Cossacks 3 of my dream!

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Atem, Jun 9, 2015.

  1. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Speaking of upgrades, I hope they keep all the attack and defence upgrades, armour upgrades and shot upgrades of C1. Those are really important and help make the game work in important ways.

    Formation bonuses and upgrade bonuses help the game overcome the phenomenon of strategic attenuation. "Strategic attenuation" in this context is just a fancy way of saying this. By the time you assemble 36 pikes in a formation and march them to the enemy base he will have more than 36 pikemen waiting to defend. He might have a two 36-man formations. You can only overcome this strategic attenuation with upgrades or sometimes manoeuvrings. When you go head to head with superior numbers you can only win with those quality upgrades - attack, defence, armour and so on. You often find once you go beyond the mid-point between your base and the enemy base you are fighting superior numbers. You need more upgrades to win such battles head to head. Of course, it can be possible to flank, avoid his army and go into the soft underbelly of the base and kill mines and peasants. That's the other way to do it. But then good players can start fences and walls to stop flank attacks on the base.
     
    [KGR]-^K[o]K^- likes this.
  2. Zentdayn

    Zentdayn New Member

    Stuff that i enjoyed about the original game:

    • Music and sound effects.
    • Countries with their unique buildings, this is really important for immersion together with other points it creates a really nice experience
    • Unit amounts, seriously, this like a major point for me, other games go along the line: cannon shot = a unit loses some hitpoints, nah, i rather have the cannon ball rip through formations made by hundreds of soldiers.
    • Historical battles are nice
    • AI, i don't know how did the AI actually worked, but i never felt like it cheated and the difficulty scaled very well, this is very important for me i feel like there is no challenge if the AI gets bonuses, unless the actual "story" or something else dictates so ( eg: historical battles where it's supposed to be that way ).
    • UI, i found it minimal/simple and that's great
    general idea: the whole game, with all it's details, music, unique buildings and everything created a immersive experience and that was the coolest thing in my opinion.

    Changes that look simple and wouldn't be turning C1 into a different game:

    • I disliked somewhat the fact that you could beat an AI and use their "base"s mining resources without any kind of fear that the other AIs would hit that( might be wrong but i don't remember it doing this, this and attacking some other city you built elsewhere because reasons) .
    • More unit "looks&moves", they looked good but they shouldn't look exactly the same, it got really odd sometimes like a huge pikeman formation with the same look and synchronised walking, ( tiny auto-generated differences ,like changing a pixel somewhere on soldiers or change the sounds to look slightly different or something like that, not everyone makes the same dying sound it might feel odd after a while i guess ) i might be nitpicking and even wrong but i think that this is a point worth thinking about.

    general idea: Reward strategy, things like destroying mines and your adversary had to wait for that to clear up was a nice touch, other things like that might be nice. Improve the AI ?? i don't think it build walls, did the AI search for you or he knew where you where, i ended up playing without fog of war because i felt it knew that.

    Things I would like to see:

    • Good multiplayer, i never played C1 multiplayer so i'm talking without any knowledge but there are games that do it badly, i want to play with my friends and not worrying about technical problems too often.
    • Other mechanic to limit building that feels more real than, this is the third copy of this building it's going to cost more, this kind of broke the immersion a bit, but i understand the need for it, either way in my opinion it might be worth to think about it.
    • AI builds walls ( and what's up with the maintenance on that ?? )
    • AI respect fog of war???
    • Different resource distribution, or at least the possibility to do so, it might be unfair but it's nice ( i sued to play Civ5 coop with my friends and realising we needed to go somewhere else to get oil was cool, because we would have to plan that out and possibly acquire it through other means).
    • Modding, with "multiplayer compatible mods" would be awesome. Many tiny details ( like the one different resource distribution and others ) could be entirely optional and even new game features could arise.
    general idea: a solid remake with a robust multiplayer experience and grabbing all the good stuff about C1 is good already, changes to improve immersion, AI and including modding capabilities are really welcome.

    I think that C3 should be closely related to C1 and my suggestions where made with that in mind, i don't want a different game. I played the game for years even when the looks started to feel old the gameplay felt good and i believe that should stay.

    I hope i made myself clear, if not let me know.
     
  3. Severstein

    Severstein New Member

    My ideal Cossacks game would be crossover between C1 and American Conquest. I my opinion combat system of AC is much superior and adds more realism to game, while I like more economy and buildings of C1

    wishlist:
    - more realistic battles (increased range of weapons and much slower reload time, less accuracy)
    - add MORAL system (at least give us option to turn it off/on)
    - allow 18th century musketeers to be built in 17th c. barracks
    - far greater formation bonuses
    - easier formation making (no need for commanders or drumers to make formations, drummers and flagbearer would automaticly appear when formation is created and act as a ghost units (like in total war) - cannot be killed and will die when formation is destroyed
    - remove training upgrades for each unit and add more research options (like faster unit production)
    - more diversion of units. You should have cheap, moderate, expensive and elite infantry units with different moral and creation time. Cavalary and artillery should be more expensive
    - much slower production time for 18th c. pikeman
    - pikemens should have bonus against cavalry
    - better mercenaries (they would be almost strong as standard units, but with less morale and they would be much more costly). 18th c. merc. like grenadiers and dragoons should be available only in 18th cen.
    - cavalry should have charge bonus to their attack
    - upgrade on cannons that will allow horses to carry them
    - add rivers and bridges
    - houses that have more population
    - towers that can be integrated in walls
    - buildable trenches (like in C1 intro)
    - coastline guns
    - more balanced units ( no more OP units like Victoria or danish musketeers)
    - more historical units (at least more diverse unit designs)
    - better AI
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2015
    Furious Peasant likes this.
  4. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    List (from craziest to more realistic)

    Crazy Good
    -My dream Cossack 3 is if the game had like an online world on a server where you could conquer land and other players could take back your land, but you actually get to keep the land and you can later on invite people into your land. Maybe even add land to my guild or clan, so that the land only belongs to them. This is like a pure dream as i have never seen such thing in games. Only in OpenSim and SecondLife, and truly it was the best feature of OpenSim and SL(What made SL famous) the fact that you can have your own land with your buildings and other people come to attack you. If that could be integrated into a Cossack game it would be the greatest game ever.
    - Having modding tools so great that I could learn about development while playing my favorite game and having fun (every gamer-dev dream). I mean a set of tools that i could quickly allow me to build new features and integrate them into my game-play while still being part of the game itself.
    -Goverment System in the Game. I could explain how i would implement this but it would make the post too long.

    Gameplay
    -In terms of gameplay if Cossacks is like AoE3 combines with Cossack 1 it would be perfect. Cossack 1 has many features that make the series unique and interesting. From more modern strategy games AoE3 gameplay is still the best I've seen so far. Maybe lower the speed (Action per minute) factor that AoE3 had and make the game a little bit more strategic based while still keeping the same battle times from AoE3. Sorry for the comparison but I have by now played quite a bit of Cossack1 and I still do not find big difference from AoE3 in overall gameplay strategy (there are major differences but I mean in overall strategy is about the same).

    More Realistic Stuff
    - Advance Battleship formations and boarding enemy ships
    - Better Market system that allows a nation to live off the production or gathering of one specific resource and trading it in the market to obtain all other resources. I understand that the gathering of this one resource would have to be a significant amount to live off of it.
    -Specialized units( Units that are expensive to train but do lots of damage or have special unique features that make the very important strategically. Not cannons but like cavalry)
    -In game rematch feature.
    -Spies so you can have sight on certain areas without enemy noticing
    -Specialized scout units, so you can scout your enemies without them knowing.
    -Map vision based on the landscape. Like if you have an army next to a tall hill or mountain in your range of sight you shouldn't see the other side of the hill or mountain. Same thing if there are a huge pack of trees in the way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2015
    BombaRuLz likes this.
  5. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    What happened that fans stoped here dream their dreams about C3 game?
     
  6. Andrej

    Andrej New Member

    We have realized, that our dreams are just dreams and nothing but dreams. Obviously the new game will be the old game. I am waiting for a proper Cossacks 4 game with most of the fan's dreams incorporated into a really new game.
     
