[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Forum moderator: Daddio, EbelAngel  
Forum » Cossacks III » GamePlay » Cossacks III wishlist (Discussion underCossacks fans wishlist for C III)
Cossacks III wishlist
NowyDate: Tuesday, 14/April/2015, 2:51 PM | Message # 11
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
I can add more details to my wish list for future Cossacks III. This time more remarks to economy questions.

Cossacks I and II games included simple economy. Think that Cossacks III should include more economy aspects, represent more economy sectors, and variety of regional economy.

Simple agriculture, mines, resources and limited market are not enough. There were more economy sectors which played important roles and allow reap profits at that period. For instance, fishing, manufacturing, shipbuilding, shipping, various services, more effective urban jobs, mass production, home, foreign overseas and colonial trade were very important, especially in West Europe.

Modern government system, financial institutions, sience, education, knowledge, inventions, innovations, new techniques, metal tools, machines, skilled workforce, well organized labour, transport capasity and trade expansion grew up economy.

Great Britain in Industrial Revolution transfered largerly agrarian economy into the world's first industrial economy.

France, Germany, North Italy, Batavia-Holland, Swiss-Helvetia based on profitable mercantile and capitalist economy.
London, Paris, Amsterdam became centres of international banking and stock traders. Large capital powered commerce.
British, French and Dutch can expolit their colonies. However British naval domination can blockaded enemy overseas trade.

Central Europe cantries, Austrian Empire, Prussia and Poland still based on agriculture and natural resources, while other economy sectors played here supplementary roles. They reformed their serf system, implemented some innovations, improved production and can reap profit from lower cost workforce.

East Europe occupied Russian Empire which based on extensive agriculture, natural resources, numerous and cheap workforce.
However their harsh serf system, long distance, poorly developed vast lands and severe climate made difficulties for their economy. Nevertheless Russia can exported grain in good harvest time and can exploit rich natural resources in faraway vast lands behind Volga, Kama rivers on Ural, Siberia and Caucasus.

North European countries, Denmark-Norawy, Sweden-Finland and north Russian domains had small population, limited workforce and some problems with severe cold climate. Nevertheless these countries can exported their natural resources, raw materials, fishes and some crops e.g. flax, hemp or rye. They can reap some profits from overseas trade and fishing.

South European countries, South Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ottoman domains lived in fine Mediterranean climate, but their predominantly mountainous lands, limited natural resources, difficult labour in hot weather and obsolete serf system slowdown their economy. These countries produced fruits, olives, vegetables, grapes, vine, wool and marble stone. Except Italy, they also can exploit their vast colonies and dominions. All they can reap profits from overseas trade and fishing.

Asia Minor, Middle East and North Africa occupied Ottoman domains, Egypt and Barbary States. These South East Mediterranean countries lived in very hot and dry climate. There were many deserts, dry highlands, mountains and many undeveloped areas. Hard land conditions, backward serf system, poor administration, obsolete society and nomads delimited their outdated economy. They based on agriculture, produced cotton, fuits, olives, vegtables and wheat. Animals husbandry included camels, horses, sheep and goats. There also were some costal fishing and overseas trade.

Cossacks III should include variety of economy and regional differences.
Basic economy in the game could represent such economy sectors.

Agriculture = regional animals husbandry, crops culture, farming, food production.
Fishing = fishermen, river, lake, pond, sea fishery, fishing sail boats, fish shops
Natural resources = wood, stone, brickyards, stores
Mines = iron, gold, coal mines with characteristic improvements
Manufacturing = some craftsmen shops, few manufactures and for British Industry mechanized textile factory, iron works, metal tools, machnies and machinery production, chemical works, steam power, some inventions, innovations, effective techniques in metalurgy, chemistry, textiles production and labour organization
Shipbuilding = dockyards, naval bases, sea ports, anchorage
Shipping = seamanship, merchant ships, ports, sea lanes, overseas or colonial trade centres
Various Services
Administration, Diplomacy and Intelligence = administrators, agents, diplomats, intelligencers, spies, scouts
Construction and engineering = variety of buildings, bridges, bridge-heads, canals, dams, dikes, trenches
Education and Science = schools, colleges, academies, inventors, innovators, scientists, teachers
Financial = Bank, Insuranse, Stock and Bond exchange, businessmen
Treasury = custom duties, port fees, improved road and bridge tolls collectors, taxes and taxmen
Transporters = pack horses, horse hauled carts, train wagons, barges, ships, British steam ship
Transport infrastructure = various roads, floating, wooden, stone bridges, canals, waterways, sea ports
Trade = home market, foreign and overseas trade, merchants, shopkeepers

Workforce = variety of jobs, fishermen, seamen, peasants, shopkeepers etc.

More economic aspects and regional variety and international commerce are well come in the game.

Message edited by Nowy - Thursday, 16/April/2015, 8:14 AM
kirjasbeltranDate: Saturday, 18/April/2015, 6:26 PM | Message # 12
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
I'm not particular with the setting of this cossacks 3 game, though I would suggest that they include the abus gun for the turks much like its aoe 3 incarnation... Should some real life physics be included in ths game as opposed to rts physics, specifically the inability to destroy buildings using guns or melee weapons, it is possible to destroy buildings with the abus gun if playing as the turks, since this unit may serve as the pre-20th century predecessor for the rpg or rocket launcher based infantry.. I would also suggest hand canoneers be featured as well.
domCossackDate: Wednesday, 22/April/2015, 3:25 PM | Message # 13
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote Nowy ()
Thanks for your substantial post. I already lost hope that there are members which can discuss on merits.

We are here Nowy, we are here.

Truth is, some of the things you suggested, while realistic-wise almost pinpoint, may be a little overwhelming in terms of gameplay, which being a game, should have a nice balance between both.
I doubt the 'historians' behind these historical games don't know sh*t about army composition, social features, etc. but there are some things that ought to be simplified for the sake of enjoyment of gameplay, and that's why they sacrifice realism in many aspects (other times due to laziness or really lack of research).

For instance, look at how many ranks of officers you "plan" to have. While I'd love to see a game going with full complexity, just for the curiosity of seeing how it would fare, I don't think many people are really so into it that deeply. Making a risk for the company, as well.

This is just one of the examples I could talk about. However, this are just ideas so I guess there is no harm, and one can only dream, right ?

And since I know you will strongly disagree with me, no matter what, I just stand here, reading from the outside, your suggestions and imagining them in an actual game.  booze
NowyDate: Thursday, 23/April/2015, 9:01 AM | Message # 14
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
domCossack I do not want to attack you, but it looks that you did not get the matter in my wish list.

Balance of reality-wise and gameplay of course is important for the RTS war game.
Then game complexity play main role. This mean that complexity level is important.
Gameplay and enjoyment normally depend on game complexity and human skills.

I specified 10 general points in my wish list for future CIII game. Nevertheless I do not propose too much complexity to the game.
I simplified many things, however add new Victory Conditions, add some more elements to Strategic Map, some more aspects to Economy and new Army Order of Battle which can better represent reality-wise for proposed period Napoleonic Wars.

In fact these elements exist in old CI, CII and HEW mod ACFB games.
I believe that much modern future CIII game could include more things.

I can explain for you mentioned officers ranks case too.

It can looks that I proposed many officers ranks, but in fact I proposed only three commanding levles for proposed command structure in the game.

1. Supreme Commander in accompany with two Generals, their Adjutants and escort cavalry squadron
2. General Commanders in few responsibility ranks in accompany with their Adjutants
3. Squad Commanders, field officers in accompany with flag bearer and drummer or trumpeter

These commanding levels or officers ranks existed even in old Cossacks style games.
I only named their positions in proposed Order of Battle characteristic for that period.
Split General Commanders and Chiefs ranks for better understanding their positions and responsibilities in proposed OOB.

Therefore you can see General Commanders and Chiefs five ranks for Army:

1. Supreme Commander
2. Army Commander
3. Army Corps Commanders and relative ranks for other Commanders and Chiefs
4. Division Commanders and relative ranks for Chiefs of specified military branches
5. Brigade Commanders and relative ranks for Chiefs of specified military branches

In fact these General Commanders have only two commanding levels in the game.
1. Sumpreme Commander
2. General Commanders and Chiefs

And mentioned in my pervious post four ranks for Navy Commanders in fact mean that there are only two commanding levels.
1. Admirals in accomapny with Navy Adjutant officers
2. Ship Commander, Captains

This command structure do not need too many figurines to represent all their possitions in OOB.

Navy Commanders could be virtually boarded on ships. So, they could be invisible or visible as small dots or simple flags.
Army Commanders could represent some Generals in few ranks in accompany with Adjutants and squads officer staff.
They better represent OOB in the game.

These elements do not add too many complexity to the game.

Never accepted disorderly combats and lack of higher ranks commanders in Cossacks games.
Now it is time to include General Commanders, Chiefs and their Adjutants in the gameplay.

Message edited by Nowy - Thursday, 23/April/2015, 9:43 PM
kirjasbeltranDate: Thursday, 23/April/2015, 7:41 PM | Message # 15
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
So these officers are recruited as a squad, right? I do suggest that only one officer can lead a formation as opposed to 2/3 or all 3 bet the officer, standard bearer and drummer leading a single formation. I do also would like to add some settlements.. At least four of them are already under the player's control by default?. Territory system can be similar to rise of nations wherein all of your territories must be adjacent to each other.. If one of your territories is not adjacent to the one that is under the player's control, then it is useless, as seen in company of heroes. To explain, a captured territory is useless if the player captures one without capturing another neutral or ai controlled settlement that is adjacent to a settlement that is already controlled by the player..
NowyDate: Thursday, 23/April/2015, 10:41 PM | Message # 16
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Academy building could create all General Commanders, Chiefs and Adjutants.
Barracks and Stables could create Infantry and Cavalry officers, flag bearers, drummers, trumpeters, infantrymen and cavalrymen.

Supreme Commander, his Suite Generals, Adjutants and escort cavalry squadron could be recruited as Commander group or squad.
General Commanders and Chiefs in mentioned ranks assignetd to various positions could be in accompany with 1,2,3 or 4 Adjutants.
Number of Adjutants could suggest General's rank.

Supreme Commander with 5 Adjutants, plus 1 Gerneral with 2 Adjutants and 1 General with 1 Adjutant and 15 cavalrymen squadron
Army Commander with 4 Adjutants
Army Corps Commander and Chief in relative rank with 3 Adjutants
Division Commander and Chief in relative rank with 2 Adjutants
Brigade Commander and Chief in relative rank with 1 Adjutant

Infantry Battalion squad could include officer, flag bearer and drummer
Cavalry Regiment squad could include cavalry officer, flag bearer and trumbeter or other signal man

Artillery Battery include 3 the same type cannons, 3 horse drawn limbers and artillerymen
If it will be possible each Artillery Battery additionally could include 1 howitzer with limber.
Artillery Section include 2 the same type artillery guns (csnnons, mortars, howitzers, Russian Unicorn guns or British rocket launchers)

Artillery Train Company = 4 horse drawn 4 ammmunition cassions, each one with 2 drivers on horseback
Baggage, Equipage and Supply Train Company = horse drawn 2 supply wagons, each one with 2 drivers
Artillery and Train units could create Artillery Depot or Arsenal.
More settlements it would be nice idea. However there is a map size problem. So, bigger skirmish maps are necessary.

I am not familiar with RoN teritory system, but this idea could be interesting.
Never liked CII BfE Campaign with patchwork carpet sectors which looks foolish.
I could add that landing operation or attacks on stronger enemy sector also needs improvements.
In CII BfE 4 British infantry squads easily can capture any continental sector. It is clear stupidity.
Future CIII game should eliminate such irritating cases.

Message edited by Nowy - Thursday, 23/April/2015, 10:50 PM
kirjasbeltranDate: Friday, 24/April/2015, 0:31 AM | Message # 17
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
more maps as well.. in skirmish mode, all maps can support up to 8 players, as opposed to fixed as in cossacks 2. in cossacks 2, there are only two maps that can actually support more than 2 players. it is better if the player can choose his/her opponents in ALL maps as seen in age of empires, age of mythlogy and celtic kings as opposed to certain maps with a fixed maximum number of players, as seen in some games such as the command and conquer series, starcraft, warcraft And battle realms. in regard to the generals and chiefs, can you also attach a formation of units to them? if yes it would be best if you can place them near the barracks to attach them to your infantry or send your infantry to the building where you train them, ie an academy, provided that the academy and barracks are far from each other, plus there has to be a required number of units of the same type to create a formation, ie 120. In regard to the territory system, it is still possible to place a building on a neutral or ai controlled area even if the player has yet to capture the settlement of that territory. this could oppose the gameplay style of starcraft if playing as the protoss, and the player attempts to build a building outside a pylon's area of effect. i do like the suggestion that the number of adjutants accompanying a general will suggest his rank, which is equivalent to modern day number of stars on a general. additional suggestion is that they all come in on foot and mounted variants. on foot variants can lead infantry while mounted variants can lead cavalry

Message edited by kirjasbeltran - Friday, 24/April/2015, 0:46 AM
NowyDate: Friday, 24/April/2015, 9:32 AM | Message # 18
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
CIII should include more skirmish maps. CI had lot of them, while CII had only few very detailed maps.
In my dreams I can see even 100 skirmish maps, each one for 70 land sector in Grand Campaign and 30 maps for sea sectors.

It would be wonderful when these maps could include more local or regional conditions e.g. Silesian sector could include Silesia region with Breslau (Wroclaw) town, several smaller settlements, properly locate roads, mountains, Oder river and few tributaries. Liverpool sector can represent North Engand, Yorkshire and Humber regions. This sector map could include Liverpool trade port, many industrial elements as like textile factories and warehouses in Manchester and Leeds, iron works in Shefield, more coal mines, some iron mines, some improved roads and few canals. London capital sector could include River Thames, many houses, streets, few Banks, Stock Exchange House, trade port, few dockyards and naval bases. Cairo sector could present big Nile river, some crops plants close to river banks, few nomadic animal herds, lot of deserts, few oasis, little roads, famous pyramides in Giza and any coal mines. Each sector skirmish map should represent local characteristic conditions.

It is hard create so many maps, but simply buildings, less detailed elements and fine Editor could help create own maps.
Ability to build few buildings group at once as organized town or village, trade port, naval base with various buildings and more agriculture lands would be well come.
Skirmish maps at start should include automated regional terrain conditions with rivers, mountains, grass plains, deserts, meadows, forests, resources yellow dots, bridge heads and roads between them. Then players in gameplay could create all infrastructure, settlements, buildings, bridges, improve roads, trade ports and naval bases as group of bulidings etc.

Good editor could help create terrain and infrastructure with proper local conditions. It can give more maps.
Developers do not needs lose a time for detailed map making. Automated regional land conditions and automated group buildings construction would be enough. Then players easily could create their own maps in the game.

These maps should support more players, but 8 players looks too much. It is hard locate more settlements for all of them.
Maybe maps for 4 player would be fine. Then more than 4 settlements for each player could be possible.

In regards to Generals, Chiefs and Adjutants, I wish see them in gameplay.
It would be fine when they could be attached to chosen infantry, cavalry, artillery or engineers squads.
Foot and mounted variants could be fine. All Generelas could move on horseback, but walk or stay on position on battlefield.

Nevertheless Generals with their Adjutants could operate even individually.
In their responsibility zones they could increase units morale, skills or abilities to build certain buildings e.g.
- Chief of Artillery can take command over few artillery batteries or sections, they could increase artillerymen morale.
- Chief or Engineers allow build fixed fortifications, Fort, Bastion, Fortress, temporrary or floating pontoon bridges, redoubts
- Chief of Staff can improve army organization, improve army deployment and supply, these could increase units squads morale
- General Commanders in their responsibility zone could increase units morale and bravery, then squads could fight bravado

Generals, Chiefs and Adjutants in the game are necessary.

Message edited by Nowy - Friday, 24/April/2015, 9:41 AM
kirjasbeltranDate: Friday, 24/April/2015, 3:34 PM | Message # 19
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Awards: 0
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
How about this.. generals should start with one adjutant by default, then can command at least 2-3 formations, IE 3 different formations of a single unit of the same type led respectively by an officer, standard bearer and drummer, then they can attach themslves to a general then for every level up, another adjutant gets added.
aiidiiDate: Monday, 27/April/2015, 2:20 PM | Message # 20
Group: Checked
Messages: 133
Awards: 2
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
And just what purpose would all these Generals and Chiefs have on the game's battlefield?

Several battalions (each with command staff) form one regiment (with its own command staff).
Several regiments (each with command staff) form one brigade (with its own command staff).
Several brigades (each with command staff) form one division (with its own command staff).

For example: At only 4 battalions per regiment, 2 regiments per brigade and 2 brigades per division we get 23 command staffs. Again, what is their practical purpose on the game's battlefield? Would they have any special effect on morale, speed of troops, bayonet attack bonus,...? And if so, how? By giving these bonuses only to troops within their effective radius or to all troops that are bound togeter within a larger force?

Would a battalion command staff provide +n morale to all companies within that battalion? And would regimental command staff provide additional +n morale to all battalions (and by extent individual companies) within that regiment. And would brigade command staff provide...etc.

Would these command staffs move independently without the players input? There are 23 command staffs just for a small infantry division. Then there are cavalry and artillery formations to consider. I don't feel comfortable to micromanage the movement of all these command staffs around. It can be done, yes. But then the game is not one of commanding individual companies anymore. What you're proposing would make a battalion the smallest tactical formation. And with that we are already on the road to turn based strategy games where the player moves around icon-based symbols representing formations. Ever played Hearts of Iron?

Yes, it would be historically correct to have all those command staffs but things have to be simplified so not to drown the player in excessive micromanagement.

I drink, therefore I am.
Forum » Cossacks III » GamePlay » Cossacks III wishlist (Discussion underCossacks fans wishlist for C III)