|
Cossacks 3 is out
|
|
| Nowy | Date: Thursday, 04/June/2015, 9:07 AM | Message # 41 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| OK, I forgive you that mistake :)))
Deep silence from GSC is strange marketing in this case. They limit information, cast only short or misleading intervews.
It's good that they showed few eye candy screenshots. However they plan realize C3 game in Q4 2015, they should deliver more information and trailers. Few interviews and few screenshots are not enough!
Do they think that only nostalgia syndrome and some graphic improvemnents wll sale this game?
How do they advertise their product for customers?
Message edited by Nowy - Thursday, 04/June/2015, 9:09 AM |
| |
| |
| Ftoomsh | Date: Saturday, 13/June/2015, 2:39 AM | Message # 42 |
 Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Status: Offline
| This is the best RTS news I have heard for a long time. This actually blind-sided me. I had given up on GSC ever making a Cossacks title again. Now, let me say why I think it is hopeful news.
1. It looks like it will be a combination of the best features of C1 and C2. Of course, opinions will vary somewhat in the player community as to what actually were the best features of C1 and C2 respectively. However, at this stage let us trust the designers and see what we get.
2. The game engine will be much updated. It will all be true 3D with better game-physics for muskets and cannon shot. This will enhance both general game experience and specific battle mechanics. This can only be a good thing except for (maybe) frame rate issues on PCs / graphics cards which are not powerful enough.
3. They promise to provide full modding support so aficionados of various game styles can develop the modified game of their preference.
4. A new title will revive interest overall. It will bring back a number of C1, C2 and various mods fans to C3. In addition, we can expect new, younger players who have never tried Cossacks before to try C3. So there is a reasonably good chance of getting a sizable new C3 gaming community.
The above is all to the good in my opinion.
I have sent some emails to former Old Cossacks (OC) clan members from an old mailing list. My apologies if I missed anyone here who happened to be in OC. I really hope that the OC clan can be revived with a core of old players (I turn 61 this year!) but also with new young players. I am hoping that key organisers of the OC like OC-Fotheringill come back and help organise a new OC.
My intention is to play the standard game online when it comes out and see how the standard game plays. Down the track, I would consider modding it if I felt it needed a treatment to become more about classical formation battles like Dav's OC Mod. If I got to that stage I would play both versions; the Standard and the "New OC Mod" as and when I could find opponents.
I am interested to know what all old hands and new hands here think of these developments by GSC.
|
| |
| |
| domCossack | Date: Saturday, 13/June/2015, 2:44 PM | Message # 43 |
 Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Status: Offline
| This is AWESOME !! I missed this news. Will be tracking this now.
Anyway, I think enough has been said here already, I read all the posts, and I too come to the conclusion that I agree 100% with Nowy. Having lost the faith that they are capable and/or intend to add more complex and interesting features to their Cossacks games, screenshots of a new one that looks like a re-skin of CI does not really inspire too much confidence.
Also, like aiidii says, the full-modding support is suspicious. I wouldn't even say suspicious, this is what companies nowadays like to do. Let's not pretend here, we know what that is for. Even though, I trust in the passion and goodwill of GSC to actually support it, regardless, I'm pretty sure it's just a way to not have to polish every single edge of the game and let the modding community do it... FOR FREE. It's a Win-Win (for them).
Other thing is, when they say 3D.. do they really mean 3D ? Like Marshal mentions it: Can you rotate the buildings; the map ?
Especially like it was so annoying in CII when marching through the cities having to activate that transparent feature. To hell with that. This day and age I hope they are referring to real 3D and not some half-assed thing.
I have great hopes for this game that's what makes me so skeptical about it. But looking at the screenshots (the mortars; cannons; building; etc.) I have to say I'm really disappointed. I have not seen the finished product yet, because it probably isn't finished, of course. But it's hard to hype it so much when what you were expecting from a new Cossacks was something a lot more mind-blowing. While this looks like... just something they thought easy to do considering their assets. I wouldn't blame them, but I'd prefer waiting 2-3 more years for a new Cossacks title and that that one be more unique.
