BFE - Guard Units - Page 2 - Forum
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 2 of 3«123»
Forum moderator: Daddio, EbelAngel 
Forum » Cossacks II » Gameplay » BFE - Guard Units (Ugh~ Guard units deserting all the time !)
BFE - Guard Units
NowyDate: Tuesday, 21/October/2014, 8:51 PM | Message # 11
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Many bad things exist in C2, but it is still better game than other RTS based on sword and gun powder era. I have not found better RTS game based on that era yet.

When there are worse RTS games this mean that C2 has someting better or other games have more bad things. Of course this do not mean that bad things in C2 go away.

Nevertheless from my experience in BFE enemy lose their elite guard and artillery units in the same sectors where I lost mine. Maybe I was somehow happy in this cases. This do not mean that the game has not problems there.

Guard units in C2 were horrible spoiled. They do not represent well historical guard units.
It looks that developers rushed their work and they knew that they did not do guards correctly. Maybe they tried avoid this problem somehow limiting guard units. Then I do not defend devs in this case, only try to find account to this case. I can not believe that this was simple bug in the game.

According artillery guns in the game, they are "deadly" becouse they are too accurate and this looks unbelievable. In reality artillery guns in big numbers even with poorer accuracy were horrible killers, then more guns with lower accuracy in the game are necessary. This is not game-breaking case, this is game real solution in this case. I did these changes in skirmish games and they work better now. Artillery in big number is a killer while few guns can give only light support.

C2 artillery is much better than C1. There are more realistic guns, horses, limbers, artillerymen, variable ammunition, better animations and other effects. These are valued and more realistic improvements. There are less glitches, and many stupid cases were erased at all e.g. famous mortars crazy advance on emeny which stopped enemy artillery fire or no men crew guns deployed in crowds and fired even in few ranks which existing in C1.

Artillery in C2 also has big impact on units morale and morale is very important.
Artillery and elite guard units give an advantege. However in vanilla game these units are OP.
Even players sometimes can lost artillery and guard units, and must recruit them again, they still are too powerful.

C2 game include many new and interesting things as like morale, fatigue or experience.
The game offer more realistic combat system, new infantry fire system, more units types, better tactics, compulsory formations, better organized economy, better movement, better lanscape, variable roads and terrain conditions etc.
Therefore even with many glitches it is much better RTS game based on fine Napoleonic units.
That were not just a little graphical overhaul and few changes here and there.

These changes do not break everything that worked well, becouse these changes add quite new elements which did not exist or work well in C1. The latter predominantly offer only crazy slaughterhouse with masses unrealistic clone robot units fighing mainly in crowds.

Therefore C2 is better game than C1 without a doubt.
However devs could get some good things from pervious Cossacks games and avoid some stupid glitches which could disgust players.


Message edited by Nowy - Wednesday, 22/October/2014, 10:54 AM
 
domCossackDate: Thursday, 23/October/2014, 9:34 PM | Message # 12
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I'm not trying to bash or undermine CII but you do seem eager to defend to your heart's content that it is the best by stating that there are worse, which doesn't mean much. If it comes to which one is worse between the bad and the worst, it's still that, both bad. I can't see how that makes a fair point. Now, I'm not claiming CII is entirely bad, but your constant attempts of defending it with little to no justification are seeming rather desperate.

Well, my enemies have been using arty and Guard units whereas I can't, that I can assure you. I have captured their own arty (which just often suicides by trying to get "through" my lines) many times. In any case, arty is not as OP as you make it sound. Your units can hold their ground for a fair while under bombardment, as can the enemy troops. Their limit in number also helps a lot in that regard. The reload rate is... acceptable. The crew easy to kill. Their sluggishness does not allow you to have them support all you want. Especially when you have to move fast for village control, leaving them vulnerable behind to be picked apart. It's not OP.
One of the core problem of the game is the stacking. I'm not even going to dig into it, as it is obvious, to everyone who has played, how exploitable it is.

I fail to see how Guard units are OP, really. I start to think you do not know what OP means. Again, a fresh Elite Guard (that means without veterancy) is just a unit as weak as any other. The problem comes how cheaply constructed is the morale and veterancy system. After a unit gains its complete veterancy and keeps getting kills and boosting its max morale, THEN it becomes very overpowered. Elite Guards by themselves are not OP, they are so in conjunction with other variants of the game. Want to talk about OP? Why not tell how for example Cav can tear through infantry like nothing and rout them at an incredible speed. Two-three fresh infantry squads vs one fresh cav squad and the cav will cut through them like butter-- unless~ they have some veterancy, then they can hold out. Veterancy system is the key.

Quote Nowy ()
According artillery guns in the game, they are "deadly" becouse they are too accurate and this looks unbelievable. In reality artillery guns in big numbers even with poorer accuracy were horrible killers, then more guns with lower accuracy in the game are necessary. This is not game-breaking case, this is game real solution in this case. I did these changes in skirmish games and they work better now. Artillery in big number is a killer while few guns can give only light support.

Yeah, that's what I said...

Quote Nowy ()
C2 artillery is much better than C1. There are more realistic guns, horses, limbers, artillerymen, variable ammunition, better animations and other effects. These are valued and more realistic improvements. There are less glitches, and many stupid cases were erased at all e.g. famous mortars crazy advance on emeny which stopped enemy artillery fire or no men crew guns deployed in crowds and fired even in few ranks which existing in C1.

