[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Forum moderator: Daddio, EbelAngel 
Forum » Cossacks III » GamePlay » Cossacks 3
Cossacks 3
MarshalDate: Tuesday, 17/February/2015, 5:04 PM | Message # 21
Count
Group: Users
Messages: 95
Awards: 0
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
I would say more than million copies, especially in Russia where there seems to be a revival of historical games.  On top of that, the fact that the game is developed in Ukraine gives them a good chance.  But my concern is the timing, Microsoft is developing something that is expected to take the cake at the same time as GSC is creating their game, if GSC is creating their RTS game that is.  Right now from the last time I checked a few moths ago, there are over 4 million fans waiting for the next AoE release.  GSC has bean gone a while, so I wonder where they're getting their money to develop their game.

Me


1st Prince de Wagram, 1st Duc de Valangin, 1st Sovereign Prince de Neuchatel, Marshal of France, Marshal Louis Alexandre Berthier
 
domCossackDate: Tuesday, 24/February/2015, 6:25 PM | Message # 22
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
@Nowy: Making an RTS is not as easy as it was before. Sure they may have more tools and more samples to get from, but the today's RTS's do start to have a tendency on working more on the graphics and details (along with the smooth gameplay), and sure a lot of mechanics. And they can't keep using the same old engine (2D graphics) of CI like that they did with CII, improving only a little graphically and mechanic-wise. The demand for an RTS that is not only good mechanically (gameplay) but also good in terms of graphics is a lot higher today.

From what I read, is not that Stalker 2 was not out to be a success and so they scrapped it, it's just that they decided to halt its development until their situation was solved. From that, I'd say it is more likely that they pick from where they left and improve and finish the game than starting one now from scratch.

Believe me, I'd love to have a CIII on my hands too, but to think that that would be their priority is being very optimistic. Not that it cannot be, but still. The numbers show that Stalker franchise is more popular/known than the Cossacks one. As of now the most popular mod of all times is still for Stalker game, while Cossacks' community is discreet and shady, and barely a single completely finished mod you can find. Not that mods necessarily mean success, but it's still a very good indicator that said game still has heart to grow, and more devoted fans. If I was on their shoes, I'd place my bet on the one that is still "alive" to this day, instead of the one that you can hardly hear anything from.


Message edited by domCossack - Tuesday, 24/February/2015, 6:28 PM
 
NowyDate: Saturday, 28/February/2015, 4:53 PM | Message # 23
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote domCossack
@Nowy: Making an RTS is not as easy as it was before.
I do not think so. RTS game still could be interesting for many funs. This kind of games do not needs high level graphic or details. The main thing is good and reliable strategy in smooth gameplay. Sure, lot of mechanics and graphic are important, but are not necessary. 
 
Historical strategy should base on well chosen historical problems from period represented in the game. This is not hard implement real, historical conditions, recreate strategies and tactics used in historical period. Main questions, characteristic units, well recreated scenarios and campaigns where players can make serious decisions as historical commanders or rulers. This is clue in RTS game and not high end graphic, and details. This way even historical purist and common auditories could make fun in the game.
 
In these conditions GSC easily could improve even their old CII game, and it could be fine and successful RTS game.
 
Quote comCossack
Believe me, I'd love to have a CIII on my hands too, but to think that that would be their priority is being very optimistic.
Yes it is very optimistic, but it is better than next Stalker game. The latter was popular, but it needs more investment, bigger team and more other things. When they try start develop games again, they should do something smaller and cheaper which needs less money and time. In these conditions RTS game is easier to do, than new Stalker which could be their next game, when they earn some money on CIII.
 
Game modding is another story.
 
kirjasbeltranDate: Saturday, 14/March/2015, 6:50 PM | Message # 24
Viscount
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I'd love to have this game feature asian or middle eastern civilizations like japan, korea, mongolia, china, saudi arabia.. A possible competitor to aoe 3
 
LandserDate: Tuesday, 17/March/2015, 5:57 PM | Message # 25
Noblemen
Group: Users
Messages: 6
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I would totally love to see Cossacks III. Actually I thought there wouldn´t be any chance, but this thread is giving me hope!

What I´ve never understood up to now: Why is C I still more popular than C II? If you say 2,5 million copies of C II were sold I can´t imagine the reason is "poor advertising". But I heard that reason very often from C II community.


Message edited by Landser - Tuesday, 17/March/2015, 5:58 PM
 
domCossackDate: Thursday, 19/March/2015, 5:32 PM | Message # 26
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
@Landser: For the many improvements CII offers towards CI, it also offers many, if not more, regression in a a lot of other aspects. For instance, the fluidity of CI is much better and just an easier game to get into, despite having a more complex tech-tree, more nations, units, etc. I'm not going into detail on this discussion again just yet, but CII didn't improve CI overall. Some things it did better, while it did worse on others. I'd say the way the game feels, and its fluidity to be the main reason why it to be more popular (CI than CII, that is).

The gameplay of CI is harder to be as repetitive as the one in CII, which is in fact even more dull. This not saying it cannot be fun, it can. But without addressing the realism improvements of CII (in some mechanics) there is little other you can point that improved and is much better than CI.

That's my take, sort of simplified, but yeah.


Message edited by domCossack - Thursday, 19/March/2015, 5:36 PM
 
LandserDate: Thursday, 19/March/2015, 10:18 PM | Message # 27
Noblemen
Group: Users
Messages: 6
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
@domCossack:
To make one point clear: CI was a great game. I played it for many, many hours and was totally fascinated with its large possibilities and complex tech-tree.

But compared to its successor it doesn´t stand a chance in my opinion. Single soldiers fighting look a little bit foolish compared with formations and squads as you have them in CII. In this way CII looks to me as a solid advancement. And as I mentioned in a different post the implementation of morale and fatigue puts the strategic playing to another level, which i totally love. Not only the sheer number of your army matters. Instead CI tends to be only about quantity.

Of course CII has its disadvantages. For me thats especially big lags when playing with a big army and countless bugs which can make the game experience pretty frustrating sometimes. However I can see over this because of CII´s unique playing style.

So I wouldn´t complain about a Cossacks "2.5" ;-). CII with better graphics, bugfixes, slight adjustments and maybe a different time period to mix things up. But probably this is too good to be true...


Message edited by Landser - Thursday, 19/March/2015, 10:20 PM
 
domCossackDate: Friday, 20/March/2015, 5:08 AM | Message # 28
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
@Landser: What you mentioned are the improvements CII has over CI, but some of you seem to forget to point out the real flaws of it either. The realism and new mechanics are delicious, but they'd work better in conjunction with what the game already had in its favor.

Note: You can also have squads in CI, not as fleshed out or crucial but still.

#1 Point: One thing I really want to say is, autonomy of squads/units. Like I said in another thread, there are more things CI did better than just lag, or lack thereof. Example: If enemy units are behind a building and you order them to shoot the units in CII, what do they do? Yes, they shoot to the building despite not having LOS, and obviously miss. In CI you'd have a warning saying what is blocking them and your units would halt fire until having vision to their target, which means, no wasted ammo/shots (which is more important in CII), which equals, no need to such micro-management (having to wait, overlook them, etc).

#2 Point: They stripped CII of so many commands. No patrol, no guard, but those two are minimal, and not as important here. Worse, no fire-at-will. One almost pointless mechanic = fire by rank. Most of the time what you will be doing is approach a squad that is unprepared, unload all your shots at once and retreat the squad while having another one behind ready to protect the other while it reloads (because stacks, which sucks). There is no fire-at-will (especially by rank, which would be cool) where you would see more long distance shootouts, instead of this cat and mouse dance of: "I go?; No, you go!; No, you go?; No, I go!".

#3 Point: You could also group formations in CI. Say, you have a bunch of squads in different formations, you organize them in a certain way/pattern, and you want them to always move in that pattern, you select them and boom -> group them. This would be helpful here especially for skirmishers/rifles, to bunch them up together. After you clicked in only one of the squads that is included in the group, it would select the whole group, containing all its squads. Not needing to have to always "draw" that box to select the ones you want.

#4 Point: The freedom of the maps, despite not being as visually beautiful as the CII ones, allowed to more freedom to maneuver and the battle to feel more like a real battlefield. Which I think we can all agree that it would be better instead of the choke-pointy gameplay of blocking roads with one squad that in stand-ground/entrench mode becomes almost unshootable with over the top defense bonus.

#5 Point: No inclusion of navy. There is no sea battles. :v Like WTF happened? Why would they leave that out? It was fun. It was an important aspect of this time period. Like... what? Can't even describe that decision.

#6 Point: The tech-tree was fun, could have used a little more improvement to not be broken but I liked it very much, it felt like you are really improving and growing out your empire. You have decisions to make! You feel that in game. Though, the fact that you had so many things to do on CI, but still allowed for more a macro-management type of style instead of the hyper micro style of CII, it is a big YES for the game. In CII, when combat approaches you can only focus on it, because your squads can't do anything without you ordering every little thing. Either you look away and they let the enemy come shoot at their face like idiots, or you have to ditch taking care of things going on in your base, so you can babysit them. The other "babies" that don't have your attention will just be bullied and you'll only have a warning of them crying around on the field because you weren't looking, and didn't put away their bully. WTF! Annoying that.

#7 Point: I liked one thing CI musketeers did (the 17c ones) that would help in CII. When units got close, they would fall back and envelop the other unit so the other ones on the side could still shoot, while the enemy is chasing the ones on the center. Well, CII also has skirmishers but you can't really have them taking fire because they come in low numbers. They would do good in learning some good tactics with CI musketeers tactic of falling back, and not stand their ground against line infantry on their f****** face. Why not having a skirmish mechanic where you'd activate, and they'd behave similarly to 17c musketeers from CI? That is, falling back if enemy units got too close. I mean, really. =/

Attention here: With this I'm not saying CI is better. It's just that CII didn't just pick in everything CI had and improved it. It regressed in many aspects. That is why I say it's a little hard to judge which one is better. Because that will depend a little on what each individual values the most. For a sequel, it had the obligation of leaving the things that worked fine alone, and focus only on the things that could be improved and added. Ever heard of teh saying "If ain't broke, don't fix it!"? Well, CII failed in that regard. It teared apart many fun and workable aspects of CI without putting a substitute on their place, or one that made it justice at least. CII avid fans seem to only say: "Oh, but fatigue, morale, squads REALISM HURR DURR :V" but forget other little details that allow for a more smooth and fun gameplay.

Overall I say that CII seems rushed, it looks like they were working against time, which was ferociously fighting against them, and so they forgot/decided to leave many things out of the game, which otherwise would come out a little more polished. It's a sequel, it needs to feel like one in many more aspects, not improve some while breaking a ton more others that were fine. I like them both, but I see them as almost completely different things. Not like one is an improvement over the other. They are... different. Hopefully, you understand what I mean.


Message edited by domCossack - Friday, 20/March/2015, 5:28 AM
 
NowyDate: Friday, 20/March/2015, 3:39 PM | Message # 29
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
There were many reasons why C I was more popular than C II.
Poor advertising was important factor, but do not forget that lot of bad things noticed in C I game discouraged many people. What for they should buy next game which offer only improved graphics and few other things while still had old bad things e.g. dull warfare, strangely balanced factions, stacked formations, stupid campaigns, false historical battles, bore skirmishes etc.
They already tested these things in C I and AC series 5 or 6 games. CII of course was better in many aspects than C I or AC games, however improvd graphic and few other things were not enough to encourage auditory.

Many peaple did not want to buy next strategy game which offered only improved graphics. Some Cossacks fans cried over changes in gameplay and new game mechanics. They were accustomed to play old style, however it was clearly inaccurate.
CII had few improvements, but pure fantasy gamplay dissatisfied historical purists and some casual players.
There were too many negative factors and too little innovations. These cases shrank popularity.

C I offered fluent gamplay with poor warfare, strangely represented factions, badly balanced units clones which can marched accross maps never tired, no waver, no fear, no panic, fought disorderly, incorrect battle tactics, crowded blobs clashes, mass killings, poor economy aspects, strange tech tree, pure fantasy missions, campaigns and false historical battles. That was enough to gain popularity, but was not acceptable in next games.

C II offered improved warfare, better represented factions, better chosen and balanced units, vital part played formations, morale, fatigue, better units statistics, abilities, behaviours, better battle tactics, simplified economy, road and village systems. However C II inherited some bad things, added some poor things and demanded too much micro management in linear gameplay.
These can not satisfy customers and worsened popularity. New game should offer something more.

Therefore C III should offer more innovations, improvements, better prepared maps with characteristic landscape, buildings, flora and fauna elements, variable economy devlopment adequate to historical cases, few factions power tiers, better recreated historical warfare, well represented battle tactics, sieges, fire-at-will system, complex army organization with cavalry, infantry, artillery, sappers formations, ammunition caissons, supply wagons, pontoon and tools carriages, general commanders, adjutants, better prepared campaigns, historical battles, more maritime aspects, different ships types, properly represented dockyards, sea ports, sea lanes, various fortifications, bridges and other transport infrastructure.

Better recreated historical enviroment, characteristic questions, interesting scenarios, realistic victory conditions, serious strategy decisions, properly organized armies and navies which could fight orderly in properly recreated battle tactics. These things should include new Cossacks style real time strategy game.

I have got more detailed wishes, suggestions and ideas for Napoleonic period.


Message edited by Nowy - Friday, 20/March/2015, 3:40 PM
 
domCossackDate: Sunday, 22/March/2015, 4:11 AM | Message # 30
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
@Nowy: See how can we agree on something? I was even dreading when I saw you posted here. =P
In fact, I don't have anything to add or contradict in your post. CII improved CI in many aspects, but still inherited some bad things, and like I said in my post above, it broke some mechanics that surprisingly the first game did better.

The improvements in CII weren't just enough. Especially at the time the game came out. 2005/2006 (BFE DLC). Not doing a comparison even because they are from different time periods (and different kinds of game)  but at that time even my favorite Total War, which is Medieval II, was already out. That's just to say, I'd prefer spending my time playing Medieval over CII for sure. Have had and still have more fun playing that than Cossacks.

Just saying: I believe it's been proven that a game that looks like a simulator but has dull gameplay does NOT top a game that has a more arcady but fun gameplay.
People still love C&C games despite being completely unrealistic.
(CoH) Company of Heroes is more popular than (MoW) Men of War, even though the latter is more realistic, but it is harder to play through. So and So (I could go with many more). That's why it is important to have a good balance between... I'd say everything. Yes, graphics included. They may not be the highest priority but they also matter. =/

One important thing you said:

Quote Nowy ()
pure fantasy gamplay dissatisfied historical purists and some casual players.

The realism of the battles/battlefield is still not accurate: stacks; no friendly fire; ghost cavalry charges passing through their own, etc. So its a -1 for whoever's looking for a more realistic kind of approach/battlefield.
Then comes the fluidity of gameplay, which this game lacks by tons. Making it a lot harder to just enjoy it and be something you play just for the fun of it. Again another -1 but for those who are just looking to have a good time with the game.

This means the game does not excel in neither, realism or gameplay. So you can't enjoy either or both fully. Leaving you like with a bad taste in the mouth that is kind of hard to explain.

If CIII is to come, which I have already expressed my thoughts on it, and haven't changed them, we can only hope it will finally be that cake we are all looking forward to.


Message edited by domCossack - Sunday, 22/March/2015, 4:14 AM
 
Forum » Cossacks III » GamePlay » Cossacks 3
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Search: