The thread title says it all. Cossacks were nerfed quite a bit in Warlords, perhaps maybe too much. What does people feel about making them stronger in BtS?

I say that they were too strong in Vanilla and needed to be nerfed (esp. with the additions of Stables and Aggressive Stalin) but they went overboard. I would like them to get a strength 16 and keep the bonus vs mounted units.

... and it would be cool to add tank T-34, and ICM SS-18 (Satan) as UU for Russians :)

16 strength and + 50% against mounted units seems reasonable.

I don't really mind that much, 15 and 16 strength don't seem like much of a difference. I Generally use my Cossacks like Industrial Wars Elephants and if I come up Against a Rifle I Promote them with Pinch and I get the strength advantage.

Personally, I think cavalry units blow dogs for quarters in Warlords, and un-nerfing the Cossacks is the best thing that could happen.

I stopped playing as Russia because the Cossacks suck and their UB comes too late to be of any use. Too many things counter Cossacks (riflemen, PIKEMAN ffs) with no corresponding reduction in costs or increase in attack power.

Pikeman in a city with only a 25% culture boost against cossacks are going to win every time. I'd rather save my production and use grenadiers.

I really fail to see the use of "fast" units in Civ 4. In Civ 3 they were powerful but now that Siege is practically 100% necessary (except in the ancient age) why bother with these units? Siege units only have one speed. Having anything with more than that is a waste of speed. Slow and sturdy wins in Civ 4.

Duuk:
I stopped playing as Russia because the Cossacks suck and their UB comes too late to be of any use. Too many things counter Cossacks (riflemen, PIKEMAN ffs) with no corresponding reduction in costs or increase in attack power.

You're complaining that riflemen counter cossacks? What should be the counter to coassacks if not riflemen (which counter every other cavalry unit)? It's like complaining that the praetorian is useless because, like other melee units, it's countered by the axeman - oh, wait ...

The pikeman is no where near strong enough to act as a counter to the cossack.

Fast units are good for pillaging (stack them with slower units and use them to pillage and move). They are also good in regions with a lot of land - you can get from one side of your empire to the other quickly.

Cavalry rushes are effective half because you can conquer land quickly, so you minimise the length of the war. That way you can get it over with before they get a chance to research Engineering.

Cossacks should remain the same as they are in Warlords. They are still a very powerful unit and I see no need to make them stronger again. Doing so would make them far too dominant again.

Personally, I think cavalry units blow dogs for quarters in Warlords, and un-nerfing the Cossacks is the best thing that could happen.

I stopped playing as Russia because the Cossacks suck and their UB comes too late to be of any use. Too many things counter Cossacks (riflemen, PIKEMAN ffs) with no corresponding reduction in costs or increase in attack power.

Pikeman in a city with only a 25% culture boost against cossacks are going to win every time. I'd rather save my production and use grenadiers.



Why would you be attacking cities that have a 25% defence boost with any kind of unit?

Cossacks are already good enough, they rape cavalry and can do well against rifles. Cavalry do not suck to begin with, pikes cannot beat them, 12 vs 15 plus cavalry can reach anti melee easily.

i dont have warlords, so i guess i should not vote, but i think they (as virulent siad) should be give 1 or may 2 of there strength points back.

Cossacks are ok in my book they're good at taking down pillaging cavalry, and have a better retreat rate than regular cavalry. But a 1 point strength increase wouldn't overpower them.

Fast moving city assualts can still be done. You simply have to send your cossacks by land and artillery by sea.

Why would you be attacking cities that have a 25% defence boost with any kind of unit?

That's his point. The speed of mounted units is no advantage since they have to wait for siege engines.
But they are good to pillage and intercept pillagers and armies, and their withdrawal chance makes them decent support troops in sieges.

That's his point. The speed of mounted units is no advantage since they have to wait for siege engines.
But they are good to pillage and intercept pillagers and armies, and their withdrawal chance makes them decent support troops in sieges.

And I guess that is what cavalry did in real life. Pillaging/field battles and stuff.
But then some generals in RL used cavalry more than others too..

I don't play vs Cossacks much so I cannot weigh in with my opinion there..

That's his point. The speed of mounted units is no advantage since they have to wait for siege engines.
But they are good to pillage and intercept pillagers and armies, and their withdrawal chance makes them decent support troops in sieges.

Cossacks rule its era in CIV4.

The point is they can reinforce your invasion party 2 times faster then grenadiers and you can conqure 2 times faster than a gunpowder based force.

In a well organized invasion try this combo:

1 MedicIII warlord in stack
at least 6 siege to bomb the walls
A couple rifles as stack defenders
Many Pinch Cossacks

use the siege as defense reducers, while they bomb the walls, your cossacks heal. Any collateral damage dealt to the cossacks can be healed by the MedicIII by the time your reduce the cultral defense to 0%.

and keep sending fresh cossacks to the front.

AIs have no counter to this.

Are you talking about Vanilla- or Warlords-Cossacks ?
Vanilla-Cosacks were clearly overpowered (but not as much as Praets since they come pretty late in the game) and very good for late expansion, but in Warlords they are hardly any better than ordinary cavalry.

The only thing I use Cossaks for now is defending my empire, since they can get from one end to the other quickly. Place them in the center, and you get 5 spaces to move, then attack pre-railroads.

They used to be all PWN PWN PWN. But now they're not (same with Redcoats, I think).

Are you talking about Vanilla- or Warlords-Cossacks ?

Warlord 2.08


but in Warlords they are hardly any better than ordinary cavalry.

No, they are 50% better than other calvary and they have the highest strength for their era.

So my vote is leave them as 15 strength and actually it is more fair to give them only +25% against mounted.

Bad news for Russia's unique unit. The amount of time they have to operate has just been reduced with the new add in requiring rifling to hit cavalry.

Bad news for Russia's unique unit. The amount of time they have to operate has just been reduced with the new add in requiring rifling to hit cavalry.

Yeah with calvary coming in later it looks like boosting Cossacks up to 16 or even 17 would not be overpowering in the least.

Yeah with calvary coming in later it looks like boosting Cossacks up to 16 or even 17 would not be overpowering in the least.

Unless of course they are adding a earlier type cavalry (Maybe hussars?) and the cossacks replace that.. Which is what I would do. Knights were obsolete long before rifling. 1500's at the latest for knights to 1750's at the earliest for rifling.

Edit. Just read the article. So Curiassers.. So it depends on if the cossacks will replace them or still replace cavalry..

Unless of course they are adding a earlier type cavalry (Maybe hussars?) and the cossacks replace that.. Which is what I would do. Knights were obsolete long before rifling. 1500's at the latest for knights to 1750's at the earliest for rifling.

Edit. Just read the article. So Curiassers.. So it depends on if the cossacks will replace them or still replace cavalry..

I never thought about having Cossacks replace Curiassers instead of Calvary. If they did that it would pretty much change everything.

It would also make more historical sense for most of the cossacks history, they will probably do that, and mabye give them a point or 2 strengh lift.

It would also make more historical sense for most of the cossacks history, they will probably do that, and mabye give them a point or 2 strengh lift.

I don't know my Russian history too well, but wasn't it just before WWI that the Tzar/Czar killed off a bunch of the Cossack people or something? That would make it an even stronger case for them to replace curiassers as the cavalry is really from the mid 1800's to even WWII. Cossacks if I remember correctly were in use long before that, and there were a lot of other calvary types in there.
I think they should add in a lancer type to that gets bonus vs foot soldiers..

where did you get your history I think there was an ending of the Cossacks either during Communism or in WW1 becuase their Tactics, once effective become obsolete to Advanced tactics of the Dragoons

Ok, I wasn't sure if It was before or after WWI.. As I get to choose I study more Empire (Ours of course :D) history..

According to my historical knowledge, the Cossacks were an 'ethnical' group in Russia, who were closely bonded to the Russian Czar. When the Russian Revolution in 1918 then started the civil wars in Russia, where the Reds (Communists) fought against the Whites (Nationalists). The Cossacks fought on the Nationalist side, and it was also because of that, they dissapeared after WWI, as the Whites lost the civil war, and that the new Communist regime banned or killed the Cossack people. They are Russia's UU as Russia in Vanilla Civ had only Czar leaders, and because of the relation between the Cossacks and the Czar. In Warlords, Russia had it's Sovjet UB and leader.

I never thought about having Cossacks replace Curiassers instead of Calvary.

I think it's much more likely that the Conquistadors will be changed from Knights to Cuirassiers.

I do agree with others though, that moving Cavalry further along in the tech tree is an excellent argument for giving Cossacks one or two extra strength points..

I always hate the "overpowerment" complaints and "balancing issues". And then the debate comes as to if it was even overpowered to begin with, which I don't think it was. I have actually have a slightly lower than average success rate with Russia. I play vanilla and maybe reducing the strength by 1 (but no more than that, please) would be necessary because of stables in warlords but I don't see the point. UU are perhaps the main thing that causes me to decide which civ to use when I start a new game. With a weakened Cossack, Russia is now less attractive, especially since they come so late into the game.

I still thought that there were some Red Cossacks as they were known up until WW2. Leo Kesseller writes about a group called the Black Cossacks that fought on the German Side during WWII, carrying out raids on enemy machine gun posts and artillery fire bases. They were more mobile raiders that slipped in, wiped out enemy positions and then disappeared back into the early morning mist or night... Also after WWII there was a wholesale slaughter of Cossacks especially of those that had their spirtual base around the Don River. Try looking them up on Wikepedia and you will find out that the Allies (Britain, France, the US and the other countries) turned their backs while thousands of cossacks were put into gulags, were murdered or simply disappeared.