Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by John Gat, Jun 15, 2015.
It's a matter of personal preference really. People like and dislike different things about each game. My preference is Back to War over C2.
i like Backs to War. I remember when C2 Demo was released and i was fascinate about graphics but i was very disappointed about gameplay and not buy it
C2 is much better than C1.
The latter likes boys which believe that blobbing mobs and fast mass killings could be enjoyable.
Perhaps they can vote in majority here, but this do not mean that they show which game is better.
Mature man usually recognize that morale, fatigue and squads combats are vital parts of warfare.
Well prepared units, well planned movements, deployment, formations and order of battle also are important.
Quick, chaotic development, gigantic mobs and crazy fast killings are clear C1 gameplay aberration.
Therefore it would be good to know true Art of War principles.
Old Chinese knew well that killing enemy is worse way to victory.
I really like C1 and I have way more hours of playtime on this game than on C2 but I like both games because they both are alot of fun. You have so many ways to kill your enemy and that's just what I like...
What I disliked about C2 is that you could'nt do any research like in C1 this was really dissapointing and that's why I think C1 is better.
I enjoy both games but if I had to choose - it would have to be C1. It started it all!
I loved the numbers of soldiers, the amount of nations to play as, the technology to research, and of course the ships.
I did like Cossacks 2 though it felt like a different game. The graphics were a big step up and it had an interesting morale system, though I found that formations were too tight, fatigue was a bit unrealistc, lacking in ships (!) and although I love the Napoleonic era, I prefer having a longer timeline to play with (17th & 18th of Cossacks).
C1 is much better than C2.
C2 was made for a huge crowd of people so the game-depth was kept simple and easy to understand. Tiny armies and very limited oportunities allowed every child to control armies in C2.
Referring to the economical development Cossacks 2 was nowehere near the ingenius marketing and economy building of Cossacks 1.
The annoying morale feature disallowed strategic battles and clearly favored basecampers as the attacker always lost fitness and morale going long ways. The annoying road system looked cool at first but it turned out being one of the most annoying parts of the game as it was impossible to build up an army near the opponents army without him attacking you first before you can regroup.
C2 was all about pushing the "shoot" button in time. Always being the first to shoot in the right moment, made you gain the overweight in the game and played out properly it was impossible for the attacker to come back, as smaller armies had no chance against bigger armies in Cossacks 2.
long term fun:
different game options:
As one of the most successful players in Cossacks 1 and 2 i can clearly say that you had to be good at knowing the true art of war principles to be good at Cossacks 1. The limited opportunities in Cossacks 2 disallowed to let flow in ones real abilities to its full extend. Cossacks 2 was made for players who seeked no long term fun and game depth, for players who could easily be satisfied. In Cossacks 2 you needed 10 games to become a worldclass player. In C1 you needed 1000 or more. No wonder C2 was practically dead after 2 years of its release...
Old chinese knew well that a war was best won without even fighting.
Old Japanese disagree. BANZAI
You try cast false statments again.
C1 is much better than C2.
C2 has much better recreated nations, units, formations, better artillery, squad combats, morale, fatigue, experience and roads systems. Units are better balanced, you never meet here such stupidly balanced units as like C1 archers, grenadiers, Ukrainian Hetmans, serdiuks etc. You never meet in C2 such horrible spoiled bayonet combats or arrows which can so fast burn to the ground big stone buildings, what is norm in C1 game.
C 2 was better researched without a doubt.
C2 units better represent tactical combats. Infantry can shot by ranks, cavalry can shot and fight in melee, sappers can build and destruct fortifications, artillery guns with crews, horses and limbers. In C1 infantry can shot disporderly and too fast almost as like modern machine guns. Dragoons never fight here with sabres, but easily can outshot infantry and ghost manned artillery can kill almost all squad at once. These cases are funny enough to show how poorly were recreated tactical combats in C1.
C1 was all about fast clicking and crazy speed.
C2 is not all about push the button and fire in right moment without a doubt. This game allow employ various strategies for infantry, cavalry and artillery. Orderly squad comabats and army composition are always important for combats. Gigantic mobs never won well commnaded squads with experienced soldiers and individual soldiers can not won the war in C2.
C2 much better represent tactics and strategies from horse, sabre and gun powder era without a doubt.
C2 economy is simplicized in main aspects. You do not need pack hundereds peasants into mines. Trade is simple, market stone tricks, known from C1 game, never spoil the game. Pack horses in C2 transport resources to storehouses while in C1 all resources virtually fly somehere in statistics.
