Cossacks II: Napoleonic Wars PC
User Score
7.0 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 22 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 22
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 22
  3. Negative: 4 out of 22

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Parvarteshwar
    Aug 30, 2011
    5
    This Cossacks 2 has a good concept. Real-time strategy, unit based warfare like Empire Total War with real-time economic elements like AOE 3. Two really good gameplay elements melded into one and it is really a shame that poor polish ultimately made this game unplayable. There is huge degree of micro-management, with workers, units, and buildings all needing a great deal of care and attention, and that attention soon gets spread very thinly. That said, I am not against micro-management, quite the opposite, but the way it is presented in this game make it feel like needless busy-work. The economic management is basically nil, so you can run out of a resource in the midst of a huge battle and have almost no way to make up the difference. The interface is very clunky, especially in the heat of battle when you simply don't have time to second glance your commands. Your unit AI is very simple and pathfinding and auto-targeting are broken. For instance you cannot set non-artillery units to auto-fire, which means you must constantly be clicking back and forth up and down your lines to make sure that your unit is not getting shot to pieces without so much as returning fire. And since reload times are based on individual units and not squads, it is difficult to judge when the squad will be ready to fire, since you cannot order individual units to fire independently. And the morale system is very wonky as well, with the designated morale meter not being a very good indicator of your unit's overall morale. Half of a unit could break and flee and the meter would still read 100% for the other half and at other times it is close to zero and your brave soldiers will still be fighting on. In all if you can keep your army small it would not be very difficult to manage everything but the AI has a habit of trying to wear your done with attrition, sending wave after wave of cannon fodder until you either run out of ammunition or are overwhelmed. That said the AI is not overly complex and while it will attempt maneuvers or capturing strategic positions this is just an afterthought for its main strategy. And since they AI receives resource cheats its impossible to beat them through claiming strategic locations. There is also a campaign, which is slightly better than the random maps via scripts, it is rather unimpressive and boring. One example is half the officers in the Royal Army have Californian accents. All that said, I did not give the game a terrible score and this is why: The concept is truly unique and there is a huge amount of potential. If GSC can iron out all the rough edges there is strategy game of the year in Cossacks 3. Improve the AI, improve the interface, and there is a really great game to be had. I really hope the developers stick with this concept.… Expand
  2. ADH
    May 9, 2005
    6
    Bought at EB but took it back 2 days later. Compared to the original, they have stripped a lot of the units, upgrades, resource- and micro-management from the game. The result is that the game concentrates strongly on battles between large armies of soldiers produced with little effort or forethought. It continues a trend in today's RTS games, the worst example of which is Battle for Middle Earth, in which the games are being "dumbed down" for a broader market but result in the loss of true RTS fans.… Expand
  3. D.S.
    May 16, 2005
    0
    Once again, its terrible!
  4. SfE.
    May 16, 2005
    0
    This is 2005, not 1995!!!!! horrible graphics!
  5. GraYR.
    May 10, 2005
    10
    Da best, but desperetly crying for patch.
  6. J.L.
    May 25, 2005
    7
    I have to agree with gamespy on their review;that the RTS isn't as ingrossing as the in the first game was a major disapointment for me. The turn based game, though rather simplistic, is still fun. I like the fact that your units really do get a lot better if they live through the battles, this part of the game would be a blast if it were mulitplayer capable. Overall, the tactics involved using the army is a huge improvement over cossacks 1, and makes the game a huge challenge when shooting out with another player, but the rest of the game just doesn't seem finished.… Expand
  7. RobP.
    Sep 22, 2005
    8
    Just finished this game, I bought it two weeks ago. I have to say the way battles are fought is most excellent however it's buggy needs a new patch. Loved it though and had a great time playing it.
  8. Budget_Security
    Apr 18, 2012
    3
    One of the biggest disappointments of my gaming life. While not a terrible game in it self, after the relatively good cossacks 1, I was expecting so much more, particularly in terms of LAN gaming and AI. The engine is dated, the maps small... I was converted over to the "Total War" series after this.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
73 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 33
  3. Negative: 0 out of 33
  1. IC-Games
    83
    Using diplomacy as the first line for your empire expansion adds a nice twist to the usual RTS.
    Read full review
  2. Eurogamer
    60
    A curious mix. Some undeniably strong and distinctive pieces of game design, tarnished by some elementary errors, such as the lack of a decent training program or real in-game help.
    Read full review
  3. Warcry
    80
    I would go so far as to say that this game has the best micromanagement system in any RTS. The options were sufficient to attract gamers from a fairly wide spectrum, and the graphics, considering the scale of the game, were incredible.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »