|
Comparing engines
|
|
| Daddio | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 7:17 AM | Message # 21 |
|
Marquis
Group: Moderators
Messages: 431
Status: Offline
| Stacking has been a tactic of Cossacks from the time the very first game appeared. And has been controversial from the start. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best system available that I have seen. If you look at it as a game, to be played to its full potential, then stacking is just another way to manipulate your units. Its only when you try to make it something its not do you see it as unfair, or unrealistic. Its just a game based on historical data. Daddio
http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b455/Billy_Jo_Patrick/cossacks2_art_03_zpsel8tgwad.jpg
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 10:47 AM | Message # 22 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote ("Davout") From my tests it seems that stacking in AC is every bit as bad as stacking in C2, which is strange. If I remember rightly in my conversations with Gex he stated that stacking was one of the main reasons why he did not move across to the C2 engine, while in AC the ability to check LoS meant that stacking was a danger to your own troops and thus AC was more realistic.
So am I missing something? Is AC 'more realistic' with regards attempts to reduce stacking? Stacking in AC is every bit as bad as stacing in C2. Both game are not realistic in this case.
Maybe this is the question in formations scaling and gaps between soldiers in formation too.
Nevetheless there are only small differences. In AC soldiers from stacking formations stay little bit near the next one, and in C2 sometimes all they looks like soldiers from only the one formation. When formations move it goes in another way. In AC stacking formations march all together as crowded formations, while in C2 sometimes they can march separatly on roads, but in terrain it looks near the same like in AC. In both games stacking formations are horrible, foolish and looks very bad. They are totaly not realistic. Many people suggested that it needs improvements. But nobody have solved this problem yet.
|
| |
| |
| Cichor | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 11:17 AM | Message # 23 |
 Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Status: Offline
| Quote (|hwk|poppen) line of site i believe Thx  Quote (Nowy) Many people suggested that it needs improvements. But nobody have solved this problem yet. Nowy, look below: Quote (Oss) I guess arty would take it out pretty easy though. We have same point of view Oss to resolve problem effortlessly until someone will find better solution. Quote (Daddio)
Its just a game based on historical data. Wise words.
I apologize for my english.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
Message edited by Cichor - Thursday, 23/September/2010, 11:18 AM |
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 11:39 AM | Message # 24 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote (Cichor") Quote (Nowy) Many people suggested that it needs improvements. But nobody have solved this problem yet. Nowy, look below: Quote (Oss)
I guess arty would take it out pretty easy though.
We have same point of view Oss to resolve problem effortlessly until someone will find better solution. Are you joking? Like this you only kill more soldiers, but it not resolve problem of the stacking formations.
They still can exist and that is foolish and horrible unrealistic in the game.
Quote ("Daddio")
Its just a game based on historical data.
Well, show me historical data where formations were stacking like these from C2 or AC, please.
|
| |
| |
| Cichor | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 1:39 PM | Message # 25 |
|
Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Status: Offline
| Quote (Nowy) Are you joking? Like this you only kill more soldiers, but it not resolve problem of the stacking formations. Not? Well... If somebody lost few times in raw because of it, then she or he will stop using stacking, it is not obvious for you?
I wrote it finally resolve problem? I wrote that it is temporarily resolve problem until someone find it. Quote (Nowy) They still can exist and that is foolish and horrible unrealistic in the game. ... Every game are unrealistic and nonhistorical. Only live is is realistic and historical, stop being little child which dream about meet Napoelon nearly Waterloo in 1815. Games always have been, still are and always will be only poor simulators of war. It doesn't matter it is Total War, mod for it made by fans or games like Cossacks. Quote (Nowy) Quote ("Daddio") Its just a game based on historical data. Well, show me historical data where formations were stacking like these from C2 or AC, please. Overinterpretation of speech. Daddio rather thought about types of units like pandur, janissary or hussar, not half-baked aspects of game and game engine by authors.
I apologize for my english.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
|
| |
| |
| [hwk]poppen | Date: Thursday, 23/September/2010, 10:25 PM | Message # 26 |
 The master of Pike and shot
Group: Moderators
Messages: 324
Status: Offline
| well in my opinion, there is no way we can be historically accurate because no one who made the game was there, none of the modelers, programmers, etc, weren't there during the battles, they made a great engine that we all love to play based on what is written, archived, and painted, and it has a few flaws, EVERYTHING has flaws, so i say let it be, stack or unstack, its your decision
i read in a book on the american revolution and tactics in the 18th century that when muskets are in rank, they would sometimes merge 2 companys into 1 line so they could have more units puttiing out fire
if you wanna read the book, "how the war of independence was fought"
Non progredi est regredi
Message edited by [hwk]poppen - Thursday, 23/September/2010, 10:38 PM |
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Friday, 24/September/2010, 0:09 AM | Message # 27 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote ("Cichor") Not? Well... If somebody lost few times in raw because of it, then she or he will stop using stacking, it is not obvious for you?
You presented wishful thinking in this case and I could say like you said it before:
Quote ("Cichor") Only live is is realistic and historical, stop being little child which dream about meet Napoelon nearly Waterloo in 1815.
But who knows what and when somebody will or will not doing? Will or will not stop using stacking formation. In that case, fact is that stacking formations exist in theses games. Think that could be somebody which lost few times in raw because of it, AND then she or her will NOT stop using stacking. This way I could say that your pervious implication is not true. And you are not resolve this stacking problem that way. Quote ("Cichor") I wrote it finally resolve problem? I wrote that it is temporarily resolve problem until someone find it.
Bla, bla, bla I quoted you precisely and then put my opinion. Of course you can disagree with me, but it does not change this fact - stacking formations exist in these games.
Quote ("Cichor") ... Every game are unrealistic and nonhistorical. I does not mean that I can not say that stacking formations are bad in C2 or AC. Quote ("Cichor") Overinterpretation of speech. Daddio rather thought about types of units like pandur, janissary or hussar, not half-baked aspects of game and game engine by authors. Maybe you are right, but I can not read in his mind, and what is more, I always thought this is thread about comparing engines and not about “historical based” units. Quote ("[hwk) poppen"] i read in a book on the american revolution and tactics in the 18th century that when muskets are in rank, they would sometimes merge 2 companys into 1 line so they could have more units puttiing out fire But this soldiers were not stacked. Merge companies do not mean stack companies.
And if I remember well companies in battalions line stayed one near the next one. This way all companies can fired in order. If companies had not enough men then it can be merged, but it was not stacking.
|
| |
| |
| Oss | Date: Friday, 24/September/2010, 1:55 AM | Message # 28 |
 Count
Group: Checked
Messages: 81
Status: Offline
| AC is based on the 18th century. Its not the 18th century if that makes sense.
 
|
| |
| |
| [hwk]poppen | Date: Friday, 24/September/2010, 2:33 AM | Message # 29 |
|
The master of Pike and shot
Group: Moderators
Messages: 324
Status: Offline
| @oss
yes your right, i understand what your saying, its a game based on the 17th and 18th century, but the game IS NOT the 17th and 18th century @Nowy
i believe you misunderstood me, i mean 2 full formations. lets say 100 men. would merge together, in 1 spot, while as a defensive tactic. to instead of having 100 guns fire at that one section. have 200 fire at that one section. more guns = more kills= victory
Non progredi est regredi
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Friday, 24/September/2010, 10:01 AM | Message # 30 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote ("[hwk) poppen"]@Nowy
i believe you misunderstood me, i mean 2 full formations. lets say 100 men. would merge together, in 1 spot, while as a defensive tactic. to instead of having 100 guns fire at that one section. have 200 fire at that one section. more guns = more kills= victory
I don't think so.
Infantry in 18 century and in Napoleonic Era used line formations for fire with muuskets but they were organized and can not stacked.
They used sometime little bit diferent systems , nevertheles Quote The infantrymen were trained to form at open or closed files:
a - closed files:
primary and fundamental order in which the troops are drawn up.
Battalion could be formed in line (see below), column (see below),
or square against cavalry. The men standing elbow-to-elbow, and
2- or 3-ranks deep.
b - open files:
used in some combat situations, in skirmish,
and in some cases of inspections I bolded that men standing elbow-to elbow and it could explain why merge companie does not mean stack companies. How they can be stacked at the same place in reality. They standing one near the next one. Normally it was hard place 200 men in the same place were stay 100 men elbow-to-elbow.
Even commanders need more men or companies they usually stay unit near the next one unit, but not stack. You can look there http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm Think that you know that site, but it will be not bad read again about infantry tactics at that period.
|
| |
| |
