GSC what is your next game project

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Original-Cossacks-Player, Nov 22, 2017.

  1. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    I want some infos as well,
    I think its a new dlc maybe. there are some nations in country.script that havent been used so far

    But the thing is that I want some new gameplay, either an imperia dlc (a total rebalance) or an AQ2

    Truth is that I really dislike AQ, due to bugs, problems, bad AI and so on.
    However with no problems (for example forts being so stupid and attack your own buildings which then burn down without any message) and better balance I could really enjoy AQ2.

    The entire code is available and I thing that it would be much easier (and cheaper) to do an AQ right now with the Cossacks 3 code still available than in a couple of years.
    However the AI must become much better for AQ2.

    Edit: dammit when will new professional 1vs1 matches be uploaded on youtube?
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  2. Zakxaev68

    Zakxaev68 Active Member

    Okay, okay, there's this hateful and quite mannered people and their great rhetoric. Geez, you simply can't deal with those anymore around, its like the new age of internet. Say let's agree to disagree. This is being a point of truth; a game marketed on big words is, least to say, supposed to perform... quite big, despite what happens in the background during the development time. We talk games, not some chinese food restaurant that refused someone sushi for dinner.

    Did Cossacks 1 stand out for something no one got around doing in 2001? There you go coherence, is what I am saying, hard to understand, I am certainly sure, for naive folks. Fast forward to Cossacks 3 and its trying to steal the show, like every other strategy on the market at the moment build on multiplayer ladders than focused on honest fun and rewarding gameplay. One game needs to have production value to it, else it won't live longer on just player base influx after a patch.

    Imho Cossacks 3 disappoints only because it tried hard to attract the casual gamer audience for a more simplified multiplayer game and not balance between both old and new audience. So go on again and tell me I bought my game only that I see it has no executable I need to compile myself. Quite absurd sentiments there, sir.

    Nevertheless S.T.A.L.K.E.R. owns piece of my heart.
     
  3. Wralth

    Wralth Active Member

    So... mod the game to your liking then?

    Im not happy with the vanilla game either so i do the most obvious thing and rewrite it.

    I knew what i was buying into and it was modding support that made me pay the price for the game, not the game itself.
     
  4. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    Much of what is written above is way over my head on the technical side.
    What I DO know is that there were many overwhelming issues with the release of this game and it has still not been released for MAC.

    My confidence level vis a vis GSC is at zero.
    What I see as an end user of C3 is an imperfect retread of C1 with some better graphics. Period.

    We had high hopes when it was announced this game was in development. The hopes were utterly dashed. Do me bad once, shame on you. Do it to me twice, shame on me.

    As things stand, GSC has gotten the last drop of milk from my gaming money teat.
     
  5. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    If you look at the Steam stats, C3 started well with sales in the first month and even second month. Then sales dived rapidly. C3 shot itself in the foot by not being properly ready at release time. Some of the old tragic types, like me, held on and hoped. The game did eventually get somewhat better and modding support was moderate. However, first impressions count and GSC lost a lot of potential buyers and players in the first few months.

    After a year, we have had new nations and some new unit content but not enough fixes to bugs and game mechanics. Formation stacking (blobbing) could be fixed and morale, realistic lines of fire and fire by rank could all be added by the developers. They could add a realism mode and keep the current mode as arcade mode. A deeper game with better mechanics might attract players back.

    The modding community also started with high hopes. Now, there are few active. If people feel the engine won't repay the modding effort and that there won't be enough players to support vanilla and several mods then they will leave sooner or later. Certainly, in 2018 I will have to rethink my commitment to C3 modding. I will keep OCMOD3 going until the 2nd anniversary of the C3 release. I am not sure if I will try to develop it further. The game and the number of players left active are not repaying the modder's efforts.
     
  6. Loner

    Loner Active Member

    Unfortunately I have to agree with you.:(
     
  7. Wralth

    Wralth Active Member

    >realistic lines of fire and fire by rank

    Yeah we know how well that worked out for Cossacks 2.
     
  8. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    It worked perfectly in C2? what do you mean?
     
  9. Wralth

    Wralth Active Member

    I mean that C2 was incredibly unpopular because of how unneccessarily complicated it was.
    Players dont want tactics to be based on realism when it involves insane micromanagement.
     
  10. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    My suggestion that the game be given arcade mode and realism mode covers it. Let players pick their preference. When a game has a high unit cap then micro demands need to be controlled as the unit numbers grow. There are plenty of ways to do this. C3 already offers several from infinite queuing, to larger formations, to the Adviser (though I am not a fan of the Adviser). More aids could be added by the developer. It should be possible to add realism without requiring insane micromanagement.
     
  11. Wralth

    Wralth Active Member

    Id rather they fix their engine first and make it work as intended.

    Because right now there are areas where it doesnt even do that.
     