Yeah, so? If this was a sole comparison with CI, hands down, HURRAY! You'd win.
They've done something better than a game they created years before. Surely we were expecting them to regress, because that's what games do when they make sequels. They walk backwards, not forward./sarcasm

Quote Nowy ()
Artillery in C2 also has big impact on units morale and morale is very important.

Oh you know why? Maybe because CI does NOT have a morale system, hm? Ever thought about that?

Quote Nowy ()
C2 game include many new and interesting things as like morale, fatigue or experience. The game offer more realistic combat system, new infantry fire system, more units types, better tactics, compulsory formations, better organized economy, better movement, better lanscape, variable roads and terrain conditions etc.
Therefore even with many glitches it is much better RTS game based on fine Napoleonic units.
That were not just a little graphical overhaul and few changes here and there.

These changes do not break everything that worked well, becouse these changes add quite new elements which did not exist or work well in C1. The latter predominantly offer only crazy slaughterhouse with masses unrealistic clone robot units fighing mainly in crowds.

Therefore C2 is better game than C1 without a doubt.
However devs could get some good things from pervious Cossacks games and avoid some stupid glitches which could disgust players.

You keep insisting on this. You try to make CII look amazing by comparing it to an old experimental game (considering it was their first attempt on this kind), and speak of it as the best Napoleonic RTS as if there is anything else to compare it to. There isn't, that's why it's the best. If you are in a race all by yourself, who are you expecting to win it? God?
By the year CII came out, the RTS-industry was already going down peak, as it still is. As games like the Total War [MOBA-ish] series were much preferred than this system, or the Paradox Interactive [Grand Strategy] style.
Unless you want to compare it to one of those, in which case CII loses, by very, very far.

I've seen you do this before (A LOT), and I'll say it now, stop! It doesn't work with me. We are speaking of CII and its flaws alone. Bringing the flaws of CI is not going to overshadow CII's ones and how poor it was delivered. I've said it why already. It's not unplayable, though not very enjoyable. It's not like it doesn't improve anything, I'd be lying if I said so. However, it'd be stupid if a sequel was exactly the same or just outright worse in everything, don't you think? But when it fails to hold out on its own, and make its improvements seem worthwhile, then it's failing overall. And that's what CII is still, a failure. One you can only wish it'd have been done better. Especially for its time. Better than CI? Sure, okay. Most things are done better but not everything. And what it does better is not enough to be considered a solid game [off any sort of comparison]. I'd not bother to even be here if I didn't think this game has the potential. It's just.. not enough.

P.S. You seem to be the one wanting to make a CI vs CII comparison. If that's the case, just tell me so, and I might also express what I think it could have drawn off CI. Because CII did break a few things that worked in the previous. Regards!
 
DaddioDate: Friday, 24/October/2014, 1:12 AM | Message # 13
Marquis
Group: Moderators
Messages: 431
Awards: 4
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline
I have been reading this thread for the last few days. And yes C2 has some problems, mostly these are found in single player mode.

In Multiplayer the game plays pretty good. with the exception of lag later in the game as army's get larger. I would also like to see some bigger maps, different moral etc. But as it is....its still my favorite game.

Of course this is my opinion, just thought I would share it.

Happy Gaming all,

Daddio


http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b455/Billy_Jo_Patrick/cossacks2_art_03_zpsel8tgwad.jpg
 
NowyDate: Friday, 24/October/2014, 1:45 AM | Message # 14
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote "domCossack"
If it comes to which one is worse between the bad and the worst, it's still that, both bad. I can't see how that makes a fair point. Now, I'm not claiming CII is entirely bad, but your constant attempts of defending it with little to no justification are seeming rather desperate.


I'm sorry, you cast false statement here.
Never said that Cossacks games are entirely good or entirely bad.
 
If C2 is not entirely bad and there are other worse games, it's mean that C2 is BETTER. It is simple.

Quote "domCossack"
In any case, arty is not as OP as you make it sound.

Artillery in C2 is OP, however you still do not see this power. 
Even few cannons and howitzer can inflict fear, panic and horrible casualties.
These guns are excelent against massed squads, especially at chocke points. 
They are too accurate, too strong, and quickly can inflict many casualties.
Any squads can withstand their heavy bombardments, enemy under artillery fire would be smashed, even stay on stand ground. It's only a matter of not so long time. 
 
In reality Napoleonic artillery was not so accurate, especially at long or very long distance. Therefore Napoleon and his enemies needed more than few dozens cannons on one battlefield! But in the game few guns are enough!
They can break many squads quite fast.
 
All these mean that artillery in the game is OP!
 
Quote "domCossack"
Their limit in number also helps a lot in that regard.
Their limit looks quite funny when you take into account how many cannons and how they were used in Napoleonic period.

Quote "domCossack"
One of the core problem of the game is stacking.

Yes, stacking is known problem. Neverthless stacked formations are very vulnerable on artillery fire. Then more cannons and howitzers somehow can solve this problem biggrin
Quote "domCossack"
I fail to see how Guard units are OP, really.

Oh, do not be funny. Check their stats, all Guard units have better skills, better fire power, better mele, better morale, better fatigue, better stamina
etc. Compare their stats with other units and read someting about Guards fom that period. 
  
All these mean they are the strongest units in the game and they are OP.
 
Make some test in editor mode, you will see how they are OP.