There are some weak points in C2 sa like too buig buildings hardly locate on small maps. Nevertheless these maps looks much better with nicer landscape, some neutral buildings, pretty fauna and flora elements.
C1 and C2 include similar game modes, but C2 include Battle for Europe campaign which never existed in C1.
You never meet in C2 disorderly robot clones combats, blobbing mobs, stuipidly fast mass killings known from C1.
Such crazy killings are not fun in long term.
In C1 you have only ONE strategy, fast development and crazy killings.
In C2 you can play varaible strategies, including slow and methodic combats in skirmish and campaigns modes.
Historical battels also are better recreated in C2. However both games are far, far from real historical battles.
So, C2 game offer better depth.
Research: C1 < C2
Army control: C1 < C2
Long term fun: C1 < C2
Economy: C1 < C2
Different game options: C1 < C2
Different strategies: C1 < C2
Game depth: C1 < C2
Summary: C1 < C2
True Art of War principles you never met in C1 game. This is one-dimensional game, all about fast mass killings.
It does not matter how many games you need to play to become a master in foolish game.
If you need more than 10 games to recognize how crazy was C1 game this can mean that you get into serious troubles.
I must be the only one that enjoyed sea battles in Cossacks 1? Cossacks 2 removed this and so can never be a better game than Cossacks 1 for me. It went from grand scale of huge armies and navies and multiple nations clashing to 1v1 small land only battles. It looked pretty, but didn't feel like a Cossacks game to me.
@Masher :u are not alone, are still players who enjoy on multimplayer, not many but they are
Nah, not the only one
I liked them very much too. Breaking through an enemy fleet with 18thC frigates and fully loaded ferries in tow, which soon make way for the Bomb Ketches to bombard coastal walls, enabling a landing point for an amphibious attack under frigate cannon-fire = fun!
Cossacks 2 version which was just a lonesome frigate scenario didn't cut it, which is a shame as Napoleonic naval battles would have been great.
Oh yes, Napoleonic naval battles could have been amazing! a missed opportunity there.
Hmm, this looks like crazy thing. I like ships very much, but C1 ships and naval combats were horrible spoiled.
We can see there many stupid cases. Strange Algerian Xebec can smash European frigates or horendous spam of fishing boats, or galleys and frigates which dominated naval battles in this game. Crazy galleys and ketch mortars can bombard at incredible long range. Smaller ships engage in combats against bigger ships. Ships can fire through friendly vessels without troubles. All demaged ships finally exploded.
Strange ferries miraculously can greatly upgrade transport capasity, even they do not grow in size.
Other ships upgrades also looks funny enough.
Battleships and only one type of ship of the line, strange Victora case played marginal roles while in real world ships of the line were main ships which can stand in naval battle line.
So, how can you enjoyed sea battles with such stupid cases?
C2 ships of course played only marginal roles.
However they can sailing, shot and sink much better than ships in C1.
I hope GSC can improve ships for C3 game. Therefore I started thread about ships.
My preference goes to Cossacks 1 although I'm adult it seem I'm still a young boy inside me (at least according to Nowy ), but I found both fun to play anyway.
I disliked the island and detroit map due to the transport ship so I always choose the continental one but naval battle were less important there. Must say my favorite ship was the Chébec (Xebec in english I assume).
There was 1 Ship in C2, It was gigantic awesome and devastating.
I know that I 've always tried to get it, even if it has fired a shot almost all my ammunition was gone.
I would like to see this ships in C3.
A naval battle would be awesome in this scale.
Better include smaller ships scale and less consume ammunition.
C1 scale or even smaller is acceptable, but battleships and ship of the line should be much cheaper, fire shots less accurate and consume less amunition, then more ships will be available. More ships types, ships squads and better ships missions also are necessary in C3 game.
I thought you like realistic standards.
And ships ARE huge and could be built and financed only by large nations.
Of course I like realistic standards, but games require some simplifications.
Too big buildings or ships needs too much place, these do not help to play big battles.
Ships costs should take into account game scale too.
As the argument goes on, I think that C3 will be more likely a combination between C1 and AC. Not that I don't like C2 - on the contrary - it just lacked large scale and open field battles. I hope the devs will include more improvements than the miserable 5%. Otherwise we will demand it! And some of us will be able to make mods
When I started playing AC I saw as a great improvement that musketeers and dragoons had the ability to fight in a melee combat, haha! Or fortresses with garrisons and cannons with people manning them. I don't think the devs will come close to C2 because the game wasn't that popular.
But as the Russians say - "We will be alive- we will see!"
Separate names with a comma.