What's the most important thing: amount of men or graphics?

[I-the-gamer]

I'd say a good balance between both, and i think CA has always managed to create this balance.

[century x]

I WANT MORE MEN.

[Yojimbo]

I WANT MORE MEN.

Its raining men...

[the_mango55]

I do not think AI development and graphics development influence each other that much, quantity (of resources put in AI devlopment) does not make quality.

As for the AI becoming less intelligent because there are more graphics to render, I do not think that is possible, the AI's decisions do not disappear just because there are 10,000 more men on the field.

Zapp is right.

The complexity of unit models and quality of the textures is handled by the video card, while the numbers of men is handled by the processor, which also handles the AI. The more men you have on the field, the more strain you put on your processor.

[Admiral Nelson]

Zapp is right.

The complexity of unit models and quality of the textures is handled by the video card, while the numbers of men is handled by the processor, which also handles the AI. The more men you have on the field, the more strain you put on your processor.

Both unit size and graphics should, then, be scalable. (Exactly like in RTW and M2TW)

[Kamos]

I could care less about either as long as I'm having fun.

[Furious Mental]

The AI doesn't have to make decisions for every man, except really basic stuff like 'stab this guy'. I do not see that increasing the number of units or the number of men in units would make the AI less efficient at making decisions for those units unless the increase was vast.

[aeoleron9]

Neither, I just want a balanced gameplay and sensible AI.

[InF3sTeD]

We already know the graphics are next generation so I'm not to worried about that because you can always fix the graphics to meet your computers specs anyways.

As for units, I would like to see a fonction that will let you increase or decrease the size of a battalion before you begin a campaine.

[ISG01]

Zapp is right.

The complexity of unit models and quality of the textures is handled by the video card, while the numbers of men is handled by the processor, which also handles the AI. The more men you have on the field, the more strain you put on your processor.

I agree completely. However, that does not mean that if you have 20,000 men instead of 10,000 the AI will be weaker or stupid. The AI will still make all the decisions it would with 10,000 people. If your pc cannot handle that, the only thing that happens is that the game slows down I guess, it does not start skipping or not making decisions, that is not how an AI works.

And indeed, the bigger AI decisions do not involve steering every man individually in an army of 20,000, that kind of AI is still a few years off I think.

[Jensemann]

I'd say a good balance between both, and i think CA has always managed to create this balance.

agree with you. i mean graphics are great for the first day or so I remember the first time i played MTW2, I thought the graphics were just incredible, and i looked close up at units all the time, but after a while i went tired of that. But i keept plaing the game since it had good gameplay to. so graphics arent all. but they are important. I mean i cant stand playing MTW and everytime i play RTW i grumble a bit about the graphics but it is ok but only just so better graphics are important but it should not be the area which is most focused on in ETW, although i have a feeling that it will

[Boris]

What I would love to see is that you plan your battle on forehand on paper as a real general does. Set up formations and battle plan. Next the battle begins and you play with the general first person style, being able to give only limited overall commands and being able to charge with you men if wanted.

NOW THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!

[Imperial_Hockey]

I like the idea of balance. There should definately be more men but not so many that the AI is comprimised or that it gets boring trying to keep all the men in order. I would add more men to each unit but not increase the amt. of units by much more the 20.

[ray243]

Well there is really no real need to improve the graphics too much you know...we can actually play a total war on a 1-1 scale if they are using rome total war graphics with the top end computers today.

[Valerius Tiberius]

well, i would also like RTW graphics, but a bit better, and no more clones!!

and then much more men, but no lag plz
though i'd love to see ETW graphics

edit: yay, post 2.500

[Hunter Makoy]

yes, as many men as they can make! i want my cpu owned by the amount of rendering it has to handle.

[Kiljaden]

Until I can see 40,000 men vs. 40,000 men like a true battle used to be, I will never be entirely satisfied with a Total War game. Even if the graphics for the battles have to be more conservative than M2TW - I want realism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg

93,921 vs. 71,699 (about 23,000 losses on each side)

Are you seriously going to tell me that in Empire: Total War, the largest army per side is 4,000 men or less? Should this be the case, my friends, it would be epic fail.

[The Noble Lord]

I would definitely love to have both!!!
And when it finally happenes, the gaming will be much more interesting.

[Almogaver]

Graphics and detail preferrable to huge numbers of men. If I wanted to play with thousands of men and low detail I'd go back and play Sid Meier's Gettysburg!

[Frost, colonel]

I have just bought a decent PC, so I'm going for extra lashings of everything please!

Semi joking a side, I would be willing to trade in a little graphics(not much) for more troops, especially if the killing in ETW is to quick, we will need plenty o' cannon fodder to decorate the battlefields with!