strategy in this game to go into one of the later maps and try and beat it without getting their units killed. Hell if you go into some of the earlier maps you're dead within the first 5 minutes. It makes no sense at all
I wouldn't go as far as claim such a thing but I do get the idea, assuming it's referring to how Unicorn Overlord kinda dropped the ball with map layouts and varied objectives (has anyone ever gotten a game over from having their base captured?). Although the unit building system is a solid 10/10 or 11/10 even, even if I don't really like the way they implemented non human classes.
But yeah saying it's not strategy due to its shortcomings is like saying Fire Emblem 7 is not a strategy because you can just drop Marcus with a Hand Axe into 50 dudes and turn off your brain
I wonder what these folks think about Starcraft or other RTS games that Unicorn Overlord share some similarities with. Hell the original Ogre Battle games are where UO draws a lot of inspiration. It's weird to have such a terribly myopic perspective that some of the biggest strategy games on the planet don't count because they're not rigidly on a grid.
Fun game, I wanted more than 10 squads, though. Didn't like the time limit. I'm coming from Ogre Battle, other than those two gripes. Still a great game.
I love that they are saying it shouldnt be considered a strategy game because its not turn based. okay thats like saying the blizzard real time strategys are not actually strategy games. another thing to consider is that other real time strategy games exist on the switch, namely northgard.
I feel like people are misinterpreting the strategy aspect of a strategy game with the action and direct feedback if gameplay. UO feels like once you set things up, the game plays itself. People just aren't smart enough to realize that setup is the strategy, not moving your archer up 3 spaces and hitting attack.
it might not be a true RTS like Total war or Starcraft, it might not be a true Turn based SRPG like Fire emblem, FFT, or Xcom. its carved out a unique space in between the two. RT SRPG? however, I don't think there is any denying that Strategy is in whatever combination of words you choose to describe the wonderful game that is Unicorn Overlord.
I know last time I commented that it wasn't my #1 but wtf 'it not being a strategy game' is a wild take.
Great video, new subscriber :)
So, X-Com is like the Valkyria Chronicles series? ❤
2025 jus started and we already have the top tier clown world comment:
"Unicorn Overlord has no strategy"
One of the biggest reasons some people are thinking UO isn't a strategy game might come from its lack of difficulty. Steamrolling through the game with strong unit combinations is fairly easy to do, removing a lot of agency over what happens on the field.
It's not that there's no map strategy in the game, it's just that if you manage the "rpg" side of the game well enough, you just make the map strategy irrelevant to some degree.
Doesn't that happen only on lower diffs? To add, past tactical diff, I don't think steamrolling is any way possible beyond Drakenhold. Heck, wyvern riders with sorceress are cracked.
Did people forget RTSs exist? I'm still lamenting Command And Conquer over here
Lol whoever said that mustve played "Story Mode". UO's very nice way of wording "so easy you can just relax and enjoy the story because youre too dumb for this"
I would argue that this argument should be unicorn overlord isn't a tactical RPG like FFT and tactics ogre but it is definitely a strategy game
this is a strategy and tactical RPG. so the guy who said that is an idiot. In fact, UO is one of the best in genre, like top 5 for sure. Arguably, i'd personally put it as the GOAT srpg/trpg.
I'd take UO over FFT, TS, XCOM, ANY FE AND TOR.
I guess you could make the argument that UO is more tactical (short term) than strategic (broad, long term planning.) But then, that’s how most strategy video games are; I mean, it’s the name of the genre. What are they comparing it to? Are there any long term planning video games? Total War series, maybe? Civilization? Ultimately, whether you call it a strategy game or squad based tactical RPG, it’s just semantics.
people can be very rigid with their understanding of game genres. It's not a Fire Emblem clone or a Starcraft clone, so people just confuse themselves
What about ogre battle?
The other games you listed are not, for the most part, "Strategy Games." They are turning based strategy, squad tactics games.
X-Com is the notable exception to that with its global map, but the strategy portion of that game is often called its weakest or most boring part.
What these people clearly mean is UO isn't a squad tactics game. And they are 100% correct.
I wonder if they even realise that a single fight in UO represents an entire small map from something like Fire Emblem the Sacred Stones?
This seems like the semantic argument between genres that are the same but have clear gameplay differences. The biggest example is super smash bros vs any non platform fighting game, especially street fighter and tekken. Smash is clearly a game where the objective is to fight the opponent and win but the mechanics are fundamentally different than most other fighting games because there are no health bars and the movement options are completely different. Smash Bros is a fighting game but it is also in its own sub genre. Unicorn overlord is the same. Its a tactics game for sure but it doesn't play like the most popular in the genre, fire emblem. If you are expecting fire emblem you may think this is not apart of the genre but when you just boil the genre down to the existence of tactical combat, unicorn overlord does fall into the genre.
