Hehe, well it just happened you know...I'm sure an admin or moderator will split and move the thread from the gameplay to the modding section. Or do you want to be moderator and do it yourself?

I just realize my economical background has influenced me. I like economical management, just as we had on Cossacks I. I always thought a good general should be able to both manage economy and warfare. Guess I could be wrong .

I find playing just with a fixed set off soldiers and whatever reinforcements he or she might get, a somewhat oversimplified recreation of reality. On the other hand, streaming 100 fusiliers out a barrack in a minute isnt accurate either. Making a game historically accurate is hard and its always a balancing act between playability and accuracy.

When I started modding CII, I read loads of threads from way back when CII was released and focussed on what people didnt like. I read a lot of people that werent happy that they couldnt build mills or mines anymore and as such I have brought them back.
Now you guys are telling me that you prefer just the opposite. I noticed Daddio wasnt to excited about bringing those back either, you aswell Nowy, and same with our friend yikes who just joined in.

It would seem to be hard to satisfy everyone. Should I create battle nations .nds files for the battles where peasants have limited building capabilities and economical nation .nds files for those that want to play CI style? It can be done you know, and depending on the map/play style, different nation. nds files can be attached to a map. And possibly a third nation nds which is similiar to the vanilla CII for those that do like the vanilla style gameplay?
And will this not be confusing to players who have no idea what I'm talking about here? I'm sure map makers will understand, but regular players?

1 - The cossacks community is used to more conservative resource-extracting/unit manufacturing RTS structure, simply because that's how C1 worked. They prefer it that way because they are used to it and because they learned to play that way. That is one of the reasons why cossacks 2 flopped. Because although some aspects of the economic structure were similar, the heavily formation base styled gameplay already kept the player busy due to the difficulted maneuvering this implies. So they had to pick simple way for gathering resources because cossacks 2 combats are lot slower and require a lot more micromanagement.

2 - However this doesn't mean one should forcefeed a new gameplay style to a community that's hardly used to it, but on the other hand, fully complying to their will would be a step backwards on the evolution and the future of the game, dooming it to stagnation. Innovation is always essential because crowd mentality is often sceptic to change although it is never fully pleased with a current state of affairs. This "nostalgia syndrome" probably was the cause behind all of rage the threads you initially read. Few of these people recognized C2's inherent potential, being more focused on ranting about how things used to be better before, although Cossacks was never a perfect game either.

3 - Finally you should understand creating something that's completely historically accurate is impossible. Even hawks mod fails in some aspects. What you should try to do is to theorize a mid therm between fun and realism according to the current gameplay mechanics, through one or several game modes. This is were setting a list of priorities gets important. A core game should be established to please the majority of the crowd. If that fails than something completely different must be tried instead. If it succeeds, other options should be considered for further expanding the project.

On my personal opinion, I clearly prefer a purely warfare focused mode because i believe it to be a good starting point for the community to try something new without being too complicated to learn, while at the same time setting a nice mid therm between a classic RTS structure and Total War inspired battlefields. An absolutely realistic game mode would require a complete revamp of the battle for europe mode into something closer to Total War and Knights of Honor map gameplay whereas a purely RTS style would be seen as overly primitive. However I do believe the vanilla C2 skirmish mode can be properly fixed and even fun. Now its up to you, your tastes, and what you're whilling to try. Also remember that subsequent community created branches may also spawn from your mod given the amount of editing tools included on it.

If I had any idea how to split this off I would do it for you. It does not belong in this section for sure.

I too like the economy portion of the game. But Not necessarily the raiding it invites. I prefer to build the economy and forget, or at least to fortify the village. Would it be possible to upgrade the village defense after it has been captured with more troops, or buildings? An upgrade that would build a blockhouse for example, or better yet would turn the village into a blockhouse type building. But building mines is a step backwards I think.

There have been a few mods already that slow down the troop building from the barracks. While a good idea, it really slows down the game. and just does not feel rite.

If you were able to create an autofire option by zone, it would be a revolution to the game. Davout had claimed to have done it in his mod. But his system crashed before he was done. And he did not have the desire to start over.

Fact is that there are so many troops from this era that you will never please everyone when it comes to accuracy. Playability must take center stage.

Cannons are fine I think, but the option to link them together in a battery would be nice.

Calvary are fine also, but I do believe that infantry should have better defense against them. especially when in a square.

I have always be a supporter of options. That is what I loved about C1. And the reason it has done so well for so long.

My favorite options was low resource and PT. Dont know if pt is possible. But it would again be a revolution in the game for many people.

Yikes has some very interesting ideas, More of a campaign map than a RTS playing system though.

Daddio

Not just that, I always think the cavalry squads should be hard to maneuver. They can revert their march almost instantly and cross any kind of terrain in top speed. Cavalry should be more weak against infantry fire, but on the other hand I think the charge should have a more powerful impact on infantry.

I'll have to disagree with this, since most of the feature's I've suggested are the core of the skirmish mode of games such as Dawn of War 2, Blitzkrieg and Company of Heroes. The constant flow of troops via requisition points keep the battlefield packed and the strategical options open, while the capture zone system is vague enough to allow the imagination of several possible objectives and settings and fluid enough to apply completely different strategies according to the structure of the map. Campaign modes rely on fixed triggers and very specific events that follow a linear plot. In case you were mentioning something closer to the Total War gameplay, then the open battle method with a limited number of troops and no reinforcements would make more sense.

That's why I support vikes and Daddio in this matter too.

Buildings mills and mines can be step backwards. Worse that it can makes more problems. Do not know if players will can effective handel all these economy and warfare management. Therefore I think that C2 vanilla skirmish mode with some fixes will be enough there.

This moddification should eliminate few useless things e.g. peasants over-population which cased many times in long term gameplay.
Maybe implement peasants limit or slow down peasants time creation and change little bit system of productivity. Peasants used in wood and stone procurement gave occasions to over-population and this is quite useless and silly.

Better use more energy in warfare moddifications.

Autofire option by zone will be very useful. It could be fire at will option or allow to open fire when see enemy.

Skirmishers (jagers) should have new fire system and more extended formations.

Units squads should have new strength:
- infantry 80 men instead 120,
- cavalry could have two types of squads -> 15 men in squadron and from 30 to 60 men in regiment,
- Cossacks should have more units and theirs sotnias ->10 men and regiments 50 men.

Little bit bigger scale/size for infantry formations.

Cannons should/could link to batteries and should needs ammunitions and supply four wheel wagons.

Fix some bugs in artillery manouvres and guns atachments to limbers.

General commanders on battlefields are necessary.

More complex army organisation for brigades, divisions and army corpses, if it will be possible.

Cavalry could be weak against infantry fire, but should have powerful charge impact on infantry, except inantry in square formation at standground.

Peace time is useless, better implement option as some kind of diplomacy and peace treats.

I have known Angel for some time now and I am sure she understands I am putting my ideas forward as a point of debate and not as a demand.

Angel is a Lady by the way, and not a man.

And although my skills are very limited, I have begun a mod of my own. even though I have not worked on it since my new job started.

Angel is a very smart Lady, and do not think she would bend to any demands anyway.

Good gaming all!

Daddio

And it's Yikes by the way.

When I put my ideas about modding C2 it was not demands it was more or less my suggestions and point of debate which could help in work under mods.
And I was sure that Angel understands it.

No worries, it was more kind of a joke then a subtle hint. As I believe when people are posting good ideas, one should not start complaining about the form, because it breaks the magic of the moment. Rule number 1 of brainstorming is no constraints, have the ability to think out of the box without having to worry, is this the right section?

Then again, perhaps you may want to try create a thread in the internal forum to experiment with Daddio to learn the options available to your moderator status. These are the same on the cdv forums, if you want me to explain things, ask me in the internal forum.

If i have to make a decision on a particular matter I will always choose playability above historical accuracy.

I would not bend to any demands indeed, but I am susceptible to good & motivated arguments.

Sorry for not replying to every single suggestion made here, but do know that I appreciate them and think about them.