Quote "domCossack"
Want to talk about OP? Why not tell for example how Cav can tear through infantry like nothing and and rout them at incredible speed

Historically cavalry charge was relatively fast affair. Successful charge was like a hurricane, even it was sometimes delivered in a trot. If infantry was not ready to defend themself in a square formation or behind strong obstacles, infantry was smashed or wiped out very fast. Even veterancy can not withstand cavalry attack, when they did not fight in adecuate defensive position. Then cavalry charge in C2 was not recreated so bad as you think.
Quote "domCossack"
Quote
Maybe because CI does NOT have a morale system, hm? Ever thought about that?

Oh, yes I knew that. That's why I said that CII is better game too biggrin
 

Quote "domCossack"
You try to make CII look amasing by comparing it to an old experimental game (considering it was their first attempt on this kind), and speak of it as the best Napoleonic RTS as if there is anything else to compare it to. There isn't that's why it's the best. If you are in a race all by yourself, who are you expecting to win it? God?


CII is not amasing, however in my opinion it is the best RTS game based on Napoleonic units, because there is anything else to compare. Can you show me a better Napoleonic RTS game?
 
Do not call Napoleon or other Total War or Paradox games, because it's not RTS games. Even so it are not better strategy or tactical games too.
 
If you do not want to compare CI vs CII, try compare CII vs AoE III.
That also was RTS, but with quite unrealistic units, tactics, and other less interesting things. 
 
P.S. I only cast my few remarks. If you would like compare CI vs CII or another game then go to other threads. I put link to old one. If you do not like it then start new one.
 
domCossackDate: Saturday, 25/October/2014, 0:13 AM | Message # 15
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote Daddio ()
I have been reading this thread for the last few days. And yes C2 has some problems, mostly these are found in single player mode. In Multiplayer the game plays pretty good. with the exception of lag later in the game as army's get larger. I would also like to see some bigger maps, different moral etc. But as it is....its still my favorite game.


It's a good game, definitely. Though I think it was even more restricted than it was originally planned. I may explain why I say so more on ahead. For example, you can read in the manuals that: "You cannot fire 'through' friendly units", while that's false and you actually can. There are other untrue things you never end up seeing it in the game.

It's still my favorite [RTS], as well, not that it could not use many, many improvements, which is all I'm saying here.

Quote Nowy ()
I'm sorry, you cast false statement here. Never said that Cossacks games are entirely good or entirely bad.

If C2 is not entirely bad and there are other worse games, it's mean that C2 is BETTER. It is simple.

Again, you try to play with words I don't believe you master. There is nothing false in my statement. Being better than something doesn't automatically classifies it as good. I don't want to get political/religious, etc. so I'll use a simple analogy. Two mass killers; one kills dozens and the other kills hundreds, one is definitely better than the other but they are both still bad. What point are you having difficulty to grasp here?

Quote Nowy ()
Artillery in C2 is OP, however you still do not see this power.  Even few cannons and howitzer can inflict fear, panic and horrible casualties.
These guns are excelent against massed squads, especially at chocke points.
They are too accurate, too strong, and quickly can inflict many casualties.
Any squads can withstand their heavy bombardments, enemy under artillery fire would be smashed, even stay on stand ground. It's only a matter of not so long time.

I'm not entirely sure if you are reading what I'm typing, or if you just have serious difficulties to understand the english language correctly. Because I feel tired of repeating the same thing and you do not refute it, but simply repeat the same thing over and over again, which adds to 'nothing'.

YES! They are too accurate, I've said so myself. Too strong? In what manner? In that a cannon ball kills a soldier when it hits him? Was it supposed to be otherwise?
Choke-points, yes! That is another of the major problems of the game. Since it is mainly made of that kind of tactics, artillery have a field-day with their targets in like most of the scenarios. However, that is another of the variants of the game that STRENGTHEN the artillery. Was is not so choke-pointy, or was is not so accurate, artillery would have less effectiveness. So being "strong" is a result of the other two, don't you think?
The fear is caused by how faulty is the morale system, and how ineffectively the AI responds on being under fire. Top that with their ridiculous accuracy. I'd fear them too!

Quote Nowy ()
Yes, stacking is known problem. Neverthless stacked formations are very vulnerable on artillery fire. Then more cannons and howitzers somehow can solve this problem

I don't get it. Are you trying to justify and solve the stacking by saying: "MORE CANNONS!!"? Even after hearing you complain that they are OP? What is it going to be, after all?

Quote Nowy ()
Oh, do not be funny. Check their stats, all Guard units have better skills, better fire power, better mele, better morale, better fatigue, better stamina etc. Compare their stats with other units and read someting about Guards fom that period.

All these mean they are the strongest units in the game and they are OP.

Make some test in editor mode, you will see how they are OP.

Not trying to be funny at all. Again, I'll try to work on a simple definition for you. Being better than something doesn't instantly makes that thing OP, you know? They are supposed to be the elite, so it's normal they have mildly higher stats [that is the only way a game can simulate elite units, you know that, right?]. I have yet to see a Guard unit, without veterancy, beat a normal unit with max veterancy. That I'd call it OP. Now, that they are strong? Sure, they are. But not OP. Do not discuss the name, for that is semantics. You could just rename it to Veteran, or simply Elite, who cares? You get the basics that they wanted to deliver, and that was that those units ARE elite troops. If they are named Guard/Elite/Veteran/Heroic is of little importance.

Quote Nowy ()
Historically cavalry charge was relatively fast affair. Successful charge was like a hurricane, even it was sometimes delivered in a trot. If infantry was not ready to defend themself in a square formation or behind strong obstacles, infantry was smashed or wiped out very fast. Even veterancy can not withstand cavalry attack, when they did not fight in adecuate defensive position. Then cavalry charge in C2 was not recreated so bad as you think.

I've seen you trying, or appear to be trying, to teach me about these historical "facts". I'm majoring in History so it's not like I don't have any clue of what I'm talking about. I'd classify myself as an history buff, and am naturally attracted by these kind of things. So I'll say it to you: that is not the way to go. I do know, however, the differences between creating a game and a real-simulator, which I believe you do not, according to what you've shown so far.

I know how effective Cavalry charges can be. Nevertheless, not only squares are able to fend off cavalry charges. That actually depends in the numbers/type of unit, etc, involved. I'm talking about roughly 50 men killing almost 400. The bayonets were actually reasonably effective against Cav, and not to talk about the pikes, so I'm curious to see what you have for me, and what source, to prove me that 50 cavalrymen alone are able to kill 3 squads rounding the 400.

So it's not "as bad as I think", it is as bad as I KNOW. Excuse me, do not try to sound like the wiser or the only one who knows about "history".

Quote Nowy ()
Oh, yes I knew that. That's why I said that CII is better game too

Yeah... I still fail to see what you try to prove by saying this constantly.

Quote Nowy ()
CII is not amasing, however in my opinion it is the best RTS game based on Napoleonic units, because there is anything else to compare. Can you show me a better Napoleonic RTS game?
Do not call Napoleon or other Total War or Paradox games, because it's not RTS games. Even so it are not better strategy or tactical games too.

If you do not want to compare CI vs CII, try compare CII vs AoE III.
That also was RTS, but with quite unrealistic units, tactics, and other less interesting things.

I did not compare it to the Total War Series, nor did I compare it to Paradox Interactive games. Seriously, please do pay more attention to the phrasing. I do think my english was explicit enough and without double-meanings. I'd suggest you to get a little more in focus, if you will. It gets stupid when you ask me to show you a better Napoleonic RTS when I clearly tell you, in the sentence you quoted, that there is none. But to say CII is remotely, tactically or strategically, better than any of those makes me laugh so hard as if my lungs are about to pop. There is so much wrong in that affirmation that I don't even know where to begin.

Ah~ yes, I was expecting you to bring AOEIII. AOEIII is, let me start here first, not-so-much a "Napoleonic" game, per se. AOE games were always arcade-y in nature and never really tried to simulate reality. If the absurd population cap didn't give you hints enough, then I don't know what could (actually, I do). AOEIII is no different. The fact it uses the pike'n'shot period does not make it any distinct than the previous. It is still a game based more on tiny skirmishes, no lines, no squads, no formations. As you can see by the campaign it has more of a cinematic feel [focused more on the characters and plots] rather than historical [like real battles and such like Cossacks]. Now, this does not make it bad. It's where they decided to throw all the focus on. It is still a very enjoyable experience. If something doesn't claim to be something, then you can't expect and blame it not to be what it doesn't claim to be.

Compare C&C, CoH and MoW:
They are all based on similar concepts

C&C: is a full-RTS that uses completely unrealistic tactics, extreme cannon-fodder infantry and tank blobs and whatnot. It is still enjoyable. They stay true to what they were meant to be.
CoH: is a slight-RTS [you build stuff and expand] but it is more mixed with the MOBA feel. It has good graphics but you see infantry can still be in point-blank shooting at each other and other unrealistic tactics too. This does not mean it's bad. They could be a little more like MoW if they wanted, but that's not the core of their game. So they remain with their style.
Mow: is a full-MOBA and is the most realistic of the three. Yes, it's still far from reality with the ranges and more, but it's the most [of these three, for there are others]. Because that's what they aim to be.

CoH does not try to be more realistic like MoW, not because it cannot, but it is a personal choice of gameplay. I'm telling you this because comparing AOEIII to CII is wrong, in many levels, starting by the fact that AOE never EVER tried to replicate the historical feel of the time and is more about the gameplay, which is not as dull as in CII. So it achieved its purpose. While Cossacks, in general, not only CII, tried to make it feel more realistic. Trying with the first, having the formations and all. It sort of succeeded in its time. And CII tries to follow, while failing in gameplay-wise. Destroying a bit more of the enjoyment department. But still better overall, IMO.

I appreciate both games [AOEIII and CII], differently. They do not mix. It is a misconception to do so.

Quote Nowy ()
P.S. I only cast my few remarks. If you would like compare CI vs CII or another game then go to other threads. I put link to old one. If you do not like it then start new one.

Can you not go back and read what has been posted so far, as to notice you're the one insisting on throwing CI into the mix? Like-- all the time? CII is better than CI, big deal!
I do not want to compare them. But there are a few things CII took out that were in CI, like the fire-at-will mode. Or like how CI units would not waste their shots if something was blocking their line of sight [something that does not happen even in more modern games like TW, where units still fire even if they are hitting a lump]; why the nerf on this intelligent system? Having also grander maps was good. Sadly not so beautifully done like CII, but still. There are more others. But with this I'm not claiming CI is better overall. Something it doesn't seem to be nailing in that head of yours. Just that with the transition, they seem to have rushed many things/were lazy (I don't know if they were pressured or something) and did not take advantage of the few "good" things CI had to offer. Get it?


Message edited by domCossack - Saturday, 25/October/2014, 0:20 AM
 
EbelAngelDate: Saturday, 25/October/2014, 7:17 AM | Message # 16
Site Administrator
Group: Administrators
Messages: 980
Awards: 7
Reputation: 12
Status: Offline
domCossack

Nowy just likes arguing about this. I'v given up a long time ago on it, because its pointless.