  12. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    To modding, I have to agree
    I really had hopes for some fine modding but it was rather hard with no instruction. I created some Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 mods, the developers released extremely friendly modding kits and it was super easy to mod the game. Even today some advanced ones create new tools and there are a lot of mods even a decade after the year. I stopped modding the game. Its pretty hard to get used to it. No nice tools, no instructions and so on. Unless the AI becomes better (yeah there are some people who like to play against AI at least want to test it) I will stop modding. Also the modding forum is relatively empty. There are a lot of threads but basically just a few active member.

    To gameplay:
    cant remember C2 but I disliked AQ due to bad gameplay mechanics. In theory I could enjoy these mechanics but the gameplay required such intense micromanagement that I didnt enjoyed the game.
    shooters dealt so less damage on armoured units on long range. You had to disallow shooting, move close to them and then allow fire again, one small error and your units died in melee combat.
    SO MUCH MICROMANEGMENT.
    I really could enjoy it if the AI would be better, like -200 attack range against armoured units or units not in formation.
    I tried the same for a mod (more dmg in close range but much slower attack speed). But I removed the idea due to micromanegment and I couldnt find a way to automatically reduce attack range.
     
  13. Wralth

    Wralth Active Member

    I mean technically i could sit down and write documentations for literally every single script in the game but aint nobody got time for that.
     
  14. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    First of all the AI has to be improved to continue.
    if I want to test a mod I have to test it against the AI first. and its impossible to lose.

    1) AI still mainly trains 17c pike rather then 17c musket, since 17c musket have become better the AI is much stronger with range units.
    2) the build order is garbage (try start with 18c century (technology) and million resources and you know what I mean)
    3) the AI is way too devensive, they come but retreat and so on.
    4) the AI still builds up to 4+ artillery depots even if cannons are disabled.
    5) as far I remember there will be some problems with unit formation, would be better to attack with armoured units first then followed by shooters. melee only always looses.

    I gave them insane high boni like +200% gathering speed but the AI is still plain dumb. It also pretty unpleasant to change the file progresseconomicalAI.script one small error and the AI is braindead by doing nothing at all.

    The AI in Cossacks 1 was so much superior.

    And the worst thing is that I see ZERO changes in the AI behaviour. It is as bad as in the beginnings. Once the AI is better I might continue. But I think its the developers duty to make a decent AI, I could make a decent balance by myself. However if there would be some AI mods and I could use them I might continue as well.
     
  15. Falc09

    Falc09 Active Member

    I still have a lot of fun with the game as it is. But let's face it: it won't last long with no more content, bugfixes and other improvements beeing released. Modding doesn't change that much it just splits players.

    The whole gaming industrie seems to be in a strange condition: microtransactions everywhere, always bugs in release versions, bankrupt developer studios, every game release has its own shit storm, costly DLC, bad support once a game is released ... it's all about maximum profit. I miss them simple down-to-earth games from the past.
     
  16. (OC)Fotheringill

    (OC)Fotheringill Active Member

    Daddio and others hit it on the head.
    Cossacks 2 was an excellent improvement.
    Hindsight is wonderful but what they should have done was release an updated Cossacks 2 as Cossacks 3 and build from there.
     
  17. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    C2 was a difficult system to learn I agree, Too much for many players. But once you learn how it works, it is much easier to manage than 6,000 to 8,000 troops in C3.

    And it had large battles, but they were not big rolling blobs of mass troops that you had no control over.

    But it was a big improvement over C1. at least in the realism, and it had by far the best economy system I have ever come across.

    It had a few bugs, but they seem to be easy to fix.

    I think most people came to it expecting it to be an extension or C1, and were just not prepared to learn the game.

    My fear is that this game was so bugged, and flawed, that people will not come back to the next version if it is ever attempted.

    Daddio
     
    [-NF-]Baton likes this.
  18. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    It's funny, C2 incorporated a number of elements which are off-putting to me. But these elements could be changed no doubt. ;)

    (1) Difficult colors. As a red-green color blind person I can't see a thing in that design.
    (2) Non-controllable ally units. Non-selectable ally buildings and villages.
    (3) Exaggerated fatigue and excessively fragile morale.

    Perhaps if item (1) had not been such a problem for me, I could have seen enough to start understanding and appreciating the game model. But it's a game-killer when one can't see stuff. Number 2 is just my bias. If stuff is working for me I like to be able to select it all. This might track back to problem 1. I use selecting as a way to check if funny colored stuff is actually mine (pun on "mine" intended). The exaggerated fatigue irked me. Those guys would march 100 meters down the road and they would be exhausted. Never mind that armies of the era could march 30 km to 50 km a day. Maybe the morale issue wasn't greatly exaggerated. It just seemed like it after so many arcade style RTS I guess.
     
  19. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    while on roads there was no fatigue? only when they went off the road was it applied.
     
  20. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Well off-road then. :) On such small maps this seemed kinda pointless but I guess it was designed to channel attacking movements along roads. C2 used this mechanic plus choke-points to channel battles through key points and bottlenecks on small maps. Larger maps do not need this artificial set of mechanics so much. Flanking marches on a larger map entail a more severe time loss, at least for infantry. This encourages more direct paths and more likely engagements along those direct paths be they roads or not.