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.

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.

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.

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

Their limit in number also helps a lot in that regard.

One of the core problem of the game is stacking.

I fail to see how Guard units are OP, really.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

It's a good game, definitely.

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'.'

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?

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?

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!

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?

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?].

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.