Why did American Conquest never get the same amount of love from the fan base?

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by grizzgolf, Jul 31, 2015.

  1. grizzgolf

    grizzgolf Member

    Just curious. Picked it up on steam and plan on firing it up today.
     
    fujy41 likes this.
  2. Mike Erickson

    Mike Erickson New Member

    I loved AC! Graphically it was better IMO and people actually used formations instead of blobs of units. At the end of the day AC is just an upgraded version of Cossacks1 in the new world. The originals tend to get the love they deserve and rightfully so
     
    fujy41 likes this.
  3. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    ACFB, was a pretty good game. But the economy I thought was a disaster. Way too much micro managing of peasants. And the period with Indians was poorly balanced I thought. I just never got into it.

    But as a battle game it was outstanding. The Hawks really made the game come alive with their battle maps. Now that you have the game you need to visit their site, download the Mod, and maps.

    Then when Gex came out with his mod it just got better and better.
     
  4. Ogon

    Ogon Active Member

    Yes a great game but the play has been much more unbalanced then C1. Two irritating features was the unstoppable Indian raids, and the defensive power of occupied buildings. A building with three peasants inside could wipe out entire formations of attackers. So even if you "won" in the field by defeating the enemy's army it could still take a very long time to win the game wasting hundreds of soldiers for fighting against the volksturm of building defenders. Worse than Stalingrad or Berlin 1945!

    One of the nicest features - the roaring of firing artillery pieces (with a crew) with canon balls bouncing of the ground and echoing.
     
  5. Snuffy

    Snuffy Active Member

    I tried the other day to dig up the HAWKS website, looks like its down for the count. :(
     
  6. Unikron

    Unikron Active Member

    I wonder could be done in C3 mod "American Conquest"?
     
    fujy41 likes this.
  7. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    This game was too realistic. I think that because of morale and no gamespy server.
     
  8. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    This game absolutely was not realistic.
    Crazy indians, funny indians bases, stupid wild animals, masses of almost constantly advancing enemies, horrible strong defended buildings, insane strongholds and fortresses sieges, stupidly reinforced garriosns in besieged builidings, crazy stormed fortresses, funny cannons with very resistant crews, cannons and fortifications shots at very long range, crazy boats, spoiled ships, badly balanced fire combats, crazy fast Cossacks, unrealistic armoured pikemen, economy disaster, poor landscape, poor morale etc.

    Nevertheless ACFB was very good base for fine HEW mod. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2015
    [PR]Ernest likes this.
  9. HEW mod is very close to perfect, i hope cossacks3 to use this ideas, for examples the way unit become guardtroops.
    The more realistic the better.
     
    Nowy likes this.
  10. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    I agree, HEW would be a good model for some talented modders.
     
  11. Snuffy

    Snuffy Active Member

    I musta missed the HEW mod. :(
     
  12. Masher

    Masher Active Member

    It was a good game, i just didn't enjoy it as much as Cossacks 1. I did try the HEW mod and enjoyed it much more than the base American Conquest game.
     
  13. grizzgolf

    grizzgolf Member

    I wonder why the Civil War one never made it on to steam.
     
  14. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    No doubt, everyone has their reasons and theories why AC did not do so well. Here are my reasons and some might overlap with reasons given above. Other might disagree.

    (1) Poor graphics. The artwork in C1 was of an excellent quality. Go back and look at how well the buildings and ships are done. Look at shore lines and water. Player interface was excellent. Then look at AC. The whole feel of the artwork is rough and messy.

    (2) Poor economy. I second what Daddio says. The economy just did not work smoothly. I believe that an RTS economy should take a certain amount of learning and competence. After that, the player should be able to run his economy almost automatically, without thinking much about it, so he can give almost his full attention to battles, tactics and strategy.

    (3) Garrisoning was a problem as outlined by Nowy. If garrisoning is permitted it must be made more realistic. Fighting a way in with cold steel should not be all that problematic if you have the numbers. Superior numbers press forward with crowd pressure after busting doors down and can rapidly crush and kill all inside. Shooting out from a building is rather limited in some ways. Those inside only have limited vision and field of fire through loopholes and windows. Attackers can run to corners of buildings and crawl under windows. They can throw in grenades and burning torches. Attackers can also throw torches and grenades from nearby cover and use fire arrows and artillery from further off if need be.

    (4) Buildings were too big compared to landscape features which made siting some buildings difficult.

    (5) The wild animal feature was just plain annoying. Wild animals flee from major settlements. Bears don't hand hang about and muse, "Gee, I think I will take on a formation of human halberds today."

