[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 212»
Forum moderator: EbelAngel 
Forum » General Talk » General Chat » C1 and C2 comparison. (Which Cossacks game is better - real arguments.)
C1 and C2 comparison.
NowyDate: Friday, 06/April/2012, 6:33 PM | Message # 1
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Cossacks series games have several versions and C1 games in many aspects are different than C2 games. Both series are real time strategy games based on historical horse and gun powder era, however these two series were placed in other centuries. Nevertheless there are much more differences than historical periods. These coud led to discussion what series is better.

However C1 was more popular a specially in multiplayer community, but it do not mean that C1 games are better than C2 games. These were only marketing popularity or preferences cases, but it were not quality tests and objective evaluation. Therefore it could be interesting to cast some more arguments or specify some things which could give answer on the question which Cossacks game is better. What was good or what was bad things and why some things are better or not.

Some C1 fans complained that C2 was not so dynamic and playable as pervious series games. Their opponents say that C2 allow play more complex and intelligent games. The latter game also had implemented much modern graphic, better AI and several new and quite fine ideas.

Both these series games were quite simple arcade real time strategy games which were far, far from historical accuracy and reality. Nevertheless in many aspects it were and still could be enjoyable therefore still have fans.

I find that it could be interesting compare both these games. Nevertheless for some simplicity here we could take into account only latest official versions C1 Back to War and C2 Battle for Europe games.

You could cast here only objective opinions based on real arguments.
Any fan boys lovely, but empty words, flame wars or quarrels please.

Added (06/April/2012, 6:33 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Hmm, I do not see any remarks there.
Anybody can cast his opinion about C1 and C2 or these games already have not fans?
In such case I can cast mine remarks.

C1 BTW

This popular game looks like fantasy clones races. It needs more fast mouse clicking than real tactical skills or historical warfare knowledge. Scanty graphic, short game mechanics, wrong factions balance, strange units statistics and fighting abilities allow play there only unrealistic, crazy, muddle and stupidly bloody battles. AI is not clever and there are many stupid tactical bugs. Standard gameplay is simple, schematic, dynamic and relatively fast. It could be interesting for fast klickers which like fast killings.
There can paly even 8 players on one map at once. Therefore this game have many fans, a specially in multiplayer.

C2 BFE

This game have many fine innovations, better graphic, improved game mechanic, better maps, better prepared units, more accurate tactic and many small details. There are fine roads, villages, resources transport, morale, stamina, panic effects and new fighting system where formations are important. However these formations needs too much micro management and there are some glitches in units fighting abilities. This game also allow use some unrealistic tricks. Sometimes it can spoil gameplay a specially in multiplayer. Nevertheless C2 was better developed and is more realistic than C1. Both games could be ebjoyable however have many glitches and needs many improvements.


Message edited by Nowy - Saturday, 07/April/2012, 2:36 PM
 
JMDate: Wednesday, 18/April/2012, 5:53 PM | Message # 2
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 31
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
The thing that matters to me is this: I tried C2:NW on three different machines of increasing ability and all three refused to run it. C1? No problems.
 
NowyDate: Thursday, 19/April/2012, 10:06 AM | Message # 3
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
What a pity that you got these problems.
C2 is much better than C1 especially in SP.

Have you original C2:NW copy?
Did you switch off all programs which can block the game on those computers?
Did you ask technical support about that issue?
 
CichorDate: Thursday, 19/April/2012, 5:34 PM | Message # 4
Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Awards: 4
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline
Nowy, I thought you want to compare here C1 and C2. Then:
Quote (Nowy)
Have you original C2:NW copy?
Did you switch off all programs which can block the game on those computers?
Did you ask technical support about that issue?

Offtop? :P


I apologize for my english.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
 
NowyDate: Thursday, 19/April/2012, 8:53 PM | Message # 5
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote (Cichor)
Offtop? :P

I do not think so. wink
These were questions to JM regarding his problems with C2.
He stated that had not problems with C1 and it was quite strange that he can not run C2.

This case could looks like technical comparison, but I would like to know that it is fair comparison.


Message edited by Nowy - Thursday, 19/April/2012, 8:57 PM
 
CichorDate: Saturday, 21/April/2012, 0:05 AM | Message # 6
Earl
Group: Moderators
Messages: 232
Awards: 4
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline
Quote (Nowy)
He stated that had not problems with C1 and it was quite strange that he can not run C2.


Strange? Rather normal. smile


I apologize for my english.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://www.kozacy.org/
http://forum.kozacy.org/
 
NowyDate: Saturday, 21/April/2012, 10:42 AM | Message # 7
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote (Cichor)
Strange? Rather normal.


I doubt that it is normal at last hundreds thousands ppl bought C2 and I never saw that all they complained that they can not run this game. smile

There are some Win7 and starforce cases, but these could be solved with technical support.

Then normal is that ppl can play and even enjoy in C2.

