Whilst this is true, what's to stop them from decreasing the fire rate to very slow (and much more realistic) across the board and then only when in formation, the fire rate is upped enough to make it far more worthwile, plus in an abstracted way refers to formation efficiency. That's a change that doesn't need a whole rework. For the accuracy comment, we'll have to see what GSC offer up as in the press they mentioned 'Realistic physics of bullets and cannonballs.' I do however ike your idea of an on/off for a morale system - kind of like an 'Advanced' mode. There always need to be a balance with these games in regards to gameplay and realism, and especially so if we want a new generation to enjoy them. American Conquest featured the need of sending peasants into military buildings to train them into soldiers, which I liked but GSC didn't implement it in Cossacks II (understandably) - which came out later. In C2 you have the moral realism, but you also have soldiers literally cascade out out of the barracks in one long line and when in formation are so close to one another that one slip and they might fall over like dominos, so realism is an interesting topic
Concerning the realism orthodoxy it is always easy to exaggerate. Like with every fanaticism and pettiness. Point is to state that morale system of C2 is really a step forward in terms of battle realism. Fully new dimension of strategy and gaming. But tight packing of formations or soldiers recruited with the speed of a machine gun is a tiny detail and still is a non substantial detail when you have tones of war flesh without any emotions fighting all the time long till the last leg stays on the battlefield.... After C2 I just cannot imagine to move back and resign from morale and fatigue.
This is an interesting and important debate about morale and fatigue. I find myself in a sort of middle ground in this argument. I tend to prefer having no morale/fatigue system but I also agree that this is not realistic in games modelling human soldiers. Having no morale-fatigue system is realistic enough for RTS games modelling robots like Supreme Commander but that is another story. Whilst having no morale-fatigue system is unrealistic for human soldiers, I tend to find many implementations of morale and fatigue in games are just too exaggerated. Whether this is exaggeration compared to reality or just exaggeration compared to my playing preferences is an interesting question. As a point worth making as this stage, it is interesting to note there is a fierce debate around the morale/fatigue issue but no debate around the life-bar issue. Has anyone stopped to think how unrealistic the life-bar is? Soldiers keep taking hits and operating at normal capacity. At a few percent health they still keep fighting full-on and then suddenly they flop down and die at exactly 0%. Yet anyone at 50% health is already half-dead. I am not sure how many people could keep fighting at half dead. A more accurate hits model would model light grazes, flesh wounds, broken limbs, bleed-out hits, instant death hits etc. I only mention this to ask why we might obsess over one form of realism and completely ignore another? Coming back to morale and fatigue, there are ways to crudely approximate morale even in the C1 engine. Basically, this is by giving strong formation bonuses. In formation morale is good. Out of formation morale is bad and troops are weak. That is the basic effect. Formation bonuses (strong bonuses) mean swarming unformed blobs or hordes is weak and loses to a player who makes and positions formations correctly. He won't usually blob his formations because then they will take too much damage from artillery. In C1 BTW, or at least in Davout's OC Mod made from BTW 1.35 + Baddog (IIRC), there is also an effect where decimated formations break. That is to say the last troops lose formation, lose formation bonuses, and become weak. They don't run away but they do die much more quickly. All of this amounts to a first crude approximation of morale effects. As a next step, this tendency to break could be escalated. It tended to happen at about 5% to 15% formation remnants depending a bit on formation size. I am guessing from memory here. If the ante was raised to make such breaking more likely at say 20% to 40% left of a formation (depending on other factors too like overall size of formation) then again morale gets some more basic implementation without going to full morale bar mechanics. In C1 or OC Mod a player could add units from a broken formation to another depleted but still functional formation. This worked quite well and with high formation bonuses was well worth doing. Reforming under enemy fire could carry its own risks though with extra casualties taken from temporary bunching of units and a pause in their returning of fire. C2's musket ranges seemed awfully close to me. The red zone looked to be about 10 to 20 metres. I doubt many units would hold fire until that range in open field engagements. The following musket performance comes from Prussian field trials in the late eighteenth century and represents average outcomes on the equivalent of a battalion frontage (probably about 500 men in 2 ranks with the 1st rank kneeling, 2nd rank standing, both ranks firing simultaneously). I hope this table prints out okay. Small Arms Performance Range Hits 225 metres 25% 150 metres 40% 75 metres 60% This suggests that a salvo at 100 metres could get 50% hits (wounded and killed). Surely this would break many formations? So the C2 model of marching up very close for salvos before firing scarcely seems realistic. I mention this to suggest that mere possession of a morale system does not necessarily secure a game model from many other unrealistic modelling decisions. Unrealistic ranges in C2 (at least more unrealistic than in C1 modded into OC Mod) meant micro timing of salvos and their hits became the morale breaking mechanism in effect. What people favour can often be related to what they like and what they are good at rather than being related to genuine realism as such. Many "realism" debates in games might well be more about taste and success at styles rather than about real realism. This needs to be considered. Of course, making such arguments will likely make me unpopular with both sides of this debate. But a game that might have up to 10,000 troops per player cannot be modelled on micro-ing all salvos at company level (about 120 men). I did some experiments with realistic weapon ranges in C1 (actually in OC Mod of C1). I had to go to a 4x map and even then cannon were able to fire across about half the map. That was amusing. But one thing that can become a problem with shortening realistic ranges (in addition to the sight range issue) is the matter of relative ranges of cannon, mortar and musket. The game model can struggle with the issue that not only must all ranges be foreshortened compared to reality but cannon and howitzer ranges must be shortened more from their full artillery range than musket ranges are shortened from realistic musket ranges. This changes the relativities, tactics and strategies in various ways. In summary, realism is a really vexed question. Playability is probably the real goal. The realism goal is not realism as such but a well-simulated realism which feels effective and thus becomes immersive without compromising playability. Taste and what each person turns out to be best at will play a large role in what they like best. The "appeal to realism" may in the end turn out to be "the appeal to what I really like".
I am sorry you cast wrong suggestion. Please read these http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm You can easily find there that hit on target was not easy case, especially in combats and at long range. C2 was much more realistic in that matter than C1 or OC mod without a doubt.
Most sources are quite vague on what ranges volley fire was used at. It varied widely. But it seems in open terrain with at least one side advancing, a first volley at about 100 paces would not be unusual. Advancing to 30 paces in open terrain, clear line of sight, without firing would be a dangerous game of chicken. First company or battalion to open fire would draw heavy blood on the other assuming good troops. But having said this, there are lots and lots of variable surrounding this. Skirmishers could be deployed forward first. Gunpowder smoke (and noise) could so obscure the battlefield that sometimes squads/battalions would probably not know if they were 100 paces apart or 30 paces apart. The overly neat advance and fire mechanics of squads in C2 are a long way from the confusion of a real battle. In my opinion, there is no real case that the C2 model is realistic in this regard. At the same time, C1 (even OC Mod) had reloads happening too fast, too many massed ranks firing (they would be firing into friendlies) and so on. On the other hand, troops firing first at near maximum engagement range , ignoring officers, beginning to fire ragged, undisciplined volleys and so on and generally ignoring commands once a big engagement starts (as often happened in OC Mod at least) is probably actually more realistic than a neat squad command system where soldiers always obey and fire perfect volleys before they break (if they break). With OC Mod (which I always refer to as it is my gold standard game), the real Generalship was involved with getting all the formations correctly positioned and aligned (as much as possible) and reserves near enough to the front, just before the engagement so that when all hell of the main engagement broke out they could be basically given their head and left to do their jobs. Major re-alignments were pretty much impossible once a fierce fire-fight broke out. Attempts to do major re-alignments at that point (amounting to manoeuvring under fire) usually just made matters worse for your army. You had to have the superior numbers, formations, reserves, positions and alignments all sorted and in place just before the big battle was joined and that was darned hard to set up. That kinda felt like realism to me. Especially the point that once the big battle was joined there was not a lot you could do during the fiercest phase. During lulls you could make decisions to press on or disengage and stage a fighting retreat.
Ftoomsh, please read that link which I cast in my post. Then you will understand that case. Moral and fatigue effects were very important in practical shooting. If you take into acount some simplicications and gameplay scales, you get a clou there. C2 is more realistic than C1 in that matter without a doubt.
Agreed. I don't think fatigue or morale should be in cossacks, as c1 was beautiful just because it was so simple
C1 was so simple that it never recreate true Art of War principles. Quick, chaotic development, crazy fast mass killings are clear aberration. Gigantic mobs blobbing, individual men advancing on stronger enemy, strange nation representation, bad units and waepons ballance and many bugs can not be interesting. Morale, fatigue and squads combats are vital parts of warfare. Well prepared units, well planned movements, deployment, formations and order of battle also are important. GSC team should take these into account. They can make more changes for C3 game. Well implemented morale and fatigue systems do not spoli the game.
Hear hear. I think some people are possibly setting themselves up for disappointment in regards to a moral system. I'm all for it in mod form or even as a post-release optional feature, however for the remake of the original which was very much a different beast to C2, I see this as a very doubtful addition - even with the '5% new content' that some keep bandying around. Whether you hate the blobs of units/lack of morale system or not - Cossacks 1 started the series, had two expansions and did very well in Europe - I don't think they will muck around too much with their forumla.
I am not against a moral system. I would be happy to have an on off switch option in the gamesettings.
Ah apologies - I wasn't insinuating that you were against it - I was just aware that there are a few folks (not yourself) heavily pushing the moral system. I don't want them disappointed with the game if it releases without For the record, I too would be happy with an on/off switch 'advanced' setting - it would certainly cater for everyone!
In theory a morale system could be implemented as a sliding scale - Moral Effects from 0% to 100%. Zero percent would be no morale effects. One hundred percent would be full implementation of morale effects in the strongest form the design envisages. The percentage would refer to the percentage of morale drain that is applied by actions. 100% applies the full designed morale drain for any action. 50% applies 50% of the morale drain and so on. Fatigue would work in the same manner. An interesting effect of this type of implementation, at least in beta testing, would be that developers could see what a mix of testers (some who like morale effects and some who don't) thought of the various levels of implementation by testing it with the percent slider option. The thing is, it might be possible to find a sweet spot; some moderate level of morale and fatigue effect implementation that most gamers will accept. I for one would be happy with mild or maybe moderate morale and fatigue effects but nothing severe. I found C2 morale effects severe but morale effects in AC/FB not so severe.
I think that was one of the reasons C1 appealed to so many, it was fast very large armies clashing and killing each other. Large ship battles and maps with up to 7 players. It was all about fun not realism. Cossacks 2 appeals to a slightly different audience. This is why if they do change their minds and add morale it needs to be a option where players can turn it off or on. It is my personal opinion but i do not believe you can have a morale and fatigue system and still have Cossacks 3 feel like Cossacks 1 in terms of game play. I just don't see that happening.
Why not include on/off option? Then you can still play old fast mass kilings as well as impresive and more realistic big battles with properly implemented morale and fatigue factors. Very large armies still can clashing and crushing enemy, and defeated parts with poor morale can runaway from battlefileds. These are much better cases than crazy mass killings all men to the last leg. Large sea battles also are fun when ships can fight in correct manner. Morale and fatigue factors played vital roles in sea battles too. Therefore outnumbered Nelson's fleet can defeated larger French and Spanish navies at Trafalgar.
GSC may well see how many times you have referered to Cossack's 'old fast mass killings' and make them even faster and even crazier