The problem here comes from a gross misunderstanding of genre. Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, and X-Com are not Strategy games, they're Tactical Skirmish games. The first two are Tactical RPGS, and the latter a Tactics sim. They include strategy but strategy is not their main draw.
Longtime Listener first time caller here.
I’ve been binging your videos since I got unicorn overlord for Christmas and I gotta say your strategies have helped me out. So I don’t care what anyone says. It’s a strategy game to me. You’ve got yourself a new subscriber man.
Oh man, welcome! I hope you've been enjoying the game and my videos! :D
Unicorn Overlord is possibly more strategic than 95% of all the SRPGs out there. Like, keeping close to your allies so you can cover for each other and they are able to provide some ranged bombardment support is what you expect something to happen in actual wars and the groups that are isolated or doing their own thing are at greater risk and also the ones that get absolutely slaughtered if they meet a bigger battalion.
"It's not a grid based map with turn based movement, so it isn't a strategy rpg" (Some idiot probably.)
Sounds like a strategy game but not a tactics game and folks don’t know the difference.
This kind of thing always happens when a niche game gets some main stream hype. Theres a bunch of brain dead call of duty enjoyers who will buy whatever the internet tells them too then get mad when their niche strategy game isnt what they expected.
UO is consider Real time strategy RPG to me.
I allways think people can not be stupid enough to shock me but they prove me wrong every time. If this is not a strategy game then nothing is. Strategy does not need to be turn based or grid based. To me Unicorn Overlord has been the best game I have played 2024 and can still not get enough of it.
FFXII is a strategy game in that you have to use strategy to set up your systems to autofight for you.
The only way I can see people not thinking unicorn overlord has no strategy is if they played it on normal. My first playthrough of the game I chose that setting and steamrolled the game. If you play anything harder though you see where you'd need to learn more about the games mechanics
That was my experience. I remember thinking I really don't need to strategize. My next play through I suppose will need to be in a harder difficulty, when I decide I want to. 70+ hours in a row is enough for me right now
People who think this game lacks strategy clearly have not played. Past the demo. I'm willing to bet they didn't even complete the demo. There are plenty of maps with strategy. And plenty of places where you can't just slap your best equipment on your best units and win, which I would argue as a FE player does work fairly often.
UO didn’t really land with me. The art is 10/10, the music is astounding, the concept is great! I just didn’t connect with it. That said…it most definitely IS a strategy RPG.
"Starcraft II is not a strategy game because it's not FF Tactics"
-Some dude.
If IGN really printed something as clueless as Unicorn Overlord has "No ACTUAL Strategy" then its just another nail in the coffin of that complete trash website. I haven't gone to IGN in many years. Seem like no reason to go back.
Sadly I wasn't commenting on anything IGN related, just comments I've gotten over the year since release. That said, if IGN did ACTUALLY say that, that's horrifying.
I'm actually lost in thought, every single aspect of UO involves strategizing, planning, considering costs and benefits adjusting and adapting to adverse circumstances... I call shitpost on this one fam...
If Unicorn Overlord isn't a Strategy game, then Fire Emblem Warriors is not a Strategy game.
...Though to be fair, Unicorn Overlord can be beaten in less than 40 minutes nowadays.
Sounds like someone has played enough strategy games.
Webster’s dictionary defines “strategy” as…
After 70 hours of playing the game I've come to the conclusion that I believe this game was going to be made as a phone game. There are just somethings that reminds me of a phone game. The coliseum having a cap on pvp matches that count for raising your ranking is one. I think it was a late decision to make it a console game.
I mean, there's no behind the scene information that supports that theory.
I can get why you'd come to that conclusion based on gut feeling but there isn't evidence for it in this case.
@jamesdino1388 i agree. Yes it was a gut feeling I had. I wasn't confirming that was the case,
Did you know that there was group of "JRPG-fans" in Facebook who could make shtpost and terrible takes about JRPG? Yep, I thought it was a group for sharing JRPG games because of the name but it turns out they HATE JRPG (including Vanillaware) or any Asian games into fullblown rcist.
I'm starting to believe that they are Journalist from Kotaku, IGN, and Gamerant.
Call it whatever you want, but this game was crazy fun
People who are bad at UO grasp for complaints instead of getting good or just leaving it alone