This game is more realistic and even historical accurate than C1.
C2 has better graphic, many interesting ideas, improved game mechanics and better AI.
There are many glitches and incorrect things, but these are less irritating than similar things in C1.

If you disagree then you can cast your real arguments which can compare C1 with C2.


Message edited by Nowy - Sunday, 22/April/2012, 9:13 PM
 
Warren_GdaDate: Monday, 23/April/2012, 1:49 AM | Message # 8
Baron
Group: Checked
Messages: 36
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Nowy= El Fanatico (!)

Quote
Some C1 fans complained that C2 was not so dynamic and playable as pervious series games. Their opponents say that C2 allow play more complex and intelligent games. The latter game also had implemented much modern graphic, better AI and several new and quite fine ideas.


Not some, most C1 fans complained that C2 is not dynamic and playable.

How could be more intelligent games in C2? How you can rate "intelligence" of gameplay? It sound like rate animal feelings to human feelings. Just silly.

Better AI uhmm... AI does nothing when gameplay is shitty. Graphics? Who cares? It's RTS not FPP.

Quote
It needs more fast mouse clicking than real tactical skills or historical warfare knowledge.

Ya, really? I'm professional gamer, one of greatest polish players and Csx needs many different skills depends on the style game. The most important is prediction in a short time what opponent will make. In C2 you have 10x more time for this. In C1 you must think very quickly and creatively, because C1 maps give more capabilities than C2 maps. It's obvious.

In games with Peace Time more than 30 minutes you need to haveTACTICAL SKILLS, but not historical warfare knowledge. For C1 you must know and create new tactics. It's not defect. For most ppl it's advantage because they can create new tactic, not use old historical. I say again- C1 is not historical game. It's REAL TIME STRATEGY, so this game need not compatible with history, real hist. soldiers and countries.

Quote
Scanty graphic, short game mechanics, wrong factions balance, strange units statistics and fighting abilities allow play there only unrealistic, crazy, muddle and stupidly bloody battles.

What did you say?

1) Graphic?- Graphis should be simple. C1 has ideal graphis for battles.

2) Wrong Faction Balance?- In C1 we have many strategy of development and and fighting. Each country could kick ass other country, but for this you need to have some skills, not only bla bla on forum or Single Player experience. smile Faction=Countries? Or Did I translate this wrong?

3) Crazy, Muddle and Stupidly Bloody Battles.- Oh, too much blood for you? Don't be silly. Battles in C1 are more requiring than C2 battles. What is hard in C2 battles? tongue

Quote
Standard gameplay is simple, schematic, dynamic and relatively fast. It could be interesting for fast klickers which like fast killings.

You can use SLOW MODE. Didn't you know this, and you rate the gameplay of C1? Oh, so bad... wink

Quote
There can paly even 8 players on one map at once. Therefore this game have many fans, a specially in multiplayer.

Oh, next mistake. 8 players? You even haven't CHECK THIS. 7 players is max. option.

How you can rate game when you even didn't check all options! You cannot be objective.

C2 is good game, but it's still 2 class less than C1.


http://c1c.pl
http://forum.c1c.pl
 
NowyDate: Monday, 23/April/2012, 1:56 PM | Message # 9
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote (Warren Gda)
Not some, most C1 fans complained that C2 is not dynamic and playable.

I doubt that you asked majority C1 fans about their complains, then how you could make such short statement. It’s clear your fantasy.
Quote (Warren Gda)

How could be more intelligent games in C2? How you can rate "intelligence" of gameplay? It sound like rate animal feelings to human feelings. Just silly.

I do not rate intelligence of gameplay. I compare two games where C2 include some more intelligent things, while C1 do not include them. If you have more intelligent things in the game then you could play more intelligent gameplay I suppose.

C2 game allow play more complex and intelligent games, because this game include many more realistic and intelligent things e.g.
- units behaviours, morale, fear, panic, stamina effects
- formations in C2 are necessary, crowded masses of individual soldiers can not win the war in C2, while in C1 formations are not so necessary and there soldiers fight like robots clones, they never get tired, all can fight to the last man which is clearly stupid
- C2 units balance, statistics, fighting abilities, tactics are much better chosen, more realistic and even more historically accurate
- C2 battlefield tactics include few basic facts that flank and rear attacks are more effective. In C1 it does not matter how you attack, generally you need outnumber enemy or use hipper stronger units e.g. theses fantasy Ukrainian Hetmans or serdiuks

- villages as several capture able strategic settlements, roads, resources transport systems are important in every warfare and C2 somehow represent such things while C1 have not them
- you can not go everywhere with the same speed, terrain always slower units movement, they can get tired and this is more realistic
- in both games you can capture and hold strategic points, you could attack in few directions, but in C2 you can not run individual soldiers across all map as crowded masses of clones and this is more realistic and intelligent

Here you are only few examples of better and more intelligent things. I could cast more examples and it could be much longer list of better things included in C2.

Quote (Warren Gda)
Better AI uhmm... AI does nothing when gameplay is shitty. Graphics? Who cares? It's RTS not FPP.

AI is very important in SP and even in MP at last your units operate in predicted way, but all they include parts of AI abilities. Did not you notice that?
Graphics makes better visual effects and it is fine that C2 have better graphics.
RTS games also looks better with better graphics, especially these based on historical units, because colours and cuts of uniforms and many other things are important there.
Quote (Warren Gda)

Ya, really? I'm professional gamer, one of greatest polish players and Csx needs many different skills depends on the style game. The most important is prediction in a short time what opponent will make. In C2 you have 10x more time for this. In C1 you must think very quickly and creatively, because C1 maps give more capabilities than C2 maps. It's obvious.

In games with Peace Time more than 30 minutes you need to haveTACTICAL SKILLS, but not historical warfare knowledge. For C1 you must know and create new tactics. It's not defect. For most ppl it's advantage because they can create new tactic, not use old historical. I say again- C1 is not historical game. It's REAL TIME STRATEGY, so this game need not compatible with history, real hist. soldiers and countries.


Congratulation that you can play C1 game, but I doubt that this game needs real tactical skills. Even you noticed that this games generally needs short time of reactions it is mean you must be fast clicker every time. Here you are only short battlefield tactics and any peace time do not change real strategy which is very short (mean not so intelligent how it looks) in C1.

These C1 strategies are clearly schematic and are not realistic at all.

I still wonder why people must create these “new tactics” there.
It is quite funny that they can not properly use old historical tactics in the game which base on 17 and 18 centuries.

Quote (Warren Gda)

1) Graphic?- Graphis should be simple. C1 has ideal graphis for battles.

2) Wrong Faction Balance?- In C1 we have many strategy of development and and fighting. Each country could kick ass other country, but for this you need to have some skills, not only bla bla on forum or Single Player experience. Faction=Countries? Or Did I translate this wrong?

3) Crazy, Muddle and Stupidly Bloody Battles.- Oh, too much blood for you? Don't be silly. Battles in C1 are more requiring than C2 battles. What is hard in C2 battles?

Ad. 1 Graphics makes better visual effects and it is fine even in RTS games. It is not main point, but it can add more aspects into the game. It is clear that C2 graphics is better than C1.

Ad.2 In C1 such supper powers as like Algeria, Denmark, Saxony etc are really stupid cases. Wrong balance and unrealistic units statistics clearly spoil this game. Stupidly and highly powered dragoons shoot at farther range than infantry muskets, cavalry sabers or lances can not kill at once upgraded dragoon, cavalrymen must deliver many cuts and slashes, single grenadier with bayonet can kill even few cavalrymen, Polish winged hussars never can form and fight in formations, musketeers and multi barrel guns can fire as modern gun machines etc “stink flowers”.

C2 include much better balanced faction/nations/countries, units have better statistics, behaviors and fighting abilities without a doubt.

Ad. 3 Oh yeah, C1 battles require more patience for units stupidity and massacre killings at last these robots never weaver, never fear, never run away and fight to the last clones member.
Blood is not a matter there, but units stupidity, their behaviors, fighting abilities, horrible casualties and almost total units annihilation in C1 disgust me. In such case even hard battles fought by stupid clones can not be fun.

Added (23/April/2012, 1:56 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Quote (Warren Gda)
You can use SLOW MODE. Didn't you know this, and you rate the gameplay of C1? Oh, so bad...

I know this option very well, but this do not change my point that C1 is for fast clickers.
You could be more carefully then you could notice that I am right there.

Quote (Warren Gda)

Oh, next mistake. 8 players? You even haven't CHECK THIS. 7 players is max. option.

How you can rate game when you even didn't check all options! You cannot be objective.

C2 is good game, but it's still 2 class less than C1.


What is really matter 7 or 8 or 6 players when all they play only with stupid robots clones.
In such things real human can not change units stupid behaviors and the game can disgust.

C2 is better game, however needs some intelligence to notice their fine potential.
You have more time for everything there. This game is logically better prepared, include many innovations and have better graphics. It is not a perfect game, but players can enjoy this game also when they know something about historical tactics and warfare.

C1 allow play fast fantasy big, bang battles and that could be fun for fast clickers.
If players know something about that period which is represented there, then this game could even disgust.


Message edited by Nowy - Monday, 23/April/2012, 2:07 PM
 
arolasDate: Wednesday, 04/July/2012, 12:48 PM | Message # 10
Esquire
Group: Users
Messages: 1
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I really understand both sides. Your arguments are good, and now I'm really unsure what I should think about this topic. This is a difficult decision. But I think I agree more with Nowy!

Message edited by arolas - Wednesday, 04/July/2012, 12:50 PM
 
Forum » General Talk » General Chat » C1 and C2 comparison. (Which Cossacks game is better - real arguments.)
Page 1 of 212»
Search: