Talk:Cossacks: European Wars

Untitled

"The makers of Cossacks also have attempted to retain as much historical accuracy as possible in their game, both by providing detailed and correct histories of all the units available, as well as rendering the units beautifully and acurately according to historical descriptions." Come on. And Polish noble first thought, when waking up, was running and oppressing poor Cossacks. This sounds like marketing not encyclopedia Szopen 11:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've toned this down a bit. Lovingboth 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unit Capacity

Article claims that only the Total War series can rival (And the implication is that Total War games actually have lower caps) the Cossacks series, but Rome Total War has usually 2000-4000 units on screen, maxing out at a whopping 38,880 units on screen at once. Can some hard statistics be given here?

It was at least 50,000 on screen at once at the highest resolution.

The website says you can have up to 8,000 units for Cossacks. -Arnos

Yes, the cossacks website says that each player can control up to 8,000 units, making it possible to have 64,000 units on the screen at once. This would make it larger than the Total War series. Also, in the Total War series you almost never have eight full armies fighting each other. However, the Cossacks number is very misleading. While it is theoretically possible to build 8,000 units, one rarely gets above 2,000 because of population limits imposed by the number of houses and barracks. Once you get to about this number it is impossible to build more houses or barracks to increase your population limit because each time you build a building of a certain type, it gets more expensive, eventually to the point where you cannot build anymore. So the "8,000 units controlled" is really just an advertisement for the game that never can actually happen.

Eh, someone is forgetting the fact that you can theoretically mod ANY game to handle as many units as you want. You just need some basic computer knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.131.237 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not IMPOSSIBLE to build more houses or barracks... it's just a little harder. You can easily reach the 8000 limit if you combine houses, barracks and town halls. --201.66.178.15 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Compatability Issues

I removed this section, since it only told about problems when used with Linux and WINE, which is obviously not a problem with the game. Besides, Linux with Wine is still Linux, it's not Windows.

Graphics: are they really that good?

The article states that in realism, the game is only rivalled by the most recent entry in the AOE series. While I admit, the graphics are very good, they still aren't 3 dimensional, and actually look more like the graphics of AOE II. Any other people with me?

Taylor 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Taylor. In my opinion, not only can the graphics not compare to the most recent AOE, but no aspect of the game can, except maybe the caps.

David 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that what the contributor of that passage meant was of the minute details given to the individual units e.g. the period uniforms of the soldiers involved; the weaponry etc and not the graphics engine as a whole with special effects utilizing, for example, pixel shaders or 3-dimensional graphics etc. I did get a little confused about the AOE comparison though but after reading it through, I guess the contributor's focus was actually only on the units. I don't seriously think, though, that this should be an issue concerning a comparison of the graphics quality of one game and another as this issue is quite arbitrary. To solve the issue, perhaps someone might remove the comparison with AOE 3?

Arthur Oon

Or perhaps no comparison with AOE3 was intended. The first Cossacks can probably be judged better than AOE1, and equal to AOE2. The second Cossacks lies in a grey area, and it's probably a pointless exercise to compare the two since they are very different styles of games. Age of Mythology etc cater to the Starcraft-ish game player whereas Cossacks caters more to the kind of person who would play Civilization or SimCity. 118.90.121.65 (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with expansion pack articles

The articles for this game's two expansion packs should be merged with this main article. Both has stub quality, and I doubt there is much more to say about either of them. --Himasaram 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

It is a disgrace to English, it needs some format and better grammar.

Fair use rationale for Image:G09828gpcz0.jpg

Image:G09828gpcz0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Prussian 18th cent musket

This line is a fallacy :

It is rarely seen that a force of 196 Prussian musketeers can be bested by any other infantry unit of the same number

18th cent saxon muskets own prussian muskets for breakfats lunch and dinner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.81.17 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And what about serdiuks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.213.65 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Logical successor to AoE?

I don't buy it. The whole development section is damn weird. Particularly this sentence seems completely non-sensical: "17-18 century was selected because the most obvious continuation of Age of Empires would be medieval Europe and Cossacks was its logical successor, not a competitor." So I'm supposed to believe that GSC Gameworld just wanted to expand the AoE series with a game that has completely different ambitions considering historical accuracy and realism? And I'm supposed to believe that they just guessed that there would be an AoE sequel that would take place in the middleages, and that's why they chose to avoid that particular scenario? And THAT's supposed to be the reason why Ukranian developers chose to make a game about Ukraine's most important historical period? Because they didn't want to interfere with some American franchise? Whoever wrote this section has to be damn delusional. --92.78.136.37 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Official website address is not good anymore?

The website listed as official (cossacks.ru) is redirecting to gobf.ru, so the domain must have been expired or something. Rozmysl (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cossacks: European Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216001437/http://www.computerandvideogames.com:80/article.php?id=3719 to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=3719

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Release date?

The article says it was released on 24 April 2001 whereas the infobox says 30 November 2000. So which is it? The Steam page says the former. (The release date information refers to the original release date, not the date of the Steam release. When it was added to Steam can be seen by looking at either the developer's or the publisher's page.) 80.78.219.54 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The former one is the US release date. Lucumo (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It is also stated that the game performed well in sales in late 2000. Clearly was launched at different dates in different regions, this could do with better research and fixing. User:Anshackles

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cossacks: European Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216001103/http://www.escmag.com/v5/reviews/review.cfm?rv=74 to http://www.escmag.com/v5/reviews/review.cfm?rv=74
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gameplasma.com/reviews.php?do=view&id=358

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cossacks: European Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216001056/http://au.gamespot.com/news/2639358.html to http://au.gamespot.com/news/2639358.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ALL9x4Qn?url=http://au.gamespot.com/cossacks-european-wars/reviews/cossacks-european-wars-review-2702187/ to http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/cossackseuropeanwars/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cgonline.com/features/020117-f1-f1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timegate.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20011119204623/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2045348,00.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20091009171549/http://www.gamekult.com/articles/A0000007144/ - sales
• https://web.archive.org/web/20171115093144/http://www.gameswelt.de/cossacks-european-wars/test/cossacks-european-wars,3674
• http://web.archive.org/web/19990830121810/http://www.gamespot.com:80/milia/0210/cossack/index.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20030504070839/http://www.meristation.com:80/sc/articulos/articulo.asp?c=PC&cr=830
• https://web.archive.org/web/20050329215432/http://www.gamekult.com/pc/jeux/fiches/J000001431.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20020614123455/http://www.focus-home.com/news.php?article=54
• https://web.archive.org/web/20040209223400/http://www.focus-home.com/societe.php
• https://web.archive.org/web/20011125093056/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2007252,00.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20011121014713/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2018018,00.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20011224062143/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2044093,00.html