    Nowy likes this.
  7. BombaRuLz

    BombaRuLz New Member

    My dream strategy game would mean a combination of many strategy games and some my ideas (only the good things from each). Since Cossacks is my favorite game i would really like to see those things, i'll just add some stuff that hasn't been mentioned yet (some new features, not only improvements)

    1. Campaigns on huge real world map, advancing and taking territories, building cities and defending them on "the big map". Imagine huge map of Europe where you start with 1 nation and you must conquer all others step by step (with defence also).
    2. Similar to #1, huge map for online playing, conquering other players, factions etc. That concept is well made on game called "stronghold kingdoms", but i'll go with something more complex like real world map with unlimited borders that would take really long time for armies to travel from one to other place. I'd also like to add limits and costs for army sizes while attacking players so that people will have to think about strategy and not numbers. I know this is complex thing to do with unlimited possibilities but this would be a gold mine for GSC.
    3. Since i've mentioned Stronghold kingdoms, the game has some advanced defending stuff that i would really like to see them in Cossacks 3. I'm not really sure if they are used in the historic times where Cossacks is in but they would improve the game and make it even more playable (in my opinion).
    The list for additional defence is:
    - Pits/Traps on ground around walls
    - Burning oil pots on walls and towers but only if soldiers pass by it, not really needed but still good when towers can't shoot on minimal distance.
    - Moat around walls
    - Soldiers on walls similar to "log cabin", shooting from holes with a small chance of being killed by enemy muskets.
    4. Since every nation has it's heroes of wars it would be awesome if they could be put in the game. That "hero" would have special improvements that would affect troops around him. Leveling them (and maybe troops) with killing troops is also great idea, for example veteran troops that survived in battles and gained experience would do a lot more damage than some new troops. Usually the "hero" was a random officer or knight in the series but it would be nice to make special models for some heroes in every nation.
    5. Decorating. I would love to have the chance to make my city with trees/water/roads/stones/flowers where i want them to be inside the game with some special worker (not only in scenario editor).
    6. Advanced maps with more details. I would like to see more nature, waterfalls, lakes, animals, exploring stuff and chilling with it. It can be put in the campaign to be one hell of a game :)
    7. Some limits with mortars, i feel like i can do everything with them to their defence buildings. It's kinda useless to build walls and towers where mortars exist. Also the cannons have huge "hp" which is also annoying when it comes to defence, you cannot harm their offence. If things stay like they are, it would be good for towers to "repair" if people are inside and be a lot harder to take down, not just few hits on maximum defence.
    8. Achievements in extreme details would make the game crazy in Campaign.

    To be continued :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
    Lez, Loner and Daddio like this.
  8. Ragnaer

    Ragnaer Member

    -no more endless resources
    -an unit limit. You have to expand it with building houses.
    -trading like in AoE, AoM
    -a special unit for every nation like in AoE2
    -random gamechanging events like the snowstorms in Company of Heroes 2
    -commanders that gain experience by killing enemies wich gives passive effects to near units (like a speed buff,a better AIM or more damage)
    -also Formations give the units an passive effect like a Speed or defense buff
    -better fog of war like in AoE
    -more different win options
     
    Field Marshall likes this.
  9. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    Everything this guy said I agree. Great suggestions i hope half of them at least get implemented.
     
    Ragnaer likes this.
  10. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    @ Ragnaer

    -no more endless resources: well food/wood is kind of endless because it regrows. gold/iron in mines can be depleted but gold/iron do not disappear . If a pikeman gets killed the 20 iron does not disappear (unless he is in a transporter on see), his armour can be used again. Maybe it has to be reforged but the iron is still there. Also gold is not "eaten" by units. The only thing that could run out would be coal.

    unit limit, expandable with houses. Well thats cossacks 1.

    special unit: most nations had a special unit with the exception of a few nations.

    formations: they give a defensive bonus but, but +3 shield is kind of useless for units with 100 hitpoints (18c musketeer) against units with 53-99 and 103 or more damage

    more different win options: yeas that is good. I would like a game method called kings-killer. You start with a king, a very powerful units that can not be killed with mortar/cannons and have some high musket protection. If this unit get killed you lose.
     
