[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 212»
Forum moderator: Daddio, Cichor 
Forum » Cossacks I » Modding » Looking for OC_DAV (Creator of OC Mod)
Looking for OC_DAV
FtoomshDate: Saturday, 13/April/2013, 12:39 PM | Message # 1
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I would like to get in contact with OC_Davout who created Cossacks OC Mod. Can anyone put me in contact with him? I know his name but cannot trace him. I should not post his name without permission in a public forum. If you are familiar with Cossacks and its history you will know about OC_Davout and you might know how I can to contact him.

OC Mod was a great mod and it's tragic that the community moved on just as this mod got its final patches into a brilliant format. Clausewitz and I still play it constantly to this very day. Our enormous number of games have shown us both OC Mod's essential profoundness as a strategic game and its crying need for both a set of balancing patches and to be taken just a little further. We have played it so hard and so often in zero PT land games on 2x maps that we have exposed every nuance of nation and every unit that is underpowered or overpowered or in any way unbalanced.

I am just beginning to undertake this balancing modding with Clausewitz's additional advice and our extensive real play testing. My private working title for the mod is OC Mod Dav2. I will not be publicly releasing it, at least not without extensive further work and testing which will take many months AND NOT without OC_Dav's express permission.

The working title highlights the fact that DAV is the creator and owner of this mod. OC MOD Dav2 will in no way displace the final official OC Mod. It will simply be a private balanced mod at this stage. I want to correspond with DAV if possible to share ideas and learn more.

Because it is a balancing mod I am not attempting anything truly ambitous. I am not adding nations, nor my own units nor new graphics of any kind. But I will be making balancing changes, both obvious and subtle, suggested by 1000s of hours of practical play. Some other capabilities of the engine may also be utilised if they can be accessed thru the modsxx.gs1 files.

I have played many RTS titles since OC Mod and I have always come back to OC Mod. It really is the most profound and mature strategic RTS ever created on this planet; not the best balanced (yet) but the most profoundly strategic and mature RTS game ever created, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Ftoomsh (aka Ikonoclast and Crazy_Cossack)
 
DaddioDate: Monday, 15/April/2013, 2:55 AM | Message # 2
Marquis
Group: Moderators
Messages: 432
Awards: 4
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline
Cheers Ftoomsh, good to see you still around.

It has been a few years since Davout has visited our forum.

I have some very old emails, but do not think they work.

Last conversation I had with him, he had lost all his work in a hard drive failure.

Hopefully he will visit us soon and see your post.


http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b455/Billy_Jo_Patrick/cossacks2_art_03_zpsel8tgwad.jpg
 
FtoomshDate: Monday, 15/April/2013, 6:18 AM | Message # 3
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Yes, hopfully we can track Dav down. It would be great to correspond with him. In the meantime, I am re-balancing OC Mod for private games with OC_Clausewitz.

For anyone who played and remembers OC Mod, I am;

(1) Buffing Russia.
(2) Nerfing Ukraine.
(3) Buffing Spain, Bavaria and Piemont.

This is so far and I won't go into details as it might bore people.

I am adding certain things as an experiment though they do help with re-balancing too.

Spain now has the capacity to garrison 20 peasants per Town Centre using the TRANSPORT command. It's a little buggy. I would be pleased to talk to someone about the bugs if anyone could help me.

Spain also gets log cabins which I have added to the game. I have nerfed the log cabin quite a bit to make it reasonably powered. There is a graphics bug in that there are no build animations. The builders build an invisible building on paving stones and then it pops up complete! It's not too bad as the build time is set at just 2 times the Town Centre time. In test games, the log cabins were a great success, strong but not too strong and counterable by archers and artillery. Combined with squares and towers they give Spain great defence. On the attack, Spain could utilise, in some cases, bite and hold tactics with pike tercio squares (move forward and go on stand ground again) combined with massed 17th drags (best for this tactic) and even further combined with leapfrogging log cabins sometimes called fixed defence "creep". The log cabins double in price each time but rear ones no longer needed could be burnt down.

Anyway, that's enough from me! smile
 
NowyDate: Monday, 15/April/2013, 9:54 AM | Message # 4
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Hm, I am not familiar with OC mod, however I like C1 therefore it could be interesting to know something about these mods.
 
