|
Cossacks I tactics (especially against the AI).
|
|
| JM | Date: Friday, 17/February/2012, 5:36 PM | Message # 1 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| I know the "purists" may prefer to handle their infantry, cavalry and artillery according to the tactics of the period they're fighting in, but I'm sure we don't stick to that all the time. I know I don't! For example, I am a big fan of multibarrelled guns (I use them as machine guns) and plenty of artillery; and if I'm playing a game with coastlines or large lakes, I will build ships of the line to act as artillery fire support, destroy enemy bases and protect my own. I usually fight more or less in line with 20th century, late World War 1 methods, and it shows in the casualty ratios at the end of the game.
What do other people do? Do you prefer to stick with what was actually done in the 1600s and 1700s? Or do you use more modern ideas and/or muddle through according to your own systems? Does this affect what nations you play as? Do you try to keep your losses to a minimum? Or do you sometimes just let go of all restraint and throw in huge numbers of 18th century pikemen just to see how many it takes to win the war? When you're selecting the economy you're going to start with, do you select minimum resources for the challenge, or do you accept that the nation you're playing would have adequate resources to field a small army and always go for millions (in BTW at any rate)?
Message edited by JM - Friday, 17/February/2012, 5:37 PM |
| |
| |
| Cichor | Date: Sunday, 19/February/2012, 10:07 PM | Message # 2 |
 Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Status: Offline
| It's hard in game (all games!!) to create historical order. Usually I don't have enough time to play with many formations, groups of formations etc. Especially when you fighting human who don't care about history and other stuff.
I apologize for my english.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Monday, 20/February/2012, 11:11 AM | Message # 3 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| C1 was poorly based on history and therefrore players which try use historical methods can not won the game playing against good player which use non historical methods. Fast grow economy and flood of masses not formed soldiers will be victorious there.
Playing against AI you can try fight using more historicaly accurate methods, but you well know that it is less effective.
Nevertheless I always try do it in such way. It is much fun, however units in C1 can not do it well and AI of course can not use similar historical methods.
Cossacks were advertised as historicaly based game, but I always wonder why GSC developed game in such fantasy order.
Some excuse for this case I could find in their poor historical knowledge and that many technical problems did not allow implement some historical things.
I do not think that it was hard include in the game more historical staff and order.
They even tried improve this things in C2, but they did it only in half way and therefore there also were many inaccuracy.
Developers should know better what, when and how was used then they did not make so many funny mistakes.
When I look at some units, their statistics, uniforms, formations, behaviours and tactics in C1, they clearly are ahistorical, however they were much better than in few other games. Therefore Cossacks rts games were interesting.
|
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Monday, 20/February/2012, 8:28 PM | Message # 4 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| Thanks for your thoughts, Cichor and Nowy.
I agree with you both, it's not perfect - but I think it's pretty good, considering what it is and when it was produced, and so I try not to judge it too harshly.
|
| |
| |
| Cichor | Date: Monday, 20/February/2012, 10:05 PM | Message # 5 |
|
Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Status: Offline
| Quote (JM) when it was produced,
 Date of release has nothing to do with historical accurate. Look at Sudden Strike and Steel Panthers (first version). Second one is older and more historical. 
I apologize for my english.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
|
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Saturday, 25/February/2012, 11:50 PM | Message # 6 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| Date of release has nothing to do with historical accurate.
I agree. To clarify, I was referring to limitations in programming, graphics etc. at the time, which may have hampered the creators' ability to make it more realistic. If they were writing it today, advances in the platforms for which it was designed might (for example) allow a much more sophisticated and powerful AI, and keeping better track of things like formation and maybe even individual unit morale, modelling of decreased musket accuracy and power with distance, and so on.
In any case, these imperfections are what lets us have so much fun modding the game, adding new units and changing or improving the AI. How boring it would be if they'd got it completely right!!Added (24/February/2012, 2:44 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Speaking of tactics, does anyone have suggestions for playing as Ukraine? No multibarrelled cannons, no towers, no cold-steel infantry apart from mercenaries... All my usual tricks are invalidated!!! Added (25/February/2012, 11:50 PM)
---------------------------------------------
(Addit: The answer, I found, was to make LOTS of infantry and back them with a group of five to ten artillery. Provided MOST of the enemy heavy cavalry are shot down, the Serdiuks are so strong in firepower they can deal with the rest.)
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Sunday, 26/February/2012, 3:27 PM | Message # 7 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Ukrainian units clearly shows how unrealistic they were prepared and poorly balanced. They also are historicaly incorrect, therefore any game tactics can not be realistic and historicaly accurate. Serdiuks have so big fire power that they fire as gun machines, and Hetmans cavalrymen are quite overpowered.
This game had many different, however mainly quite fantasy units. Worse that in reality they had not so big diverse.
These looks crazy and that things are not so fun. More historicaly accurate units, their statistics, uniforms and formations could be much more fun.
Some excuse I find that these ghames were developed when GSC had not experience in historical based computer games.
They tried prepare something what could allow play big battles useing thousands soldiers and that worked quite well.
Today C1 is somehow outdated.
Therefore I prefer C2 which had more interesting ideas.
Worse that these games allowed create only little bit more historically accurate mods and anyone was much better than vanilla game.
Nevertheless there could be fine place for good modders or for next, this time mucch better historical based, rts games.
|
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Sunday, 26/February/2012, 4:20 PM | Message # 8 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| It does seem rather odd that of all the nations which cannot advance out of the 17th Century, the Ukrainians should have no cold-steel infantry. And at the same time they have both an incredibly powerful musketeer and no gun towers, while the Algerians (against whom I was playing) have gun towers and no indigenous musket infantry...
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Monday, 27/February/2012, 1:47 PM | Message # 9 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Algieria is next fine example, how historicaly incorrect units could spoil the gameplay. This faction also is too powerful. Algerian cavalry looks quite strange and their powerful mele infantry and fast create archers can make so many problems. They even could be better than musketeers, because archers can easly fired every buildings. These clearly shows that historically methods can not be effective in the game.
Developers tried made few different faction/nations therefore they added Ukraina and Algieria.
What is oddly enough both these faction had not fooly independent states at that period. Algeria was Ottoman's vasall and Ukrainian made great uprising and had shortly independent Cossacks state in mid 17 century. Historically they had more various units e.g. Ukraina used masses of melee (picks) infantry called Chern and in Algeria stationed some Turkish Janissaries which used muskets. But these are only details.
I think that Tatar Crimean Khanate could be much better than Algeria, because Tatars were involved in many wars at that period.
I could add that in C1 almost all factions were wrongly balansed and poorly prepared, a specially these which were added in BtW e.g Denemark, Bavaria, Swiss, Hungary etc. Mercenary and artillery also are quite spoiled.
These clearly distorted game play and made it quite strange. Therefore players used quite strange game play methods which are not adecuate to historical knowledge or reality. Nevertheless it still allow play fast and "bloody" wars.
Message edited by Nowy - Monday, 27/February/2012, 1:58 PM |
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Monday, 27/February/2012, 7:16 PM | Message # 10 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| You know what to do about it, then - check out the modding instructions, download the programs and get to work!!
|
| |
| |