    BombaRuLz likes this.
  11. Sukesa

    Sukesa New Member

    One thing i really want is a real morale system like in American conquest (+ make formations usefull and don't make arty op)
     
  12. Lez

    Lez New Member

    YES, All of this!
    Big Real World map of europe where you can seize territory but its realtime and i can zoom in and control units as well as enjoy the sight of my army wrecking and the beauty of my cities!
     
  13. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    BombaRulz's ideas somewhat connect to something I have been thinking about for some time. This is the idea of up to a four-speed time engine for RTS. When you think about games which implement national campaigns and then have you fight the major battles, you realise that is a kind of two speed time-engine. Battles will proceed in real time (more or less) but the national campaign works in a turn based fashion. There are usually moves made per month or per season which implement your economic, political and diplomatic strategies, which in turn eventually bring you to a campaign battle or battles to be decided in more or less real time.

    However there could be another way to implement the above ideas. Imagine a four-speed time engine where time is real time in each case but it is time on different scales to the player's real time. Let me explain in numbered points;

    1. Tactical Time - This is real time at a ratio of 1:1. That is to say 1 minute of game time equals 1 minute of player time. So, if a musket unit can fire and reload 4 times a minute then the onscreen unit will do exactly that in the player's real time of 1 minute. Actual battles are played out in this time ratio.

    2. Battle Time - This is time at a ratio of 60:1. That is to say 1 hour of in-game time equals 1 minute of player time. Building actions of a battlefield nature (obstacles, ditches, fleches, simple forts) are queued and built in this time frame. Marches and deployments over realistic battlefield distances are also done in this timescale.

    3. Campaign Time - This is time at a ratio of 1,440:1. That is to say 1 day of in-game time equals one minute of player time. Campaign marches are conducted in this time along with scouting etc.

    4. National Policy time - This is time at a ratio of 10,080:1. That is to say 168 hours or 1 week of in-game time equals one minute of player time. Thus a year would last 52 minutes of player time in this mode.

    The game engine would handle time ratio changes automatically. Here is how it would work for a national campaign game against the computer or even another person. You would have to accept such a game would take several gaming sessions at least with saves in between. You would start the game in national campaign time. The game's time engine algorithm would see to this. Each minute of your playing time is a week in the nation's timescale. This is still real time but at a certain ratio. If you waste the first five minutes issuing no national commands, then for 5 weeks your nation has drifted along with no new economic, political, diplomatic or military initiatives. If you issue commands to raise an army, build certain national production etc. then these are commenced but proceed at realistic paces.

    When you or your opponent had raised an army or armies and fully mobilised (ready to start a campaign march) and then actually issued campaign march orders, then the time engine switches the game to Campaign Time. Suddenly, campaign marches are able to commence and do commence as you order them. A ten day march will take ten minutes. You can still issue national policy orders too but they now execute in the new time scale.

    When opposing armies approach each other or an army approaches an enemy town that is defended, then the time engine switches to Battle time at a ratio of 60:1. This relates to actions of positioning on a battle-field or drawing up in battle order. Flanking marchers etc. will occur in this time ratio too. When armies, or significant forces (say more than 5% of the army) get into actual action range as determined by maximum cannon ranges, then the game switches to 1:1 time ratio.

    Each time there is a time switch there is a display switch. The higher, superseded time ratio map becomes the strategic map and the new time ratio map is new the tactical map. It is like a zoom-in each time. At each time ratio, you can issue orders for that time ratio and the time ratio next above it only.

    I hope that gives a picture of the idea. When a battle or a campaign resolves with a winner and loser, the game goes back to the higher time ratio(s) in like logical manner. A battle retreat will run at battle time, a campaign retreat at campaign time. These will occur until such time as armies are far enough apart to go back to higher time ratios and finally back to National Policy time again.

    Very Complex? Yes. Impossible to make? No. I believe it could be done step by step. Build the tactical time engine and then the battle time engine and then so on. Do testing and integrating at each step.
     
  14. Ragnaer

    Ragnaer Member

    Have you played Knights of Honor?
     
  15. Styo

    Styo Active Member

    I still play this game to this day. One of my top games.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice