Things from the orginal I would like to see.

[Vossan]

Anybody else remeber from these from the original game?

If you had A) A fort or fortress and B) cannons in those fortressess, you could fire on ships that got to close? Seems perfectly logical to me. Think about it... You have this big stone tower/wall full of cannons and some jerk comes close enough to shot at you, why not shoot back? Worked great for keeping privateers from coming to close, and was a god send in WoI when the Man-o-Wars showed up. Evened up the sea battles a little. Pirates, the other Sid Mier new world game, has the towns shooting at ships.

Dragoons were the ultimate unit. Good at attacking, and good at defending, because they had 2 lives. First defeat cost the horses, and then the second one killed them outright. Dragoons now seem kind of useless to me.

Foriegn intervention/ continental army. In the original after declaring Independace you got some units that were elite for fighting in the new world (I.E. they got huge bonus for fighting on certain terrain). I could also argue any colonist should have these bonuses, since in the real WoI our terrain knowledge was a magor factor in the victory. If nothing else you should be able to pick some of those terrain bonuses free for the continental army. Eventually a foriegn power would jump in and help you (I think for a price they would send units earlier as well). I have not survived long enough to find out if the intervention happens, but I have not seen it here in the forums either. Would be nice if the more liberty bells you had they more continental army you got or something. There were the minutemen, but Washington did have a standing army and he did use it effectively.

Training veterans. In the original you could teach colonists the veteran profession. In this one you cannot even make a barracks! Minutemen did at least drill and again they knew the land and we should have some way to earn those bonuses without fighting every country and indian in the new world.

Is it me or does the world seem smaller? I remeber spending alot more time exploring and finding stuff then I do now. You could go alot farther in land, and finding the pacific was a big deal! I also remeber that most random maps had all but the smallest pieces of land connected. This one almost always has two or more seperate islands.

Naval combat seemed so much, well more. Privateers were a big deal and having a navy to defend against them was a must. Now I play a whole game and see maybe one privateer.

These are just a few of the things I remember and I am sure there are more. Overall I like the new version, except how badly the king always thrashes me, but I am nostalgic for the old game features. If anybody else can remeber some please post and let me know what you think of the above.

 

[dalgo]

The maps certainly are smaller in Col2. I used to be exploring for most of the game but now the exploration phase is over too quick.

Dragoons actually had three lives in Col 1 When they lost their guns they became regular colonists (and if they had been veterans they lost that status). However I do like dragoons in this game because they can get experience and promotions.

 

[Feannag]

I agree with nearly all of this. Once thing I excelled at in the previous game was piracy. All my money went to buying privateers and I used them a lot. CPU players would move guns and horses to their colonies from Europe and I'd be right there ready to snap them up with privateers. I completely funded my military using pirated horses and guns and it even got to the point I had to sell guns back to Europe for a huge profit (guns were up to 18/19 by mid-game thanks to the CPU buying sprees).

As for hte world being huge, it is. Try the Huge America Scenario and set a scout to auto-explore. North and South America are pretty big but I think I can see how you'd think it small. When you first start the game the mini-map IS small. IT gradually gets larger as you explore more.

 

[rbadger]

Dragoons were the ultimate unit. Good at attacking, and good at defending, because they had 2 lives. First defeat cost the horses, and then the second one killed them outright. Dragoons now seem kind of useless to me.

I actually like the way this works in col2 better than col1. Mounted infantry are not good as defenders and the game reflects this by not giving defense bonuses to dragoons.

 

[Sarmatian]

I actually like the way this works in col2 better than col1. Mounted infantry are not good as defenders and the game reflects this by not giving defense bonuses to dragoons.

Dragoons, unlike regular cavalry, were trained to fight on foot, too. Often they'd just use horse as a means of transportation and then fight on foot.

In my opinion, when in a city or a forest, dragoons should automatically dismount and get those defensive bonuses for the price of 1 combat strength.

 

[obsolete]

I have to agree! Cavalry units do NOT attack or defend while still mounted, this is a myth due to Hollywood. All cavalry does is add horses to units so they can MOVE further distances in the same time divisions without horses could. In no way should they be penalized in defence. Furthermore, they should in fact have greater defense. Another big bonus with cavalry units was they were devasting in persuit chases AFTER each battle was subsided. This should be relfected (it is in just about every other game of this era), but its not. In fact the opposite happens in this game, just like everything else is reversed from what makes common sense.


Napoleon's greatest losses were from issues like these.

 

[nate895]

I have to agree! Cavalry units do NOT attack or defend while still mounted, this is a myth due to Hollywood. All cavalry does is add horses to units so they can MOVE further distances in the same time divisions without horses could. In no way should they be penalized in defence. Furthermore, they should in fact have greater defense. Another big bonus with cavalry units was they were devasting in persuit chases AFTER each battle was subsided. This should be relfected (it is in just about every other game of this era), but its not. In fact the opposite happens in this game, just like everything else is reversed from what makes common sense.


Napoleon's greatest losses were from issues like these.

Cavalry did indeed engage while on horseback. Dragoons did not. Cavalry was used for raiding, shock value, and pursue after the battle, similar to modern day armor, while dragoons were rapid response units, similar to mechanized infantry or paratroopers.

Dragoons should get a defensive bonus, but they should then include cavalry which would play the role dragoons currently do.

 

[obsolete]

There were minor occurences such as very small divisions of cavalry armed with sawed-off shotguns during the civil war, etc. which would charge into artillery batteries. But please do not try to exagerate this into claiming a substantial number of cavalry brigades used to do their regular fighting in such a manner.

 

[Reveilled]

There were minor occurences such as very small divisions of cavalry armed with sawed-off shotguns during the civil war, etc. which would charge into artillery batteries. But please do not try to exagerate this into claiming a substantial number of cavalry brigades used to do their regular fighting in such a manner.

Eh? The very definition of the word Cavalry is a group of warriors who fight on horseback.

Did Hollywood paint the Borodino Panorama too?

 

[Sarmatian]

Guys, don't mix cavalry and dragoons. Cavalry was used up to the 20th century as a shock unit, but it's primary duty were harassing, scouting, pursuing, attacking artillery, cutting lines of supply and so on. Dragoons on the other hand were mounted troops who on most occasions fought dismounted.

But we digress. I'd like to see Dragoons act like ordinary foot soldiers when it's beneficial, like when they defend a city or a have a decent defense position.

 

[ramatheson]

Cavalry units most certainly DID attack and defend while still mounted, just like you see in movies from Hollywood. .

Fixed