Moon Project or Cossacks?
Jeffrey L. Cooper
different, but which do you like more? Thanks.
How is Cossacks multiplayer? I know that the Moon Project community
is nonexistent.
Jeff Jones
Troll! You clearly don't care about either game (I can read your mind), and
saying that the Moon Project community is "nonexistent" is obviously
designed to bait Moon Project fans into heated arguments that go deep into
the night. Besides that, this newsgroup has already stated several times
that they prefer Kohan so what right do you have to post about Cossacks?!
;-)
Adam
space and one in the olden days, so there two different games, and depends
on which you enjoy, both are good in their own right.
"Jeffrey L. Cooper" <je...@coopermedia.com> wrote in message
news:bqiegto2pg074q9s4...@4ax.com...
Jeffrey L. Cooper
community. If you go over to the zone, there are Zero people in the
group. I am sure that Earthnet is not much better unless you get on
when the Germans are there. I owned Moon Project for a week and
returned it when I could find onone to play and started playing Kohan.
I sold off Kohan recently after finding myself bored. I am interested
in basebuilding RTS games, and would like to get a perspective on
these 2 games. Thanks.
On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:13:36 -0500, "Jeff Jones" <jtj...@netins.net>
wrote:
Jeffrey L. Cooper
How is the online play for Cossacks? Many people to play?
Jeff Jones
and
> >saying that the Moon Project community is "nonexistent" is obviously
> >designed to bait Moon Project fans into heated arguments that go deep
into
> >the night. Besides that, this newsgroup has already stated several times
> >that they prefer Kohan so what right do you have to post about Cossacks?!
> >
> > ;-)
> I am not a troll. I am referring to the Moon Project online
> community. If you go over to the zone, there are Zero people in the
> group. I am sure that Earthnet is not much better unless you get on
> when the Germans are there. I owned Moon Project for a week and
> returned it when I could find onone to play and started playing Kohan.
> I sold off Kohan recently after finding myself bored. I am interested
> in basebuilding RTS games, and would like to get a perspective on
> these 2 games. Thanks.
Well then ... I guess that little in-joke backfired. <sigh> once again,
Chris gets the last laugh :-b
Jeff Jones
and
> >saying that the Moon Project community is "nonexistent" is obviously
> >designed to bait Moon Project fans into heated arguments that go deep
into
> >the night. Besides that, this newsgroup has already stated several times
> >that they prefer Kohan so what right do you have to post about Cossacks?!
> >
> > ;-)
> I am not a troll. I am referring to the Moon Project online
> community. If you go over to the zone, there are Zero people in the
> group. I am sure that Earthnet is not much better unless you get on
> when the Germans are there. I owned Moon Project for a week and
> returned it when I could find onone to play and started playing Kohan.
> I sold off Kohan recently after finding myself bored. I am interested
> in basebuilding RTS games, and would like to get a perspective on
> these 2 games. Thanks.
Adam
this morning there were 30+ people in gamespy arcade for cossacks.
"Jeffrey L. Cooper" <je...@coopermedia.com> wrote in message
news:06pfgt0pmk3uvjr69...@4ax.com...
Jeffrey L. Cooper
does not express mannerisms.
On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:24:45 -0500, "Jeff Jones" <jtj...@netins.net>
wrote:
>> >Troll! You clearly don't care about either game (I can read your mind),
Jeffrey L. Cooper
opposed to Europeans. Have you tried an online game? 8000 units
sounds like it will lag, so that is my main concern. I buy games for
online play only.
AOK is my favorite game, but it has bad network code. People drop out
or the game lags at times. I try to control this by hosting and being
selectve about pings.
Turbo
decent but gets pretty dull. Been there done that!
On the surface, Cossacks resembles AOK, but after you play the game for some
time, you see it blows AOK away in every category!
--
"Jeffrey L. Cooper" <je...@coopermedia.com> wrote in message
news:v91ggtkuulcjhnlmj...@4ax.com...
Jeffrey L. Cooper
Cossacks works on Windows 2000? I have been reading mixed comments.
I usually do not have problems with games working since i have all
service packs, the newest drivers and Direct x 8.
My friend and I were heavily considering Cossacks. How is the
multiplayer on Gamespy? Are there any lag issues?
Thanks.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff Jones
> Unfortunately, text does not express mannerisms.
Your response seemed kind of serious. I'm usually pretty good at picking up
sarcasm. You wouldn't happen to be a computer programmer would you? ;-)
Cryxter
start it by pressing the "windows" button when beginning the game in order
to get the screen to respond for some reason.
If everyone has a decent ping the games are pretty smooth, only takes one
bad pinger to screw it up for the rest in the game. By far the game runs
much smoother then AOK online.