Could you tell me:
a) what it is mentioned above log cabins and leapfrogging log cabins?
b) how looks and works Spanish tercios in yours and in OC mod?
c) how looks your game re-balancing propositions?
d) what do you plan to change in C1 nations ballance?
 
 
PS
Ftoomsh that was you who started discussion on cdv forum about new game suggestions, something as like "Imperial victory" long time ago?
 
FtoomshDate: Monday, 15/April/2013, 11:08 AM | Message # 5
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
"Ftoomsh that was you who started discussion on cdv forum about new game
suggestions, something as like "Imperial victory" long time ago?"
Yes, that was me.

Now, to answer your questions.

(a) leapfrogging logcabins was just speculation on how they could be used (and even abused) offensively by building them closer and closer to enemy while supporting with an army. However, I think they will be well countered by archers (fire arrows) and artillery.

(b) The Spanish tercios are not mine. That formation was created by OC_Davout the creator of OC Mod. The Mod I am doing is just a rebalancing of OC so it is still really Dav's creation. My mod will be private and not publically released unless DAV is ever contactable and agreeable. Best to look up tercio square on internet and Wikipedia. It is an historical formation.

© I am at the early stage of rebalancing. Clause and I want nations to all be different same as in standard OC Mod but to be balanced so that all nations have chances of winning. OC Mod had a few nation balance problems which we exposed by playing 100s, maybe 1000s of games, and pushing every nation to its limit.

(d) Well, OC Mod is every different from C 1.35 and Baddog. It uses formations much more and the design ensures units are present in historically accurate propotions as far as possible. I am not changing that. Just fixing the balance of some under-powered and over-powered nations.

I can't emphasise enough that OC Mod is OC_Davout's creation based in turn on C1 1.35[Baddog]. I am just riding on Davout's coat tails now and doing a bit re-balancing and re-freshing a few aspects of the game. It will still be OC Mod in essence.
 
NowyDate: Monday, 15/April/2013, 1:15 PM | Message # 6
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote ("Ftoomsh")
 Yes, that was me.


Fine, we also discussed your suggestions on this forum, however your stopped discussion on cdv forum. Then we stopped do dsicussion these issues here.

Quote ("Ftoomsh")
(a) leapfrogging logcabins was just speculation on how they could be used (and even abused) offensively by building them closer and closer to enemy while supporting with an army. However, I think they will be well countered by archers (fire arrows) and artillery.


I asked what it is logcabins? These are defensive buildings or another case I suppouse.

Quote ("Ftoomsh")
b) The Spanish tercios are not mine. That formation was created by OC_Davout the creator of OC Mod. The Mod I am doing is just a rebalancing of OC so it is still really Dav's creation. My mod will be private and not publically released unless DAV is ever contactable and agreeable. Best to look up tercio square on internet and Wikipedia. It is an historical formation.


I knew what it is Spanish tercios. I asked how they looks in your mod.  I understand now that you include the same tercios which OC Davout created. However I still do not know how they really looks and works.

Quote ("Ftoomsh")
© I am at the early stage of rebalancing. Clause and I want nations to all be different same as in standard OC Mod but to be balanced so that all nations have chances of winning. OC Mod had a few nation balance problems which we exposed by playing 100s, maybe 1000s of games, and pushing every nation to its limit.


Correct nations' balance is a hard thing. There always could be some problems. I understand that you try balance nations according to your wish in multiplayer gamplay with your friend. Fine, but could you tell me something more what do you want to change and who is Clausewitz?

Quote ("Ftoomsh")
(d) Well, OC Mod is every different from C 1.35 and Baddog. It uses formations much more and the design ensures units are present in historically accurate propotions as far as possible. I am not changing that. Just fixing the balance of some under-powered and over-powered nations.

I can't emphasise enough that OC Mod is OC_Davout's creation based in turn on C1 1.35 Baddog. I am just riding on Davout's coat tails now and doing a bit re-balancing and re-freshing a few aspects of the game. It will still be OC Mod in essence.


C1 was poorly balanced and quite ahistorical. There were few mods which tried improve these things e.g. Cossack Mod 17c or OC Mod.

However all these mods did not help too much.

Probably poblem still exist in the game because there were poor historical knowledge and game mechanics which did not help implement correct things.
Many things in C1 needed corections or improvements.