    Footnote: Before you bring up the behavior of modern bears don't forget they have become habituated to humans and we don't ruthlessly kill them like we used to (except in a much more controlled and licenced way). In the AC era, humans ruthlessly hunted wildlife and the wildlife understood at some basic survival level that the whole situation was flee or die.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2015
    nhinhonhinho likes this.
  15. Furious Peasant

    Furious Peasant Active Member

    American Conquest was/is a very good game but it had some silly flaws like Ftoomsh mentioned.

    I would add that a problem was also that there AC had only one kind of canon and no towers and walls. Many people like to play with them.
    I think the ballancing (europe nations) and the fight/battle system was much better and more realistic than in cossacks I. The economy wasn't that bad. I liked that you don't only had to collect a lot of stone and sell it on the market all the time like in Cossacks I. I want to win a game with a strategy and not with clicking on upgrad and marketbuttons.

    I totally disagree!!!
    The graphics and smooth animations were the nicest of the whole series. The houses matched the size of the units. Everything looked very nice and realistic. It has together with commandos II the nicest 2D graphic I have ever seen in a pc game! Look at the units they are much more detailed than in Cossacks II and the Alexander game made with Cossacks II engine.

    The whole reason why people prefered Cossacks I is because AC was more comlex and not "arcade" enough for them. So the Arcade players had "their" game - so the could ignore AC easily.
     
    Andrej and J.Cross like this.
  16. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member


    At a personal level, there was another reason C1 worked better for me. I am red-green colour blind. For some reason I could still see things in C1 fine but in AC/FB every thing was camouflaged and I could not find half the mines or see half the units. I still maintain that overall C1 art looked better but art preference is subjective and colour response does affect things. At the movies once, I asked my wife and kids why the Harry Potter movie we were watching (one of the last ones in the series) was in black and white. They laughed and said it was not in black and white. All I could say was well it looks like back and white or some sort of monochrome to me.

    Yes, C1 was arcade but certain mods like OC Mod moved it away from arcade style to some degree although they did not introduce real morale (which you probably couldn't do in that engine).
     
  17. Furious Peasant

    Furious Peasant Active Member

    I agree with you here.
    But from a technical perspective the graphics in AC are much more advanced than in Cossacks I. The Images of the units and buildings have more pixels. The animations have more frames. The world/ground textures and sprite objects had more variations. (Important for me) the buildings had a realistic size.
    The disadvantage of these enhanced graphics are the bigger system requirements. Which was a pro argument for Cossacks I back then.

    The mods (OC Mod, Imperia etc.) are very cool but the majority of the players online wasn't even able to install Mod1 from the disk. Like I remember when I was searching for players.
     
  18. Ogon

    Ogon Active Member

    One more comment about a poor gameplay balance with AC/FB. I still believe it could have been a much better game and success if the developers tested the game better with the community players.

    I have been playing a lot of single players death-match games with AC FB recently and here is what annoys me. I love 18th c muskets so I usually chose long PT in order to build a nice 18th century army in neat formations. However the AI opponent (I only chose western nations so no Indian opponents) almost never 'goes to to 18th century' and is just launching swarms of 17th century pikemen and harquebusiers against me. I have much more superior units and (theoretically) formation bonus but am still loosing to the masses of unorganized antiquated attackers. In that respect C1 works much better, the AI is moving to the 18th c pretty fast and although it rarely makes formations, my own formation in C1 are usually able to win against the massive blob attacks - with longer PT I easily win against 6 AI opponents on very hard..

    With a little bit more of testing effort AC could have become a really nice game.
     
  19. Furious Peasant

    Furious Peasant Active Member

    Yeah the AI in Ac didn't really used 18 century units that is really sad. (Except of the campaigns)
    But Cossacks I had the same problem with the 17 century. If you choose "17th century only" in the starting options,
    the AI-players advance to the 18th anyway.

    I played AC yesterday with the Maya. I lost more than 10 000 spearman 6000 Bowmen and 4000 macamba warriors to take one little city. It was bloodier than the battle of stalingrad XD. So for me American Conquests biggest problem were those unrealistic City/housefights. The AI can rebuild its houses faster than you can destroy or conquer them -.-" Such a cityfight can last 3-4 hours which is to much time for a multiplayer battle.
    I think this is the major reason why AC wasn't liked as well as Cossacks I.

    The big battles should take place at the field not in the cities. If only the blockhouses/towers could have been manned, it would has been ok.
     
    Ogon likes this.
  20. J.Cross

    J.Cross New Member

    Thats true, taking a town and IA re building it on the other side, the garrison idea was not bad, but not finished, i mean wich kind of fortress needs to be repaired after the first damage? Civilian buildings i can understand but fortres as a main building should be more durable.
     
  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