The in-game multiplayer seems to work better for me rather then GameSpy
Arcade. Most every time I have been online there has been some 50-70 players
or better. The battles are intense so brush up on your strategy before
entering.
"Jeffrey L. Cooper" <je...@coopermedia.com> wrote in message
news:spgggtgubokn81l69...@4ax.com...
Courageous
Perhaps, although it can be argued that if sarcasm is intended but
not understood, that perhaps one's ability to deliver information
content to usenet is impaired, eh?
C//
Jabba
>I've have both I and would, without questions, recommend Cossacks! TMP, is
>decent but gets pretty dull. Been there done that!
>
>On the surface, Cossacks resembles AOK, but after you play the game for
some
>time, you see it blows AOK away in every category!
I have played all AOK campaigns (including expansion ones) and about 200
AOK multiplayer games.I have played also about 15 Cossacks multiplayer
games.My opinion is that , in the fighting department, Cossacks is by far
weaker.Here are the reasons:
1)Best winning tactic in Cossacks is the rush.The one who build and research
will fall in face of the one that simply draft a pile of pikemen and send it
on the ennemy.No deep thinking here.Even if both size throw piles of pikemen
at each other (another Cossacks deep thinking example), the side which
remains with some troops win the game.Why?because:
2)Once you loose a battle and you cannot cover your base , there is no hope
of recovery.If the ennemy get to PASS through your base, even with a single
rider, while you had no military spread through the base, then you are out
of base.The realism is gone bye bye and you look in the mirror to see that
jackass that you are for playing this game.
3)I don't know how the fighting mecanism is implemented but the results are
weird.
a)The firearms are awfully innefective.No way you gonna stop an ennemy
infantry assault by firearms, not to speak about even the weakest cavalry
charge.I had 72 musktters shooting at 10 hussars, and they get into my ranks
, butchered about 15 musketeers and the rest of my men run, only to be
picked one by one by the ennemy hussars, while I was watching the show in
dismay!
b)There are these strange situations when large masses of hand to hand
fighting troops gather to fight each other in piles of a huge density.Like,
100 riders on one side and 100 riders on the other side, all ocuping no more
then 2 neighbouring squares - 3 cm of screen each.Now , again , there is no
realism in that, but even worse, ususally one side is taking heavy
casualties, while the other remained intact.My empirrical observation is
that the fight algorithm cummulates all the atacks of one side and use them
to hit the foremost ennemy unit which died instantaneously.Then the next
foremost ennemy unit move forward and dies and so on.This is fun when the
ennemy dies (and so I used charges of 50 Polish winged riders to blow up
entire armies), but it's extremely annoying when it happens to you.It
usually come down to who hit first; I hit, you die, you move next troop into
my range, I hit, you die, e.t.c.Compare this to AOK.
c)there is no way to break away from a hand to hand combat.Let's take
again these piles of pikemen.Now suppose you notice you have fallen on the
wrong side and your pikemen are dying without causing any damage to the
ennemy.Then you may want to break out, to retreat until you finish another
research level or until your gunners can help the hand to hand units.You
can't.They are locked in combat and not answering any orders.At best ,
you'll manage to make them stand idle, so the ennemy can butcher the with
more ease.
This game has it's good sides, especially in the graphics, and
economical side is great, I admit, but from fighting point of view,don't
even dare to compare it with AOK.
Regards,
Jabba
Rough Blade
"Jabba" <mcj...@iname.com> wrote:
] On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:33:47 GMT, "Turbo" <Tu...@memail.com> wrote:
]
] >I've have both I and would, without questions, recommend Cossacks! TMP, is
] >decent but gets pretty dull. Been there done that!
] >
] >On the surface, Cossacks resembles AOK, but after you play the game for
] some
] >time, you see it blows AOK away in every category!
]
] I have played all AOK campaigns (including expansion ones) and about 200
] AOK multiplayer games.I have played also about 15 Cossacks multiplayer
] games.My opinion is that , in the fighting department, Cossacks is by far
] weaker.
I totally disagree with your observations. Perhaps you need to play
more than 15 online games. I have yet to die to a rusher once I
learned how it works in this game (and is true of any other RTS games
where people complained of rushing being unstoppable). I get rushed ;
I fight off the rush ; I might eventually lose to such a rusher in
other ways later in the game (that have /nothing/ to do with his rush
early on). However, the rusher is at a disadvantage (in terms of
trying to squeeze a win out of the situation, all other things being
equal -- i.e., we're roughly the same skill level), and the only way
he can hope to win is if the defender is either inexperienced at
stopping rushes, and/or inexperienced on how to fight properly in
Cossacks. If you lose to rushes, you have more to learn. If your
opponent lost to your rush, he was inexperienced in some way as well.
This argument has been going on for years in RTS games. I've lost
track of the number of players that think, to this day, rushes are
unstoppable in Starcraft. In Warcraft II.. those players simply didn't
learn how to stop it.
See the thread with the subject line "My take on cossacks" started by
"apoger" .. I go into a lot of detail there.
] Here are the reasons:
] 1)Best winning tactic in Cossacks is the rush.The one who build and research
] will fall in face of the one that simply draft a pile of pikemen and send it
] on the ennemy.No deep thinking here.Even if both size throw piles of pikemen
] at each other (another Cossacks deep thinking example), the side which
] remains with some troops win the game.
If you don't understand the dynamics of rush/counter-rush playing,
this could be the results of your game. See my previous thread.
] Why?because:
] 2)Once you loose a battle and you cannot cover your base , there is no hope
] of recovery.
Your first mistake. You don't need to use every pike you own to meet
the incomign enemy. Pikes take so long to get from your base to the
enemy base, that I probably have almost twice the number of pikes you
have /at the battle line/ (the rest of yours are either still in your
base, or on the way there, which means they're not fighting yet). A
small fraction of mine are already on stand ground protecting any
buildings from capture. The rest have enough time to /easily/
intercept your slow, incoming troops, no matter how many times you
split them up. Good players always stop my rush because of this
factor. I always stop other's rushes against me. The only possible
exception is a specific civ that has certain bonuses that make it a
nasty rushing civ. Even they are stoppable, but it makes it damn
tricky. Take away that civ, and rushes against an experienced player
are only meant to hopefully help set the tone of the game, and find
out a little info on what they're up to. Nothing more.
]If the ennemy get to PASS through your base, even with a single
] rider,
If you have time to get riders, believe me, I've got them as well. But
weren't you talking about pikes a moment ago?
] while you had no military spread through the base, then you are out
] of base.
Correct, and only an inexperienced player is unable to have a small
number of troops on stand ground at key spots, while being able to
easily react to any invading force.
] The realism is gone bye bye and you look in the mirror to see that
] jackass that you are for playing this game.
Not at all. You just haven't learn a certain aspect of the game yet.
Perhaps you're spoiled with the "don't have to learn how to fight off
the rush" town centers in AOK.
] 3)I don't know how the fighting mecanism is implemented but the results are
] weird.
] a)The firearms are awfully innefective.No way you gonna stop an ennemy
] infantry assault by firearms, not to speak about even the weakest cavalry
] charge.
Firearms alone against standard troops can be quite weak. Combine it
with a small amount of hand-to-hand troops of your own as well, and
suddenly you will rape them. Keep practicing, and now you know any
group of firearms are vulnerable.. so don't keep it that way.. provide
them with hand-to-hand cover to keep them safe while they nail the
enemy with impunity.
] I had 72 musktters shooting at 10 hussars, and they get into my ranks
] , butchered about 15 musketeers and the rest of my men run, only to be
] picked one by one by the ennemy hussars, while I was watching the show in
] dismay!
A small handful of pikes alongside your musketeers would have turned
into a slaughter against those hussars.
] b)There are these strange situations when large masses of hand to hand
] fighting troops gather to fight each other in piles of a huge density.Like,
] 100 riders on one side and 100 riders on the other side, all ocuping no more
] then 2 neighbouring squares - 3 cm of screen each.Now , again , there is no
] realism in that, but even worse, ususally one side is taking heavy
] casualties, while the other remained intact.My empirrical observation is
] that the fight algorithm cummulates all the atacks of one side and use them
] to hit the foremost ennemy unit which died instantaneously.Then the next
] foremost ennemy unit move forward and dies and so on.This is fun when the
] ennemy dies (and so I used charges of 50 Polish winged riders to blow up
] entire armies), but it's extremely annoying when it happens to you.It
] usually come down to who hit first; I hit, you die, you move next troop into
] my range, I hit, you die, e.t.c.Compare this to AOK.
I can't say that I've seen what you describe. So I cannot comment,
except to say this has not happened to me.
But this is where cannons excel. A howitzer shot or two can suddenly
rape the enemy forces that were foolish enough to allow themselves to
cluster.
] c)there is no way to break away from a hand to hand combat.
I've never had a problem getting my troops to leave the engagement. I
was surprised to hear this happen to you.
] This game has it's good sides, especially in the graphics, and
] economical side is great, I admit, but from fighting point of view,don't
] even dare to compare it with AOK.
I disagree. The tactics in actual battles in AOK pale by comparison to
Cossacks. I've played AOK since playing Cossacks, and it felt very
pale by comparison when I felt like there was hardly any commands
needed to be given that made a difference when battles broke out. In
cossacks, great troop control in battles (moreso between larger
armies) can spell the difference between a slight loss, and a total
crushing victory.