Message edited by domCossack - Saturday, 13/June/2015, 2:47 PM |
| |
| |
| Ftoomsh | Date: Saturday, 13/June/2015, 11:10 PM | Message # 44 |
|
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Status: Offline
| Nowy's concepts are brilliant, far-reaching and illustrate an encyclopedic historical and military knowledge of the era. They would also make for a big game and I mean a VERY BIG game. A game that comprehensive would take enormous development. It might also entail something like Napoleon Total War where turn based strategy interspersed with RTS battles is required to decide very large campaigns. That's a very different style of game to put it mildly. It's not strictly or even approximately RTS. (My bias is to RTS style games.)
I would hope that the best aspects of C1 and C2 are combined. I must admit, if there is more emphasis on C1 style game-play that will suit me. I preferred C1 to C2 or AC/FB. More precisely, I preferred C1 once it had been modded by Davout into a proper formations game. That really made it something special. However by then, most people had left C1 and the real potential of Davout's formation concepts was never fully realised.
Having said all the above, implementing a morale system, a fatigue system and even a formation by formation ammunition system (limited rounds) would be an improvement. This is where C3 could learn from C2 and AC/FB.
C3 states it will support up to 10,000 troops per player. At those numbers, a number of things become necessary. These are;
(1) Large maps to permit the necessary maneuvering room.
(2) A proper formations system and larger formations.
(3) A capacity to combine formations into corps or armies.
(4) A certain amount of automation of formation tactics. It will not be possible to micro every squad's fire as was necessary in C2. Thus each formation ought to be able to manage its ranked fire on its own.
As to the 3D and modding issues, let us wait and see what we get. An entire game community is in total more creative with new ideas than just the company creative team. On the other hand a company team is far more coordinated, disciplined, has better artists and programmers usually, and must remain within what is realistically possible within budgets and deadlines. The creativity and new ideas flowing back from the gaming community can still help. The very best ideas which do not run counter to the game's basic direction can be implemented. There will always be competing ideas and visions but the creators must retain control of the standard game of course. A moddable game is big bonus if new visions of the game can be created in parallel. This is what happens now with Supreme Commander on Forged Alliance Forever. They have a standard game which has evolved to be somewhat different and much better balanced than the original company released game. Yet it still retains the basic spirit and game play style of the original company game. They also have several very different mods that are popular with sub-groups of players. It seems to work well without fracturing the community. This seems to be true if the community gets say bigger than even just 500 players.
|
| |
| |
| Daddio | Date: Sunday, 14/June/2015, 0:37 AM | Message # 45 |
|
Marquis
Group: Moderators
Messages: 431
Status: Offline
| Hello Ftoomsh, I sent you a message on skype when I discovered the news. Never could make contact though.
There are some OC on the forum over at the C3 official site. they are looking for old members as well.
http://www.cossacks3.com/forum....for.176
by using google translate I have been able look at some of the Russian interviews and they have stated that the released product will not be the last installment of the game. They plan to continue to develop the game and make gameplay improvements on a continual basis.
To me this is a reset, and new start. They are starting all over and things should start building pretty quickly.
At least we have a C3, it will do for now, But the best is yet to come I think!
Good to see you back.
Daddio
http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b455/Billy_Jo_Patrick/cossacks2_art_03_zpsel8tgwad.jpg
|
| |
| |
| domCossack | Date: Sunday, 14/June/2015, 2:32 AM | Message # 46 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Status: Offline
| @Ftoomsh: Ohh don't mind me. I've been in that same discussion with Nowy over CI and CII too many times already. I'm not even going to mention what I think only so that I won't start anything. =P
Aside of his over-complex (somewhat interesting) ideas for the game, he did deliver some good points over what we got from the news of CIII, and that's where I'm in agreement with, mostly.
|
| |
| |
| Ftoomsh | Date: Sunday, 14/June/2015, 9:06 AM | Message # 47 |
|
Count
Group: Modders
Messages: 124
Status: Offline
| domCossack, Yes, we all have our wish-lists. Some are for changes in a current game concept. Some are for a new game concept entirely. Developers who have already started are already working within an overall game concept whatever that concept might be. We can only really wish for things we think are within that concept. Even then the developers will essentially decide one of;
(a) Bad idea (for any number of reasons).