 
NowyDate: Saturday, 25/October/2014, 5:12 PM | Message # 17
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote domCossack
Again, you try to play with words I don't believe you master. There is nothing false in my statement. Being better than something doesn't automatically classifies it as good. I don't want to get political/religious, etc. so I'll use a simple analogy. Two mass killers; one kills dozens and the other kills hundreds, one is definitely better than the other but they are both still bad. What point are you having difficulty to grasp here?


I do not try to play with words, but it looks that you try to do this.
You can not uderstand simple case. When something has not anything better to compare, then it is better than none.
When there is any similiar RTS games based on Napoleonic units, then CII is better than nothing.
Then it is still the best until you can show me a better one. It is clear, but not for you.

You suggested that CII made drunken people and this game could looks like something between bad and worse.
You aslo siad that this game has many faults, it is still, a failure. It fails in many cases. It failing in gameplay-wise. Destroying a bit more of the enjoyment department. Then you wrote something like that.

Quote domCossack
It's a good game, definitely.


Then where is your true statement? Do you like bad, failure game with failing gameplay, definitely?

Quote domCossack
I'm not entirely sure if you are reading what I'm typing, or if you just have serious difficulities to undestand the english language correctly. Because I feel tried of repeating the same thing and you do not refute it, but simply repeat the same thing over and over again, which adds to 'nothing'.'


Here we are next your false statment.
English is not my mother language, but I understand it enough. Neverthless I have some difficulties to understand you, because you make a medley, mixed false and true points. In that mixture it is hard to find your true opinion.
You do not need to repeat the same thing again and again. Better try understand that I can cast my own opinion.
Even different than yours.

I refuted your suggestion that CII is something between bad and worse.
We know that there are not anything else which is similiar RTS game based on Napoleonic units.
Then CII is not something between bad and worse.

I also showed you how Artillery and Elite Guard units in the game are OP.

Then there were not the same things again and again, or 'nothing' from my side.

Quote domCossack
YES! There are too accurate, I've said to myself. Too strong? In what manner? In that a cannon ball kills a soldier when it hits him? Was it supposed to be otherwise?


Do not try to be funny again. If artillery is too accurate this mean that it could be OP, isn't it.
Artillery is too strong because few shots can ruin to the ground any national building or fortification.
Bear in mind that in reality some Napoleonic forts or fortresses were besieged even several month and were bombarded many times with a little result, while in the game few howitzer's shots is enough :D.

Cannon ball can hit a man and it could kill or seriously injure him, of course.
However when almost all cannon balls hit a target it is absurd and it is OP.

Quote domCossack
Was is not so choke-pointy, or was is not so accurate, artillery would have less effective. So being "strong" is a result of the other two, don't you think?


No, artillery should be effective, but it needs more guns with lower accuracy and fire power.
Napoleonic artillery was not so accurate, even it can exploit many choke-points. Therefore they needed a lot of cannons.

Artillery in the game is too strong because it can accurately hit and quickly ruin buildings.

Then accuracy and fire power should be lowered, especially at long distance.
I did it in my game and artillery looks better now. I can create more guns with lower accuracy and fire power.

Choke-points are somehow terrain conditions and these are not bad recreated in the game.
However AI could be smarter and do not march their squads again and again to these choke-points.

Quote domCossack
The fear is caused by how faulty is the morale system, and how ineffectively the AI responds on being under fire. Top that with their ridiculous accuracy. I'd fear them too!


Fear and panic effects and morale system are not faulty as you suggest. It is much better than foolish robot clone units from C1 or other games which never fear, never waver and never panic.
However I do agree that AI should respond smarter in many cases.

Quote domCossack
I don't get it. Are you trying to justify and solve the stacking by saying"MORE CANNONS!!"? Even

after heaving you complain that they are OP? What is it going to be, after all?


No, I said that it could solve this problem, because stacked foramtions are vulnerable on artillery fire.
However I also said that artillery should use more guns with lower accuracy and fire power. Then artillery would not be OP, but still could break stupidly stacked squads. Then read what I was typing, then you will do not need ask such questions again.

Quote domCossack
Being better than smoething doesn't instantly makes that thing OP, you know?  They are supposed to be the elite, so it's normal they have midly higher stats [that is the only way a game can simulate elite units, you know that, right?].


Being better in that way how it was represented in CII could make these elite guard units OP.
However it is not only the way to simulate elite units. You should know that tactical conditions and combat situations has something to do with units abilities. Then only higher stats do not play the main role in this case.

Quote domCossack
I'v seen you trying, or appear to be trying, to teach me about these historical "facts". I'm majoring in History so it's not like I don't have any clue of what I'm taking about. I'd classify myself as an history buff, and am naturally attracted by these kind of things. So I'll say it to you: that is not the way to go.


Really, are you an history buff?  Then you should know such cases as
- Dworzno (Hoofe) 1807, where French Cuirasiers regiment wiped out few Russian infantry battalions
- Albuera 1811, where Vistula Uhlans charge wiped out Colbourn's British infantry brigade which suffered horrible casualties
- Kluszyn 1610, where 5,600 Polish winged hussars defeated 38,000 Russian and their mercenaries
- Kirholm 1605, where 2,600 Poloish winged hussars cut to pieces 11,000 Swedes, however many of them used long pikes

Then why you cry about an example where one cavalry unit can break three infantry units?
Do not you know that history?

Quote domCossack
So it's not "as bad as I think", it is as bad as I KNOW. Excuse me, do not try to sound like the wiser or the only one who knows about "history"/


I'm sorry, but it looks that you are wrong.
You statements clearly shows that you do not know how effective cavalry charges can be.
If you know something about it, you would not talking about 50 men killings almost 400.

Excuse me I am not historian and do not try to teach you history, but I know basic facts in cavalry battles.

Quote domCossack
I did not compare it to the Total War Series, nor did I compare it to Paradox Ineractive games.


Oh, you did this even you did not want to do this. You also tried medley Cossacks games with other games
as like TW, PI, C&C, CoH, MoW etc. Even these games were different kind of, or differnt time of their developemnet.
Then why do you mixed them?

You do appreciate both games, AoEIII and CII. You also said that AoEIII is very enjoyable experience and earlier you said if CII looks like something between bad and worse and that could mean that it is still bad. This is realy funny case.

It is clear that compare CI and CII is better choice than other games.
It is somehow the same kind of RTS games based on historiacal units from sword and gun powder era.

Quote EbelAngel
Nowy just likes arguing about this. I've give up a long time ago on it, because its pointless.


I like discuss about CI and CII, but this is not pointless. We are on Cossacks I & II Information Site, then it is normal to discuss about these games, isn't it.


Message edited by Nowy - Sunday, 26/October/2014, 12:38 PM
 
EbelAngelDate: Sunday, 26/October/2014, 7:05 PM | Message # 18
Site Administrator
Group: Administrators
Messages: 980
Awards: 7
Reputation: 12
Status: Offline
Quote Nowy ()
I like discuss about CI and CII, but this is not pointless. We are on Cossacks I & II Information Site, then it is normal to discuss about these games, isn't it.


Sure , just dont hijack every thread to post your views about it. This was about some questions why the guards bugged out. Not about comparing CI to CII.


 
NowyDate: Monday, 27/October/2014, 10:01 AM | Message # 19
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote EbelAngel
Sure , just dont hijack every thread to post your views about it. This was about some questions why the guards bugged out. Not about comparing CI


I wrote many messages on this site and in vast majority it were not about C I and CII comparision.
So, please do not suggest that I hijack every thread to post my views about it, because it is untrue.

In this thread this comparision started domCossack in his message # 6.
I responded that if he likes discuss about CI and CII games comparison we couuld do this in other, more adequate thread. I even put link to such thread in my message # 7.

Nevertheless he did not want to go to that topic and continued this comparison there.
Then I had no choise and answered there on his questions adressed openly to me.

If you feel uncomfortable with this comparision here, you could move this part to proper thread.
I suggested this from the begining.
 

Regards


Message edited by Nowy - Monday, 27/October/2014, 10:16 AM
 
domCossackDate: Friday, 31/October/2014, 10:42 PM | Message # 20
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Wow, really... At this moment I can only think that you really have troubles with english or you're just mocking me. I read this a while ago but the amount of misunderstanding, atrocious selective quoting, and refusal to comprehend led me to postpone my reply, for I had works to finish, but I can clear things out now. This might be my last touch in this matter (for now) because I don't have time for long winded posts every single time. Especially to someone it's starting to show they simply refuse to compromise.

Quote Nowy ()
I do not try to play with words, but it looks that you try to do this. You can not uderstand simple case. When something has not anything better to compare, then it is better than none.
When there is any similiar RTS games based on Napoleonic units, then CII is better than nothing.
Then it is still the best until you can show me a better one. It is clear, but not for you.

When did I say otherwise? I just said that 'being better than none', or 'being the best of all' does not necessarily mean that is it good. Can you understand the difference? I really think you're getting confused.

Quote Nowy ()
You suggested that CII made drunken people and this game could looks like something between bad and worse. You aslo siad that this game has many faults, it is still, a failure. It fails in many cases. It failing in gameplay-wise. Destroying a bit more of the enjoyment department. Then you wrote something like that.

For starters, no, I did not "suggest". Here, buddy.
Secondly, show me where did I say Cossacks is something between bad and worse. Perhaps it's your struggle with the english language striking again. Are you actually certain that I was affirming that for Cossacks? Did I even mention any game in particular, in that instance? Have you ever heard of hypothetical reasoning? I wonder.
I'm always glad to help, here you go. Failure does not equal bad. It just means it failed to achieve its max potential. Also, I say it killed a bit more in the enjoyment department because how dull the gameplay can get. The amount of micro, without any squad autonomy (auto-fire; skirmish-mode, etc); the very repetitive tactics, and etc can make it less enjoyable than so.

Quote Nowy ()
Then where is your true statement? Do you like bad, failure game with failing gameplay, definitely?

Clarified above.

Quote Nowy ()
Here we are next your false statment. English is not my mother language, but I understand it enough. Neverthless I have some difficulties to understand you, because you make a medley, mixed false and true points. In that mixture it is hard to find your true opinion.

Okay, not to say you don't understand basic english, but you do seem to have trouble understanding it when it gets more incise. Or you simply have difficulty interpreting texts in general, and it doesn't really matter even if I were to speak in your main language. I'm not native english speaker myself. I do study abroad in the UK and may be more exposed to it, it may be that, I don't know.

This so called medley you so say, was caused by no other than yourself. You should be paying attention to the constant use of "ifs" in my behalf. Not even to speak of the use of "something", "one" and other exonerated denominations that were never clarified to be of any specific thing/game or person.

Quote Nowy ()
You do not need to repeat the same thing again and again. Better try understand that I can cast my own opinion. Even different than yours.

Have you not realized that it is you who does not respect others' opinions? I guess not. But let me tell you: If I, or anyone, comes here and says they think something here is this or that, you're the first one to come and say how stupidly it is represented in other games (*coughcough* CI *cough*), and that CII is the best. Or: "it doesn't spoil the fun, there could be worse, deal with it." Paraphrasing but you get the gist. It seems to pass over your shoulder your attitude and reactions towards any critique to this game, which is my main gripe with you, right now. I don't NEED to hear: "but other games are worse", because I don't care. If it was about the other games, I would be in the other games, not here.

Quote Nowy ()
I refuted your suggestion that CII is something between bad and worse. We know that there are not anything else which is similiar RTS game based on Napoleonic units.
Then CII is not something between bad and worse.

I also showed you how Artillery and Elite Guard units in the game are OP.

Then there were not the same things again and again, or 'nothing' from my side.

You didn't refute that, because I never claimed that, in the first place. So...
You didn't show me ANYTHING.
You said how arty is too accurate, yes. Something I said even before you mentioned it. Not why it makes it OP.
I still don't see anything OP about the Elite other than +2 on melee, a litlle more hitpoints, and a little more base morale. Is there something else?

I mean, it adds to 'nothing' if you can't prove it to me how it is as you claim. I'm genuinely asking what can, or what have you seen, an elite unit do that makes it game-breaking?

Quote Nowy ()
Do not try to be funny again. If artillery is too accurate this mean that it could be OP, isn't it.

No. It means it is too accurate. Simple as that. That's where I see you're failing to understand.
The definition of OP is something that is so game-breaking that as soon as it steps in the field you're guaranteed to win. Arty here is strong, but it hasn't reached OP'ness levels. Mostly, as I've countless said, due to being reduced in the amount you can carry. Because if you could field lots of it (with its current accuracy), then it'd definitely be OP.

Quote Nowy ()
Artillery is too strong because few shots can ruin to the ground any national building or fortification. Bear in mind that in reality some Napoleonic forts or fortresses were besieged even several month and were bombarded many times with a little result, while in the game few howitzer's shots is enough :D.

I know that. It's true. lol They destroy buildings very easily. Even more than in the previous Cossacks. That one strikes me as weird when I see how quickly the buildings go down.

Quote Nowy ()
Cannon ball can hit a man and it could kill or seriously injure him, of course. However when almost all cannon balls hit a target it is absurd and it is OP.

Like I said. It is stronger than it should be. But not at an OP level. That is not to say that I think it is good the way it is now. When/if I can, I'm definitely going for the change and make it less effective.

Quote Nowy ()
No, artillery should be effective, but it needs more guns with lower accuracy and fire power. Napoleonic artillery was not so accurate, even it can exploit many choke-points. Therefore they needed a lot of cannons.

Artillery in the game is too strong because it can accurately hit and quickly ruin buildings.

Then accuracy and fire power should be lowered, especially at long distance.
I did it in my game and artillery looks better now. I can create more guns with lower accuracy and fire power.

^ This also strikes me as weird, that is to say, when I don't exactly know what's going on with your replies anymore. I've said previously, many times (I even suggested it myself), that less accuracy and fire power but with more guns was the way to go. Now, why are you arguing with things we're both in agreement? Beats me, I don't know, but I'd like you to stop. It just makes the replies longer.

Quote Nowy ()
Choke-points are somehow terrain conditions and these are not bad recreated in the game. However AI could be smarter and do not march their squads again and again to these choke-points.

They are not "bad recreated", of course. No one claimed that. It is bad when all maps consist of that, don't you think? Why aren't the Historical Battles choke-pointy, then? If maps were big enough that it could have both open fields and more intricate areas, that would be great, but alas.

Quote Nowy ()
Fear and panic effects and morale system are not faulty as you suggest. It is much better than foolish robot clone units from C1 or other games which never fear, never waver and never panic. However I do agree that AI should respond smarter in many cases.

You get it wrong. I'm not saying that the mechanic of having a morale system is bad, I'm saying that the current one does not seem to be complex enough, other than: (you kill = boost / you die = penalty). It is the major factor, yes, but it can have more to that. These "clone robots" are fine, for a game. I mean, depending on your gameplay focus. I prefer the morale system, so I don't think you need to "hate" so much on CI on me, as if you're trying to convince me CII is better in that behalf. I already think it is, I don't need you to convince me of it. I even baffle why you mention it, at all.

Quote Nowy ()
No, I said that it could solve this problem, because stacked foramtions are vulnerable on artillery fire. However I also said that artillery should use more guns with lower accuracy and fire power. Then artillery would not be OP, but still could break stupidly stacked squads. Then read what I was typing, then you will do not need ask such questions again.

Fair enough, but since I was getting in the problem of stacking, you tell me just to use cannons, thus making it really something like "blob shooting" makes me question where you stand in the matter of reality representation. Seeing you hate on "clone robots" but are apparently fine with "blob shooting". =/

Quote Nowy ()
Being better in that way how it was represented in CII could make these elite guard units OP. However it is not only the way to simulate elite units. You should know that tactical conditions and combat situations has something to do with units abilities. Then only higher stats do not play the main role in this case.

The first thing I asked was, if there were any hidden stats that are implemented that make an elite unit be elite. I got no answer on that, so I assumed the game has no intricate way of showing that other than the stats to simulate it.

