Has anyone played this game? It's like Age of Empires 2 but set in America during colonization.You can play as both the European powers and the natives. I think it's pretty good.
>>2327006No it's not dumbass. It's a cossacks spin off, and yeah, it's pretty neat.
Having to produce peasants just to send them into troop production building and converted into soldiers is ass.
You shut your filthy gob.
>>2327022why? It's a cool realistic mechanic where trained soldiers don't materialize out of thin air. Especially in a colonial setting where you'd ship retards and lowlife losers overseas to become americans
It's the American version of cossacks. It's fun but complex and hard, I sucked horrible at rpgs as a child and never could get anywhere with it.
>>2327058They materalize out of thin air but with extra steps
>>2327006Sadly never conquered Greenland
>>2327058>>2327022It could be cool in a different context, but as is it's just needless busywork. It could be functional if you had civilian structures passively create townsfolk and then you turn those into soldiers. I'm not saying that'd work in American Conquest, it'd just make more sense.>what if instead of clicking one button... I must click two buttons?vs>basically Zerg production
>>2327058Houses and population cap already represent people.
>>2327068>>2327071>>2327076just draw shapes on paper and imagine soldiers teleport to the enemy and you win. If you want to skip mechanics because they're "busywork" why even play games? The busywork is the fun part of playing games.It's like punching trees in minecraft vs spawning 9999 wood into your inventory with console. Yeah you achieved the end result of getting wood, but did you have fun? Did you play a game? Or are you just an NPC following a checklist?
>>2327094There's a difference between "gameplay" and "busywork". "Select barracks, click button, receive soldier" is functionally identical to "select town center, click button, receive villager, send to barracks, click button, receive soldier" except the first one is faster and the second one has no advantage whatsoever.The only possible benefit is if you want to create a militia or something, but there are better mechanics to handle that.
>>2327069rent free
>>2327102It's not just meaningless busywork. Peasants are vulnerable and can be capture. It's also preventing you from just effortlessly keep training more soldiers if enemies are attacking your base.I think it added more depth to the game.
>>2327006This game has easily the most complex firing and morale mechanics of any early 00s RTS. Not to mention massive pop limits that were unthinkable to other games in the same era. It also does cannons so much better than any other early 00s game, including cossacks games. It's just overall an amazing game, even with the bugs. People who don't get the recruitment system just want to play ADHD meta clickers, they don't have the patience to understand how much depth and logistics it adds.
>>2327102>"Select barracks, click button, receive soldier" is functionally identical to "select town center, click button, receive villager, send to barracks, click button, receive soldier"Not, it literally functionally isn't. All sorts of things can happen to the villager between being created and sent to the barracks, you don't even have to send them there. It's your deliberate choice to divert economic power into military power. Or they can get killed by the enemy in transit. Holy shit how are you on this board and this clueless about strategy games?
Is it just me or the campaign missions are hard as hell?
>>2328001Some are really hard like the Alaska one, others are easier. The Spanish ones are a good balance, challenging but not impossible.
I remember buildings being incredibly hard to take down
>>2328748Depends. If you get the first few bits of building hitpoints, it catches fire and starts losing hitpoints by itself. If there aren't enough peasants around to repair faster than it's burning, you just wait a bit and it blows up. But if there are a ton of peasants around, they'll repair hard, so you'll need more cannons. Otherwise you have to move in and start capturing them which will get tons of your dudes killed.
>>2329519I don't know what he's talking about. Buildings might as well be out of kindling how easy they burn down. Or get capped. In cossacks you pretty much needed those merc algerian archers or grenadiers unless you wanted to pelt it with MASSED artillery for several minutes.
>>2329525Is Cossacks worth playing if I like American Conquest?
>>2329527Cossacks is actually way more balanced and less buggier than American Conquest
>>2329533Really? But AC graphics looks so much better...
>>2329533>>2329539Wait, how's Cossacks 2?
>>2329527I second >>2329533>>2329544Braindead AI and very interesting if micro intensive mechanics. Expect to manually order volley fires on a unit by unit, the formation not individuals thankfully for anything resembling real effect.
So I've tried Cossacks a bit and aside from being more balanced and less buggy like you guys said, the American Conquest seems to be better at everything else.Still kinda fun though.
I wanna try playing the natives. Which is the most fun native Americans faction in your opinion?