(b) Good idea but really it doesn't fit our overall game concept. Maybe for some other game.
© Good idea, but too tricky, costly or advanced to include it yet or maybe ever.
(d) Good idea, better idea than our ideas or lack of ideas in that area and we want to include it because it fits the overall concept well.
I guess now we know what they envisage (95% like C1 BTW) then we need to limit our ideas to suggestions that realistically have a chance belonging to option (d) above.
|
| |
| |
| Nowy | Date: Wednesday, 17/June/2015, 9:06 AM | Message # 48 |
|
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| Quote "Ftoomsh" Nowy's concepts are brilliant, far-reaching and illustrate an encyclopedic historical and military knowledge of the era. They would also make for a big game and I mean a VERY BIG game. A game that comprehensive would take enormous development. It might also entail something like Napoleon Total War where turn based strategy interspersed with RTS battles is required to decide very large campaigns. That's a very different style of game to put it mildly. It's not strictly or even approximately RTS. (My bias is to RTS style games.)
Thanks that you appreciate my concepts.
Some people think that I want hiper realistic and over-complex game, but it is not true.
I od not need over-complex game. I need RTS game which base on realistc features from horse, sabre and gun powder era.
My game concepts are not over-complex how it could looks for somebody.
Quote "Ftoomsh" I would hope that the best aspects of C1 and C2 are combined. I must admit, if there is more emphasis on C1 style game-play that will suit me. I preferred C1 to C2 or AC/FB. More precisely, I preferred C1 once it had been modded by Davout into a proper formations game. That really made it something special. However by then, most people had left C1 and the real potential of Davout's formation concepts was never fully realised.
Having said all the above, implementing a morale system, a fatigue system and even a formation by formation ammunition system (limited rounds) would be an improvement. This is where C3 could learn from C2 and AC/FB.
These would be wonderful, when they could combined some aspects of C1 and C2 games.
Morale, fatigue, squad combat and ammunition systems are fine examples which should be implemented into C3 game.
However GSC stated that they plan make only 5% or 20% changes in C1 gameplay. This sounds not optymistic.
Quote "Ftoomsh" C3 states it will support up to 10,000 troops per player. At those numbers, a number of things become necessary. These are;
1) Large maps to permit the necessary maneuvering room.
2) A proper formations system and larger formations.
3) A capacity to combine formations into corps or armies.
4) A certain amount of automation of formation tactics. It will not be possible to micro every squad's fire as was necessary in C2. Thus each formation ought to be able to manage its ranked fire on its own.
Hmm, I agree, however we should take into account that
1. Large maps are necessary for large scale maneuvering, but it looks that they focus their attention on quality of detalied lanscape and not on map size and these could cramp make large scale maps.
2. Proper foramtion system is must, but this do not mean that larger foramtion are obvious. Smaller and simpler squads are more suitable for this game. They can represent basic tactical formations from that era. Therefore I proposed include
Infantry: 12 men, 72 men and 120 or 144 men squads which can represent company, battalion and regiment, the later two with officer, flag bearer and drummer
Cavalry: 15 or 20 men and 45 or 60 men squads can represent cavalry squadron and regiment, the latter with cavalry officer, flag bearer and trumpeter or onther signalman
Irregular Cavalry (Camel Bedouins, Cossacks, Tatars, Mamelukes etc.): 10 men and 40 men smaller and bigger formations, the latter with officer and flag bearer
Artillery: 3 cannons, 1 howizter, 4 limbers represent artillery battery while 2 the same type artillery guns represent artillery section
Special companies: 12 men skirmisher company, 12 men sapper company, 12 men militia company
Trains: Artillery train = horse drawn 2 ammunition caissons with 2 drivers on left side horseback
Engineers train = horse drawn pontoons and tools 2 carriages which allow build bridges or employ siege techniques
Supply wagons = horse drawn 2 supply wagons with 2 drivers
Vessels: Individual fishing sail boats, river barges, merchant ships or bomb ketch
Transport or merchant ships convoy = 2 or 4 ships used in landing operations
Costal guard team = 2 small warships, cutter or gun-brig
Escort team = 2 warships, sloops of war escorting merchant or transport ships convoys
Patrol team = 2 galleys or 2 small frigates patrolling key areas or accompaning fleets
Cruiser squadron = 4 galleys or 4 frigates, lead cruiser missions
Battle squadron = 4 galleons, or 4 battleships or 4 ships of the line, predestined for naval battles
Fleet = 10 galleons, or 1o battleships or 10 ships of the line, predestined for naval operations and battles
General Commanders in five ranks for certain number of squads groups representing Brigade, Division, Army Corps, Army and Supreme Commander. All in accompany with their Adjutants.