Quote Nowy ()
Really, are you an history buff?  Then you should know such cases as - Dworzno (Hoofe) 1807, where French Cuirasiers regiment wiped out few Russian infantry battalions
- Albuera 1811, where Vistula Uhlans charge wiped out Colbourn's British infantry brigade which suffered horrible casualties
- Kluszyn 1610, where 5,600 Polish winged hussars defeated 38,000 Russian and their mercenaries
- Kirholm 1605, where 2,600 Poloish winged hussars cut to pieces 11,000 Swedes, however many of them used long pikes

Then why you cry about an example where one cavalry unit can break three infantry units?
Do not you know that history?

History buff does NOT mean history expert. Otherwise, I wouldn't still be studying it and learning. It just means I enjoy and read as many books and accounts as I can, and do my research. Just putting this out here, because your surprise, either by lack of knowledge with the expression or sheer arrogance makes it elucidate that you were about to vomit another misunderstanding. That said:

Don't know about Dworzno, but I do know how the other examples pulled off their successful cavalry charges. Particularly familiar with Albuera and Kircholm. And I wasn't "crying" about it. I'm not referring to unprepared infantry squads. You did refer to it, but I was talking of prepared units. Note that in those example there are more factors that influence the success which can't be represented in game (possibly the reason of my bias too), but I'm not sure I want to get more in depth in this now, as it'll go too long a reply.

Anyway, will check Dworzno, then and see what I can learn from it. Any good reference for a read?

Quote Nowy ()
I'm sorry, but it looks that you are wrong. You statements clearly shows that you do not know how effective cavalry charges can be.
If you know something about it, you would not talking about 50 men killings almost 400.

Excuse me I am not historian and do not try to teach you history, but I know basic facts in cavalry battles.

Nope, I'm not wrong in what and how I was claiming it. I ain't historian either, yet...
If you ask me, between (1 Winged Hussar [using those because they're my favorite] vs 20 infantry), I'd place my bets on the infantry; but if you ask me, between (20 Winged Hussar and 50 infantry), I'd place my bet on the cavalry, even though the difference between both is a lot larger than in the first example. It matters in a way that 2k cavalry charging, even if 100 or 200 are killed in the charge there are still a lot more to go, that may seem endless to an infantryman. And one of the main factor of these successes was the disruption of the lines that would cause the disarray. Most casualties in wars, ancient, medieval, renaissance, you name it, were usually caused from routing units that were just easy pickings barely fighting back. But like I said, something the game does not represent in the way I expected, and to discuss it further, I'd invite to make a new thread if you wish. I sure am always up to learn a thing or two.

Quote Nowy ()
Oh, you did this even you did not want to do this. You also tried medley Cossacks games with other games as like TW, PI, C&C, CoH, MoW etc. Even these games were different kind of, or differnt time of their developemnet.
Then why do you mixed them?

Ugh~ Dude, seriously?? I'm trying to make my point known and I used those examples to establish an analogy in the reasoning to see if I could get it across. Really? I'm really starting to think you're distorting everything I say on purpose. Did you even 'read' that? Geez~

Quote Nowy ()
You do appreciate both games, AoEIII and CII. You also said that AoEIII is very enjoyable experience and earlier you said if CII looks like something between bad and worse and that could mean that it is still bad. This is realy funny case.

Again, I didn't say CII is something between bad and worse. Go back and, within the context, read that more carefully. And yes, I stand by I what I said. AoEIII is enjoyable, the campaign is beautifully done, I liked and cared for the characters. Especially with all the expansions. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy in this case. I'm speaking merely in a game-wise standpoint.
Excuse me the bluntness, but your ability (or lack thereof) to interpret text is what's funny to me, either that or you're simply trolling because of how 'butthurt' you are of me saying "ill" things about your favorite game.

Quote Nowy ()
It is clear that compare CI and CII is better choice than other games. It is somehow the same kind of RTS games based on historiacal units from sword and gun powder era.

Er~ who was really the one who doesn't understand that others have different opinions?? Oh-- yeah, it was me, right?

I'm sorry, if any animosity was seemingly demonstrated, it is just my way when I get to more serious arguments. However, this may be my last reply about this whole thing, as I've said at the start. I say this because you're "stealing my time" with petty things, IMHO. I didn't come here to waste it in a futile discussion with someone who plugs their ears and listens only to particularly selected things that 'benefits' them. I came here to get help, get more understanding into it and see what it is that it could be changed for the better. If you wish to continue, then do so with the effort of understanding what I'm saying here. Not distorting it to the image that fits yourself, and then so I may see if you're simply trolling, butthurt or really willing to get to a compromise, because I do believe that that is the goal of most discussions, isn't it? Otherwise it's just-- pointless, as Ebel has said.

P.S. I just want to clarify that I wasn't comparing CI with CII. Saying CII could have this or that ability like it had in CI can hardly be called a comparison. At least a heated one, as I never did specify which of the two games is better. Just which one I like more (being so better, for me), and that is CII (in some aspects), and only after you bashed CI and glorified CII like I was implying something else (I wasn't). You're the one to keep bringing back the "clone robots" and "unrealistic arty" of CI every time you need you feel to prove your points that CII is better (in a whole or in a particular regard). Now that can be called a comparison.

Regards
 
Forum » Cossacks II » Gameplay » BFE - Guard Units (Ugh~ Guard units deserting all the time !)
Page 2 of 3«123»
Search: