|
Cossacks I tactics (especially against the AI).
|
|
| Cichor | Date: Tuesday, 28/February/2012, 12:42 PM | Message # 11 |
 Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Status: Offline
| Quote (JM) 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.)
Recruit many of serdiuks. Serdiuk have one great adventage then other firearms units - very long range. To cover shooters add cannons, peasants (it is impossible to capture them  ) and units from DC.
Quote (JM) 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...
For example - Pikemen to Ukraine added 17th c Historical Hardcore Mod.
Nowy,
My english is poor and I know about it. But ... Topic is about tactics to C1, not about historical accurate, and why in your opinion C2 is more historical.
Quote (JM) You know what to do about it, then - check out the modding instructions, download the programs and get to work!!
Yeah, I wrote about it many months ago... without result.
I apologize for my english.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
|
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Tuesday, 28/February/2012, 3:40 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| Recruit many of serdiuks. Serdiuk have one great adventage then other firearms units - very long range.
They are also very powerful, more than most 18th Century musketeers or even special musketeers (Highlanders, Pandurs etc.)
To cover shooters add cannons, peasants (it is impossible to capture them ) and units from DC.
And as I wrote,
The answer, I found, was to make LOTS of infantry and back them with a group of five to ten artillery.
that's exactly what I ended up doing (great minds think alike?). I also captured Algerian peasants and got them to build gun towers for me, into range of which I lured the enemy troops. Then two groups of about 40 Serdiuks positioned at 90 degree angles gave converging fire to finish off the survivors. Eventually I was able to move groups of Serdiuks in line, covered by cannons, to barricade the enemy into his base, then bring up a group of five howitzers and smash his buildings one by one to win the war.
There was also a lake near one of the routes the enemy tried to use, so I built a port and turned out a few galleys to use as mobile artillery in the vicinity of the lake. Not quite as effective as Ships of the Line, but good enough.
I have a tactical manual that someone wrote for the OC mod a while back, mentioned here:
http://forums.cdvusa.com/showthread.php?t=59332
...but it's not always useful for the original game because the Mod increases the attack and defence statistics of formations too much compared with "loose" soldiers (too much has changed from the original). So I'm writing one of my own, based on my experimentation (and mistakes!!) and incorporating stuff I learned here, and if it's OK I might upload it when it's done. Credit will be given where due.
Message edited by JM - Tuesday, 28/February/2012, 4:23 PM |
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Tuesday, 28/February/2012, 4:17 PM | Message # 13 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote (Cichor) Nowy,
My english is poor and I know about it. But ... Topic is about tactics to C1, not about historical accurate, and why in your opinion C2 is more historical.
Hmm, I did not say in this topic that C2 is more or less historical.
I prefer C2 because it is little bit more modern game which had more interesting ideas e.g. units fought mainly in formations, they had morale and panick system, there are roads and villages systems etc.
But could you read again this topic, please.
You can easy find in few early posts who started these historical aspects and who asked the questions about tactics in C1 and what methods people used or prefer in the game.
JM stated that
Quote (JM) 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.
Then he also asked
Quote (JM) 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?
I only answered that I prefer historically accurate units and tactics.
But historical methods are hard to play in C1.
Then JM found some next strange things and some specific units which were historicaly poorly prepered.
Therefore I again cast some next examples in the same matter.
Maybe I am historical purist, but for me historically based game should/could allow play with historically accurate tactics.
Therefore I cast some remarks about these very importand aspects.
Quote (JM) You know what to do about it, then - check out the modding instructions, download the programs and get to work!!
Maybe I do not believe that I can create good mod there. My programming skills are very limited and there could be lot of work which needs professional team.
|
| |
| |
| JM | Date: Thursday, 01/March/2012, 3:28 PM | Message # 14 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Status: Offline
| Note to Cichor - about Ukraine: http://cossacks.heavengames.com/academy/civ/ptukraine.shtml It was all there in the book, and when I looked through some of my old, old backup drives I found the link. I'd read this all before and forgot I even had it. Silly me!!
(PS note the typo error at the link - "Sith Cossack" instead of "Sich Cossack". LOL, Star Wars fans should enjoy that one.)
Message edited by JM - Thursday, 01/March/2012, 3:41 PM |
| |
| |
| redira | Date: Wednesday, 04/July/2012, 3:11 AM | Message # 15 |
|
Esquire
Group: Users
Messages: 4
Status: Offline
| There really are a lot of tactics and strategies you can employ while playing. And though it would be great to share what others think and know would work, it just would not be that fair to get things by like that.
More importantly, tactics change across people you play with and there will be no very similar ones that would work. Would just depend on how you employ every single one of them.
|
| |
| |
| MrRiv | Date: Tuesday, 15/January/2013, 5:34 AM | Message # 16 |
 Knight
Group: Users
Messages: 24
Status: Offline
| What if there was a mod which favored historically accurate formations with AI to combat? I've been working on an AI for a bit now, and curious if any of you guys are interested.
Would you guys prefer the AI to use formations and an edit of the unit stats so that formations were far more useful? Or you would guys prefer the current style of play which makes Cossacks Unique, where you can choose to have swarms of un-grouped units and choose to use formations for the slight bonus at the waste of production time?
I speak English. Je parle francais. Mowim po polsku. Говорю на русском. Ich spreche Deutsch.
Historian and C/C++/C#, Java, Python, Basic, HTML, XML programmer.
|
| |
| |
| ab_99 | Date: Tuesday, 15/January/2013, 9:23 PM | Message # 17 |
|
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 126
Status: Offline
| Quote (MrRiv) What if there was a mod which favored historically accurate formations with AI to combat? I've been working on an AI for a bit now, and curious if any of you guys are interested.
The transfer function of the resource available to the player, it is necessary to implement it in AI
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Saturday, 26/January/2013, 11:18 AM | Message # 18 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote (ab 99) You can add a bit of historicity, for example, the capture of the mine. Pay a bonus winner in 1000 of the resource.
The transfer function of the resource available to the player, it is necessary to implement it in AI
You've trifled with him. Are you see any historicity in your proposition?
Problem here was historically accurate formations to combat with AI. That was not capture of the mine issue.
C1 is not historically correct and some players would like to change this, but they have not enough experience in modding therefore they ask the questions I suppose.
There are many things which could be improved.
AI should include more realistic and historically corect tactics, units, formations etc.
Crowds of stupid soldiers which fight like robots are quite foolis. Units balance and stupidly big kill ability are not good.
Especially mixed mercenaries archers with grenadiers and too powered dragoons formations, and artillery looks bad and ugly.
There are more historically ill things. Therefore there could be quite interesting place for modding.
Message edited by Nowy - Saturday, 26/January/2013, 11:23 AM |
| |
| |
| ab_99 | Date: Saturday, 26/January/2013, 1:25 PM | Message # 19 |
|
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 126
Status: Offline
| Quote (Nowy) You've trifled with him. Are you see any historicity in your proposition?
My proposal does not go beyond the capabilities of the engine.
To implement your ideas have to rewrite the game.
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Saturday, 26/January/2013, 2:34 PM | Message # 20 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote (ab 99) Of course, all wars are fought for profit.
Oh, sometimes it is not true.
Aggressive wars were fought for profits, land, domination etc, but when somebody defended his country he somtimes fought for his live.
That is much more than any profits.
Quote (ab 99) My proposal does not go beyond the capabilities of the engine.
To implement your ideas have to rewrite the game.
Yes of course, my propositions are more complex, but I think that few things are not so hard to change in the game e.g. units balance or organization.
Your proposition is controversial. Wars were not so simple as capture of mines. These did not gave any bonus, when winer can not get any resources.
Of course winer sometimes can get some stock resources, but normally defenders tried destroy any stocks to prevent any profit for winer.
When somebody lost mine, he did not pay any bonus for winer.
Winer can get profits when he start exploatation and that is quite fair in the game.
Your bonus looks like some kind of contributions, but these were paid mainly by countries, towns or wilages under some conditions.
Message edited by Nowy - Saturday, 26/January/2013, 2:36 PM |
| |
| |
