I don't know wether to laugh or to cry reading this... You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Probably you played the game for 1 year and then put it back in a box. Troup placement matters, maneuvering matters, army composition matters, and who can make soldiers faster is not automatically an advantage but for sure you have more options then. I call everyone unknowing who says that Cossacks 2 is a game with more depth and more options than Cossacks 1. The opposite is the case! + Formations mean a lot in Cossacks Back to war as well. It just depends on the situation and the maps, something that you obviously could not read. In fact a high level game of million ressources involves so much details to win and in 5000 20pt indeed the economy also plays a massive role! You and Nowy both swim in the boat with your arguements, but repeating false things over and over doesn't make it right!!! Knowing Cossacks-Back to war entirely gives me the same view on other games like you have.
fine, alright, I get it. I was misinformed. I apologise for my outburst. It's just that after playing C2 then getting C1 later I tried some matches against some randoms and in comparison to games I had played prior it just wasn't as good, in MY opinion. perhaps I'll give it another try, as very few games use this era of history.
Seriously stop fighting over whose game is more complex/better, they are totally different. The important part is that we enjoy the game, no ? (because I enjoyed both, lucky me ) About formation I hope in cossacks 3 the soldiers don't try to fire at the enemy on one thin line to help the opposite cannon and howitzer be more efficient, my 196 and 324 strong formation particuliary love to be taken down by a battery of artillery even when fighting against mere 40 dragoon, I think they like gambling their lives. And the grenadier are so courageous that they automatically charge in melee, because shooting it for the coward you know ! Finally because artillery is just not a worthy opponent they would sometimes choose to stand still and take their best shot ! (Basically sometimes they got stuck pursuing artillery) If at least those three things are better in cossacks 3, the game would be more enjoyable.
Yeah I guess that's for the best. I just really REALLY want this game to be good. It's been far to long since we got some good, old school, RTS.
This clearly shows that you have not real arguments when you try attack us personally. People has their own tests, then you can not accuse them about repeating false things. Therefore your suposition was untrue. It looks that you poorly understand what mean correct units placement, deployment, army composition and battle tactics matters. If you thing that great mobs of badly balanced units in C1 is not sensless then read some books how real warfare looked at that periods which are represented in Cossacks games. If you think that C1 is more interesting, it is your opinion. I got my own opinion. Buaha, ha... If you think that million resourses, gigantic mobs and blobs mean play massive roles you are funny. It is something like million bad things makes game batter. You are trying defend absolutly crazy idea.
Where do i attack you personally ? ))) I invite you check the links in my signature and after having seen what you will see, think about what you have just told me...
yeah, again it's not worth getting angry over, but the simple fact of the matter is even though C1 gives you greater control over your units, it's not worth the POOR representation of the era.
You suggested that I am reapiting false things without any real argument to prove your false statement. When you accuse me about such things, then you try attack me personally. Your singnature do not show that you are profesor of military history or something like that. So, read some books, try understand arguments and do not accuse people when you do not understand real matters.
Actually, in C1, troop placement and maneuvers did not matter. Why? Because it wasn't built in. There was no moral, and armor was static, so it really did not matter which side you attack from, damage would be the same. Secondly, when it comes to C1 Multiplayer, yes it comes down to who can gather resources fast and build and army faster. Period. I've played lots of multiplayer matches and they are boring. It turns into a mosh pit. Either way, that's my opinion. All of you should settle down and the developers already stated that this will not be in C3 on launch.
Gotta agree. In fact 'Mosh Pit' I feel is the perfect term to describe C1's battles, especially since no fatigue/moral means no reasons not to commit all your forces at once. Anyway let's wait for some gameplay to come out. Then we can make informed judgements.
Obviously this subject is all about personal preference rather than what system is better, personally i do prefer no morale in a Cossacks game.
In theory morale and fatigue seem to be nice features, but in reality they'll most likely turn out to be contraproductive and result in boring matches, since players who actually play strategically and proactively try to attack their opponent at opportune moments will be punished, while those sitting in their base and waiting for their enemy to come will be rewarded.
Not necessarily; if you camp your enemy can bring mortars and destroy your precious buildings from afar. Also, they could rest (if fatigued) and say a prayer (+morale) before beginning an assault. But I agree that it will make games longer and less action-packed.
yea, that might be true for 1000/5000 with peace time but if you play Millions default 10pt with a time limit of 45 minutes which was a very popular game mode in Cossacks 1, you will have a big advantage by camping in your base with morale and fatigue implemented. On top of that, 1000/5000 games without peace time won't be as exciting and fast-paced as well, since making a move and trying to attack early with small groups of soldiers will be punished hard.
Forgot that point I always play with the lowest amount of ressource and without peace time, forgot you could set high ressources. but I don't see why raiding would be impossible
You got absoulutely bad imagine in that matters. Morale and fatigue are main strategy factors in real warfare. Cossacks RTS game should include these features. This is only case of where, when and how it should works in the game. Properly lead proactively military operations usually prevail sitting bulls in their camps. Morale and fatigue do not help them in this case. They lost advantages in terrain and time. They lost the opportunities to win the game. Morale and fatigue system corectly implemented in C3 game add more immersion and gameplay will more realistic. Then blobbing mobs and sending them fast across the map will stupid and really borring affairs. Good planning, commanding and leading squads including morale and fatigue aspects will more interesting in the game. These aspects of course could inclue on/off option. Then some boys will can still play as like crazy fast mobs killers and other will can paly with morale and fatigue. The latter option is more interesting and less boring than repetitive, unrealistic and crazy mass killings in fast pase.
Well, raiding wouldn't be impossible but you'd be at a disadvantage in most cases by doing so, since your troops will have to cover a large distance and will be tired when they arrive at their destination.
This is still a computer game, not a real war scenario. And in order for a game to be fun and exciting, you sometimes have to simplify or leave out certain aspects that are present in reality. There are so many more factors in a real war, you can't include them all and even if you did, the game would probably be overly complicated and boring as hell. Gameplay > closeness to reality, at least for me. But well, I guess an on/off option for morale and fatigue wouldn't be a bad thing, it just shouldn't be implemented in the game by default.