This is not over-complex order of army and navy squads.
3. Capasity to combine formations into corps or armies could represent mentioned above squads order.
This is not too hard include such system in C3 game I suppose.
4. Certain amount of ammunition also is not hard to implement. Let's all land fire arms squads could fire only 10 shots, later they needs ammunition wagons support. These wagonns could stay behind front line and this allow virtually supply ammunition.
More animations or movements are not necessary. Similar ammunition systems already exist in some other games.
Quote "domCossack" Aside of his over-complex (somewhat interesting) ideas for the game, he did deliver some good points over what we got from the news of CIII, and that's where I'm in agreement with, mostly.
Thanks for such kind of words. It nice that finally we can agreed in some matters.
Quote "Ftoomsh" I guess now we know what they envisage (95% like C1 BTW) then we need to limit our ideas to suggestions that realistically have a chance belonging to option (d) above.
Hmm, why we should limit our ideas?
Let's GSC team rethink their plans. More changes than 5% in C3 game are necessary!
In other way what for buy new game with improved graphic and some little changes when customers already have C1 game with sufficient graphic to such kind of gameplays as like blobbing mobs and fast mass killings.
Do they really think that new glitter graphic in 3D environment and 5% changes in C1 game are enough?
I think that better nations representation, better uinits balance and much more changes are necessary in new game.
Message edited by Nowy - Wednesday, 17/June/2015, 9:14 AM |
| |
| |
| Marshal | Date: Thursday, 18/June/2015, 5:49 PM | Message # 49 |
 Count
Group: Users
Messages: 95
Status: Offline
| I would like to see formations with a standard bearer carrying the flag of the represented country such as, say, Britain. And then a second flag bearer with a regimental flag. Now, when I say regimental flag I mean a flag that represents the unit type, such as a famous grenadier regiment, not like just any flag. This is what I mean, http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/product.php?ProdID=1006
I would also like to see a drummer and a fife player along with various music such as is the HEW mod for the British where you can here the fife music, not just the drum beating. Here is an example even if it comes from a movie that isn't 100% accurate. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UbpLx8ucBMs/maxresdefault.jpg
Now I understand that this wouldn't work with small formations like 16 and 32 men, but 72, 120 and up, I think this would be feasible. What do you guys think?
Me
1st Prince de Wagram, 1st Duc de Valangin, 1st Sovereign Prince de Neuchatel, Marshal of France, Marshal Louis Alexandre Berthier
Message edited by Marshal - Thursday, 18/June/2015, 5:56 PM |
| |
| |
| domCossack | Date: Thursday, 18/June/2015, 9:34 PM | Message # 50 |
|
Baron
Group: Users
Messages: 35
Status: Offline
| Regimental flag could do the job of identifying the unit type for when you're zoomed out without getting too confused of what is what. I don't think it necessarily needs to have a bearer (perhaps just an icon over it, like in some TW), but that would be cool, for sure.
And yes for the second suggestion, as well. Not much to say.
Message edited by domCossack - Thursday, 18/June/2015, 9:35 PM |
| |
| |