Fixing balance could be not enough. New units statistics do not change facts that there are needed correct units formations, tactics and strategy.
That decided in these improvements.

However you would like to make some changes in balance for your own needs. Then you can do it well I suppose.


Message edited by Nowy - Monday, 15/April/2013, 1:19 PM
 
FtoomshDate: Tuesday, 16/April/2013, 11:11 AM | Message # 7
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Nowy, Sorry mate, I will try to give better answers.

(1) Log cabins are a defensive structure. In standard format, they fire at a fast rate with good range and have 300 shot power. Technically, they are of type "Tower" but of course they look like a log cabin. A tower or a log cabin fires in Cossacks 1 without the need to put troops in it. The log cabin was available in missions and is available on one of the start setting in Cossacks. But it was only available already in place and not available to build. I have made it available to build for Bavaria and Spain to assist their defence in the mod.

(2) It's hard to describe anything graphical with words. Tercios look like squares formations basically with slightly different spacing. But as they get bigger, the main square has four smaller squares jutting out on each corner. Historically, muskets in line formation filled in the indents thus created. Davouts tercio squares are very powerful on hold ground defence setting against any cold steel attack.

(3) Correct balance is hard. Plus there are two competing concerns in an historical RTS. One is playability and the other is historical accuracy. We are attempting to balance objectively while keeping historical accuracy good as far as is possible in a game. Also, we are attempting to keep each nation a little unique and special in its own way. We dont want nations to be clones of other nations. OC_Clausewitz used to be in the Old Cossacks clan like me. Well I suppose we are the clan now as nobody else plays OC Mod or my re-mod of OC Mod.

(4) Yes, the engine limits what I can do. Also, my lack of knowledge limits me. Nonetheless, OC Mod is a good playable mod and my balance changes mainly fix a few broken nations which are badly overpowered or underpowered. Also, i fix cases where nations do not have a good counter to an enemy unit.

To give an example, in OC Mod, nations with fast walking infantry pikes or swordsmen (Sweden, England, Swiss, Algeria, Turkey I can think of now) can skirt around or side-step around slower, heavy pikes and swordsmen of other sides. They then get into the food field and kill most of the peasants or the peasants have to run away and stop collecting food. This is very early in the game and the loss of food production usually means the end of the game right there. The defender can get wooden fences up if the enemy starts far away. We use 2x maps. But even then the cost of the early fences often breaks his economy. Giving the defender with slow pikes the ability to build some log cabins beside his food field provides a defensive counter to fast walking infantry. Otherwise there is no counter at all if the enemy starts fairly close. We are trying to fix such cases where the nation without a counter just automatically loses most of the time. That is one the things we are doing.
 
NowyDate: Wednesday, 17/April/2013, 11:14 AM | Message # 8
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Thanks, this time your answers looks much better. However I still got some things.

1. I see that you called log cabins these defensive buildings which looks like blockhouses which can fire with muskets.
These bulidings historically were build sometimes in East Europe and in colonies I supposue. It were widely used in AC sereis games, howerer there it needed some men inside.  I wonder why in your mod you made it available only for Spain and Bavaria?

2. I knew how looks historical tercios. It included pikes placed in big square and arqebusiers or musketeers placed in small 4 squares located in corners.
In addition there were few musketeers line ranks defending pkies flanks. Tercios were very big complex and slow formations wulnerable on artillery fire.
Issue was how it looks in OC Mod? Do tercios include pikes and musketeers in one formation?

3. Historical accuracy many times could help improve gamplay. Especially when you include proper units, correct statistics, tactics, fire ranges, loses etc.
Each nation should include their characteristic units, strategy, tactics etc. It is a hard thing, but much better than crowded clones attacks.

For instance I never can accept that AI's mercenaries in C1 used grenadiers together with archers in one formation. Never accept overpowered grenadiers, dragoons and stupid crowded mortars advance. Never acept that dragoons can won fire combats with infantry armed with muskets.

Never accept really strange army composition, where so many 17 c. pikes are created and soon supported with overpowered 18 c. dragoons.
Never accept that Polish winged hussars fight without formations and that Ukrainian Serdiuks and Hetmans so easly can kills every enemy unit.

Did not accept stupidly overpowered several small nations units.
Did not accept strange navy composition, where frigates and galleys dominate sea battles, while large battle ships notoriously rise up mutiny.

Strangley there are not many 17 c. musketeers because they have long creation time. However at that time musketeers were core infantry.
Ukrainian have not any melee infantry, however they were rebel nation whcih used many pikes and other cold arms.
All musketeers strangely have smaller fire range than dragoons, archers easly can burn even stone buildings etc.

These few examples shows that many things should be improved. These also can improve gameplay I supposue.

4. Of course C1 engine has some limits. Nevetheless some things could be improved. If you can do it you should do it.

However proper nations' balance is much harder thing than simple units statistics fix. Main probelm is how to balance small nations as like Algeria, Bavaria, Denmark, Sabaudia-Piemont, Saxony, Switzerland, which are badly overpowered in C1, with historical big land powers fom that era as like Austria, France, Ottoman Turkey, Poland, Russia, Spain and Sweden or main naval powers as like Great Britain and Netherland or emergent land power as like Prussia or colonial power Portugal. There also are two nations which historicaly tried create their independent states as like Ukraine or Hungary.

Nations historical positions determined their abilities in warfare. They never had equal power and possibilities to rose in power.
This should be somehow included in the game I suppose.

Maybe there could be few nations tiers.

1. Great land powers - Austria, France, Ottomans, Poland, Russia, Spain and Sweden, they could beat other nations in the land warfare.
2. Naval powers - Great Britain and Netherland dominate in naval warfare, they also can led stong defensive actions in land warfare.
3. Emergent power - Prussia in 17 c. needs aliance with greater power, then can rose to real power in 18 c.
4. Insurgent nations - Ukraine and Hungary, they can won their independent position only in coalition with greater power.
5. Minorl nations - all other nations which can won only in coalition with greater power.

These mean that every nations tier should use their own strategy and their units had some advantages and disadvantages in specific warfare.


Message edited by Nowy - Wednesday, 17/April/2013, 8:11 PM
 
FtoomshDate: Thursday, 18/April/2013, 12:34 PM | Message # 9
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
1. Ok, to answer your statements about Log Cabins. Yes, you are right about where log cabins were mainly used. However, as I said there are two issues. These are playability and historical accuracy. Perfect playability and pure historical accuracy are not achieveable simultaneously. I am working with what I have and Spain, Bavaria and Piedmont (who will get the cabins) were lacklustre sides in OC Mod and they had early defensive problems. Squares (tercio) were and are strong but early on there were too many gaps. Cabins can plug the holes as it were. Part of the reason they have early defensive problems is because their line formations are deficient in attack. Their other two formations are squares. Attack is in some ways the best form of defence but they could not go on the early attack . I didn't want to change their Imperial OC Mod character which involves possession of line attacks and strong squares including tercio so I plugged their defence with Log cabins. Tactically and strategically it is working welland is creating some fun new dynamics.

I am short of time now, will come back to other questions soon. Cheers.

Rest of answers now. smile

1. Continued. On real battlefields in Europe, troops would use houses, villages, farmhouses, churches, walls, granaries etc. as safe fire and ambush positions. This is when battles raged in locations where such positions existed. Granaries were particularly good positions as they often had thick stone walls which resisted cannon fire. Of course, all these things do not exist as troop positions in Cossacks 1.

2. In OC Mod you would have to place a tercio cold steel (pikes or swords) formation with extra musket formations in the appropriate places. Then you could combine them as an army which makes it one big formation. However this army function does not work well in Cossacks 1. As soon as you move it, it would become disjointed as they march at different paces or just get out of alignment. Like real life really. Other aspects of the Cossacks 1 engine mean tercio squares do not really work classically anyway. Muskets can fire through friendly troops without causing friendly casualties. Also, you would have to micro manage the retirement of muskets behind cold steel after their salvos and/or before charging cold steel troops enagaged. In short, because of game engine limitations in Cossacks 1 the tercios do not work in the classical way. It was a valiant effort by Dav even so. It's just that the engine was not sophicticated enough to fully support it.

3. "Historical accuracy many times could help improve gamplay. Especially when you
include proper units, correct statistics, tactics, fire
ranges, loses etc.
Each nation should include their characteristic units, strategy, tactics etc. It is a hard thing, but much better than
crowded clones attacks." This is all true except that true tactics, strategies and formations in real numbers on properly scaled battlefields would take hours at least to play. Real parameters would make most battles take 3 to 6 hours minimum to play out.

Dav's mod has already fixed many of the things you correctly complain about. Mercenaries are strictly controlled and much reduced in numbers. Formations are required for almost every troop type. Units and cannon tend to be produced and appear on the battlefield in historically accurate proportions and in proper formations because of the large formation bonuses. Dragoons get badly beaten if they attack large formations of 18th C infantry. For example, 1,000 18th C dragoons in loose array would fail against 1 formation of 428 musket infantry of 18th C in OC mod. The 17th C units largely disappear from the 18th battlefield as the 17th Barracks makes 18th C infantry in 18th C. And 18th C barracks make 18th C grenadiers and skirmishers.

Also to backtrack, 17th C muskets produce at same rate as 17th C pikes. Pikes are used early in the game but by late 17th C you will usually see more muskets than pikes.

OC Mod did not really address the navy. We ban navies and just play open land games with armies.

4. So far as nation balance goes in my imagination, I always think of a battle between say a minor nation and a major nation as not the whole of two nations fighting each other but as a single small engagement (armies of up to 5,000 or so each represent a small engagement) that is a footnote in history.  If the Algerian army grows to 5,000 and the French army grows to 5,000 and Algeria happen to win we can say, "Algeria's best troops were present that day. The French forces were a poorly trained, poorly equipped, 3rd rate outfit led by a bad commander."

So far as nation balance goes in the game, it is best if all nations have reasonable chances of beating all other nations. Each has different units and capabilites of course. I seek a balance where nations are roughly balanced overall but with each nation having a phase where it is at its best. Some are better early, some are better middle game and some are better late. There are several more variations on that like early middle game and late middle game. Tactics and strategies must match best capabilites. A nation that is good early and playing a nation that is good late... well the nation that is good early must attack early and often and harass, harass, harass. The nation that is good late must try to secure enough resources and then turtle and defend doggedly till it develops its late power. This creates many interesting dynamics if one plays random nations and gets all sorts of match ups.


Message edited by Ftoomsh - Thursday, 18/April/2013, 2:29 PM
 
NowyDate: Friday, 19/April/2013, 1:22 PM | Message # 10
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Well, you gave very informative answer. It is fine, however I suggest rethink few things.

1. You could include small castle or fortified farm instead log cabins. Such buildings were used in Europe at that era. Especially Italy, France, Germany,  Poland, Portugal, Spain and Netherland were famous with fotified castles, towns, fortresses and these fortifications were commonly used there.
Log cabins included only for Spain, Bavaria and Piemont looks strange and ahistorical.

2. I know that C1 engine has some limits and it did not allow properly create more complex army organization. Especially when one formation suffered some losses, than it can not move properly togehter with other formations. This disjoined or spoilded these groups. Nevetheless it is fine that OC Davout included tercios as characteristic formation. In few cases e.g. in Spain, Portugal or early Austria it were normal tactical formation.

3. I think that more real parameters could improve game play. Let's say you can take real historical basic formation strength divide it by 10 and you get proper small formations in the game. C1 exactly did it e.g. 15 men mulitplied by 10 it is something like historical company strength, 72 men x 10 =720 men, it is battalion strength, 120 men x 10 = 1200 it could be bigger battalion or regiment.

Cavalry aslo should include in the game 15 or 20 men squadrons and 45 or 60 men regiments.

Infantry Tercios were large formation therefore it could include in the game even 240 men. But this was exception and exist in first half of 17 c.
Later tercios lost their useability and almost all infantry used standard line formations. Squares and columns were used only occasionally.

However formation strength is not a big problem.
In the game are needed improvements in tactics, museket and artillery fire parameters. C2 represent these things much better.

For instance.
Weaker and slower musketry and weaker canister shots are necessary. All infantry and Dragoons muskets should get the same fire range.
Musketeer infantry still rose in numbers and slowly, but succesfully improved fire organization. Then they were armed with better muskets and bayonets. However fire arms still were not so accurate, it were widely used and musketeers became numerically superior to other unis. They almost dominated battlefields in late 17 C.

Dragoons could not destroyed so easy infantry formation. Dragoons were supportive units, used for special purposes to capture and hold important or key points. Therefore normally they operated on armies flanks or were kept in reserve. In the game they are used as core force and that is incorrect.

Polish Winged Hussar were famous with their superiority in cavalry combats.
Any other 17 C. cavalry or infantry can not withstand their charges in open battlefield.

Winged Hussars always fougth in formations and normally used their long lances, which were longer than infantry pikes. These gave them big advantage in cavalry charges, even against infantry pikes. They can defeated even much bigger enemy formations e.g. Kircholm 1605, Kluszyn 1610, Chocim 1621, Beresteczko 1651, Wien 1683.

However these hussars long lances were broken during first or second charge, then Polish hussars used sabres or swords and still were dangerous in close melee, because they used fine armour plate and pistols. These gave them next advantage, especially in combats with light cavalry and infantry.

Sometimes Winged Hussars retreated, then they took new lances, which were stick in the field where they stood or from assigned wagons.
Each Winged Hussar normally had there few (3-5) spare long lances. Then they can repeated their dangerous charges few times.  Winged Hussars formation initially started charge running in a trot, but soon it were delivered in relatively fast canter or gallop. This was their tactic and their hit power was devastating for enemy in open field.

Winged Hussars were well equiped, mounted and trained cavalry, however they were expensive and needed support.

Winged Hussars as other cavalry was vulnerable on fire arms. They can not so easy won aginst good organised 18 C. infantry in squares fire.
Any cavalry can not charge effectively in hard terrain - marshes, accros rivers, deep forsets, high mountains, towns, fortifications etc.
Therefore in early 18 c. Polish Winged Hussars became mainly parade cavalry and soon were disbanded.

In the game also could be some how included that 18c infantry pikes were shortly used and only in early stages.
Later infantry musketeers dominate battlefields. They fought mainly in lines therefore this was called linear tactic.

Grenadiers were used not so often, becouse they were strong, bold and experienced soldiers and such men were not many.
Therefore they were used in special occasions as strong assault or strong defence units, becouse they were good in bayonets combats.
Hand grenades were only shortly used and soon were quite withdrew from combats, becouse grenades were dangerous also for grenadiers.

Cavalry in 18 c. still was used, but mainly in their specialised roles e.g.
- light cavalry made reconnaissance, can supported own army and were used in pursue
- dragoons supported own infantry and other cavalry or captured and held key points
- heavy cavalry still was main battle cavalry, however they normally attacked when enemy was weakened by artillery or infantry fire.

Thess were until French revolutionary armies introduced more agressive infantry column tactics, which can break infantry thin, 3 ranks lines.
Then cavalry aggresively supported infantry, made bigger gap betwen enemy formations or surrended enemy, or pursued enemy soldiers.

Artillery guns also grew in numbers and in late 17c were often used on battlefields, but mortars were mainly used during sieges and not in open field.
Howithzers were used to fire in occasions from behind own troops or against enemy targets covered behind obstacles. Therefore howitzers were not numerous and common cannons were wiedly used, however they were not so accurate in long range. Solid cannon balls still were core ammunition.

Canister shots can not so easy devastated entire formation.
However it allow stopped enemy direct attack and even put enemy formation to flight.

These mentioned corrections and proper historical tactics should be some how implemented in the game I suppouse.

4. Nation balance is hard thing. However I still doubt that small nation normally could won against great power even in small battles.
Minor nations can not withstand, because they can not easily reinforced their armies. Therefore they simply avoided combats with bigger armies.
They usually allied with other big power, then they could fought against strong enemy.

Therefore Algeria was Ottomans vassal. Bavaria, Denemark, Saxony, Piemont, Portugal, Venice usually sought stronger allies.
Swiss only can defended their valleys, because they were located behind big mountains. Venetian normally defended forts on small islands.

Dutch only could defended their polders, because they successfully exploited rivers, canals, isles, navy, fortifications and well trained small army.
British also can defended their Isles, but in Continental Europe they needed allies support.

Dutch and British had relatively small standing armies and  they can not led bigger land operations in Europe.
Exception were wars in colonies, mainly because both they dominated at seas.

These mean small nations can exploited their domestic terrain conditions, fortifications, navy and other great powers support.

Open fields of Ukraine and Hungary did not give such posibilities, therefore these nations can not defended their independent states.
Hungarians only can defended Principality of Transylvania as Ottomans vassal, while Ukrainians were subortinate to Poland, Russia or Turkey.

Hungarians and Ukrainians can fought hard, but they can not won in the end. These was clear numbers case, short recources and armies strength did not allow won war against big powers. However there were few characteristic cases. Ukraininans can score some victories against Polish, because they suddenly rebeled and Poland was not prepared to fought against uprising which was supported with Tatars raiders and then Russia army.

Ukrainians also used some specific tactics. They used masses poorly armed peasants and poor Cossacks infantry called "Chern".  They were poorly armed with different small and cold steel arms. In early stages they outnumbered enemy, but can not defeated even small enemy army fortified around castle e.g. Zbaraz 1649.

However other Ukrainian Zaporozian Cossaks strong infantry was quite good and persistent fighters.
Ukrainians also used defensively horse wagons formed without horses in so called tabor, fortified camp.
Inside tabor Ukrainians can succesfully defend their position.

Nevertheless they still needed stronger power help e.g. Chocim 1621 Polish helped them against Ottomans, at Korsun 1648 Ottomans Tatars hepled them against Polish.

I think that it is better include few nation tiers which could give more variety to gameplay. It would be more historically accurate too.

It is hard to believe that minor nation can defeat major power e.g  Algeria or Denmark could not defeted France in 17 or 18 c.
It was impossible even in small war. Minor nations needed support and alliances with greater power. These shoud be some how included in th game.

Maybe Diplomatic Center should allow make alliances. Then great power could help minor nation.
There could be included historical alliances list e.g.
- Algeria  could use Ottomans help
- Bavaria could use France or Austria help
- Denmark could use Austria or Poland help
- England could use their naval superiority and defensive location on Isles, but on Continent British need Austrian or Dutch support
- Netherland could use their naval superriority and defensive location on polders between sea and rivers.
- Piemont could use France or Austria help
- Portugal could use English or France help
- Prussia could use Sweden help, but Prussian army could rise to power in 18 c.
- Saxony could use Sweden or Austria help
- Swiss can only defend in their mountains
- Ukraine can use Poland, Ottoman Tatars or Russia help
- Hungary (Transylvania) could use Ottoman or Austria help

Great power from that era were France, Ottomans, Spain, Sweden, Poland and Russia.
Polish must defened own state and fought too many wars in 17 c. They wear out their power in early 18 c. While Prussia get into power in that century.

Great naval powers were Britain and Netherland. Spain, France, Ottomans also could employed big fleets however they can not withstand against dominant naval powers. Sweden, Denmark and Portugal also had their fleets, however much smaller. Russian start build real navy when they get some territories at Baltic and Black Seas in early 18 c.

All these cases could be better in the game, than random clone nations wars, where historical small power can won war with big power.

EDIT
In other hand Diplomatic Center could allow create proper mercenaties units too.
Mercenaries were relatively expensive and had varied morale, some times they even switched sides.
They were used mainly in 17 c. however foot archers were not so widely used in all Europe. They still were in service mainly in Ottoman Empire or other eastern states which are not represented in the game.

In 18 c. only few nations still serviced as foreign soldiers e.g. Swiss in French, Spanish and Sabaudia-Piedmont army.
There also were few German, Italian and Polish Legions units formed in late 18 century, but these were not strictly mercenaries.
These foreign Legions serviced for French, but there were mainly common musketeer infantry and later also Polish Uhlans.
Therefore masses of foot archers, 18c Dragoon and grenadiers as mercearies in the game are quite stupid.

In DC could be created only 17 c musketeers, pikes, Dragoons and Polish light cavalry raiders used in West and Central Europe.
East Europe and Poland also could take in service Cossacks cavalry and infantry, and Tatars ridres. Ottomans could take in service Hungarian, Moldavian or Wallachian light cavalry, Hungarian infantry, Cossaks and Tatars.

These facts you should take into account in the game too.


Message edited by Nowy - Friday, 19/April/2013, 7:06 PM
 
Forum » Cossacks I » Modding » Looking for OC_DAV (Creator of OC Mod)
Page 1 of 212»
Search: