I think I understood why CA keeps the 20 units limit.

Game after game, there is always this damn 20 units per army limit. Some find it good but a lot of players (as me) want more units. We already know that, again, for shogun, it will be 20 versus 20.

I think I understood the problem of CA. They have to sell the maximum of copies and it's the same problem as the blood problem. If they put blood in the game, a lot of countries have to put a pegi 18 so a lot of young players couldn't buy it... For the 20 units limit it's almost the same, if they put 30 vs 30 (even if it is just an option), they would have to publish high species for computer, because all the people who buy the game must be abble to play all the options of the game (legally speaking, even if it's not always true). So a lot of people would see these high compuer species and perhaps don't buy the game being afraid to not be abble to run it properly.

SO...

What I ask to CA: With the preferences script we are abble to change a big thing: the number of soldiers (I play with 15000 soldiers in an army, I never play this game if I was not abble to do that), so for the next game put a line in the preferences script where we can modify the number of the units or an other solution, put a line that we can modify too, in order that we can control our allied army (20+20= 40). If CA do that, they could publish normal computer species and it would be the own responsability of the player to changer his number of units. CA would be winner doing that because everyone could have what he wants.

Medieval 2 had blood but it isn't pegi 18, so that can't be the reason. It's like all TW games developed by british CA don't have blood, but the one developed by aussie CA has blood, idk maybe someone in the british team doesn't like blood?

CA would use whatever was required to run the game at minimum settings to determine minuimum system requirements. So if they made "army size" a performance setting, where "Low" was the traditional 20 unit limit, they'd have no problem.

Conversely, I seriously suspect they could increase army size to 30 or 40 without noticeably increase the system requirements to run the game at otherwise minimal settings.

That they don't has more to do with interface and AI issues, I imagine.

This subject has been discussed many times and unfortunately you have over simplified the problem. The reason they have a 20 unit battle limit is not because of computer power but because of the GUI and playability issues. Under the current gui used by CA each unit has a unit card on screen allowing for quick and easy identification during hectic battles, if you increase the number of units you would have to increase the number of unit cards displayed for which there is no room on screen so CA would have to completely redesign the gui.

The playability issues revolve around making the game accessible to as many customers as possible. This means casual gamers as well as the hard core gamers. For the casual gamer the more units in a battle the more difficult it becomes to manage and so takes longer to fight and more frustrating to play, many casual gamers would switch off. Even I find controlling 20 naval ships extremely difficult and frustrating.

while I think this excuse is completely rubbish and I personally would love to see many more units 30, 40 or even unlimited stack sizes CA have resolutely refused to alter their gui which has remained almost the same since Shogun 1 first appeared.

Originally Posted by waldopbarnstormer

Even I find controlling 20 naval ships extremely difficult and frustrating.

This. I had way more fun taking out three galleons with a sixth rate than in any other naval battle; the huge ones are only fun when they end in a massive explosion when a ship in the giant melee cluster takes one too many shots to the magazine.

Also, if the stack size increases to 25 or 30, the AI can now fill a city with 25 or 30 militia instead of 20.

Also, I don't think redesigning the GUI would be at all complicated for CA. Playability is the real problem: if you add more units to a battle, you decrease the time that you can allot to controlling each unit. Eventually, your choices are a) pause all the time to reassess the situation or b) learn Starcraft-grade microing skills. Both take a lot of the fun out of this kind of game.

Ofc, CA should still give the player the option to have more units if they really want to.

I always had this idea where rather then increasing the unit limit you could whitch between armies using a tab that you select kind of like when you group units.

In single player battles, I have never felt myself particularly stressed by the amount of units on screen. I'd welcome the additional challenge of an extra 10-20 units (not to mention the additional "epicness"). Of course, I can't speak for the entire gaming world, but I suspect there are at least some other strategy gamers out there that are actually smarter than a third grader and can handle more units. Shoot, dozens of more traditional RTS allow you to manage many times more than many units. And if it really is a problem for people, bring back the "AI Assistance" options from ealier TW.

Yay 3 full ranks old guard vs 30 militia

In MP controlling more than 20 units will give a lot of players headache. But I always have a thought: why not use some sort of a 'corps' system in NTW? You don't directly order your corps (consisted each of about 10 to 20 units) to occupy that building, skirmish...,.etc, it was executed by a army corps commander like Ney, Davout etc, instead, order a corps to flank the enemy positions, or occupy the heights, etc. The marshals actions requires your supervision but it needs 1. good computer 2. good AI.
The horrible AI in NTW will ruin my plans, as you can see by playing multiplayer historical battles in NTW.

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

In MP controlling more than 20 units will give a lot of players headache. But I always have a thought: why not use some sort of a 'corps' system in NTW? You don't directly order your corps (consisted each of about 10 to 20 units) to occupy that building, skirmish...,.etc, it was executed by a army corps commander like Ney, Davout etc, instead, order a corps to flank the enemy positions, or occupy the heights, etc. The marshals actions requires your supervision but it needs 1. good computer 2. good AI.
The horrible AI in NTW will ruin my plans, as you can see by playing multiplayer historical battles in NTW.

I think, indeed, that a "corps" system could be a good thing too. I don't feel absolutly stressed by managing a huge amount of units. I just want people to make their own choice as we all do for the amount of soldiers. A corps system could serve for reinforcements for example in SP or MP battle.

I am 58 now, and have been playing wargames for many a year. I'm happy I've lived long enough to see the change in wargames from little cardboard pieces on hexagon maps that might cover (in the case of War in the Pacific) 48 square feet to the photorealistic grandeur of NTW.

I hope I am still here to play the first Waterloo game that has EACH soldier who fought there represented by one soldier in the game. It would be breathtaking.

Originally Posted by Mikelus Trento

I
I hope I am still here to play the first Waterloo game that has EACH soldier who fought there represented by one soldier in the game. It would be breathtaking.

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of processors and GPUs suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear a hugely awesome idea has happened.

Main problem with more 'units' per army is the AI & pathfinding. it's a mess already with 'just' 20 of them. Variable/adjustable number of units and/or ability to decrease/increase size of battle maps call for a flexible AI branch. From a developer perspective, it's much better to stick to certain options and just develop the AI to cope with that. It's also a problem of unnecessary amount of micromanagement and cluttered HUD. Increased numbers of soldiers would be a much better idea, and it's pointless to even discuss this topic until we see the performance of Shogun 2 AI.

Originally Posted by panzerschreck

I think, indeed, that a "corps" system could be a good thing too. I don't feel absolutly stressed by managing a huge amount of units. I just want people to make their own choice as we all do for the amount of soldiers. A corps system could serve for reinforcements for example in SP or MP battle.

The only problem with delegating tasks to the BAI is that, well ... the BAI would have to execute those tasks for you, and given the state of the BAI in any title of the Total War series, we all know how that would go.

Originally Posted by panzerschreck

I don't feel absolutly stressed by managing a huge amount of units.

Patience, we're almost there.

I reckon that with more than 20 slots even player controlled units should have a minimun AI to act on their own... i.e forming square when cavalry approach. That could however poses some code trouble for CA who prefers to focus on graphics and holliwood effects.

In six month they could barely half fix a bugged square which right now grants bonus way before formation had been formed. That's say lots of thing.

Originally Posted by Prince Francesca

In MP controlling more than 20 units will give a lot of players headache

In MP controlling more than 4 units could give a lot of players a headache. MP performance might be s small limfac for multi-stack armies, but that is what all the build in battle/army size options are for, anyway.

Instead of bigger armies, how about giving us an AI that can handle the current amount of units?

Originally Posted by yiplong

Instead of bigger armies, how about giving us an AI that can handle the current amount of units?

Personally, I find the BAI in NTW to be good enough (I've never seen an AI more competent in a tactical game that didn't rely heavily on scripting or "super micro-management" cheats). I'd choose bigger, more realistic armies and a better reinforcement system.

Even 40 units limit wouldn't be a problem if CA implemented an improved Battle control system:
-Add a button that change the cursor to a sword and call it engage button. You activate that button, the cursor changes and when you click your selected unit/s advance and shoot any enemy within range unless you have melee mode on. They can also throw grenades if you have grenades toggled on and then charge if you also have melee mode on. If you have skirmish mode on they will keep a safe distance from the enemy while peppering them with missiles and will continue to move towards the nominated point when no enemy is in range and ofc infront of them so that they can see the enemy to prevent bugs that make parked units from the flank / near to make your archer stop to shoot.
- Add button that makes the selected unit/s guard (follow and fire projectiles or engae enemy) Area or another unit/s, you can have it show which unit guards which if you hold spacebar down.
-Improved Grouping Targeting system so that when you click to attack a unit with your group you can see beforehand which units of your group will attack which.
- Further Improved Unit Flag system that shows on the flag things like Fatique/ammo//melee status/ Shoot out status, (Morale is already shown) , without having to check on their cards or hover the cursor above a unit.
- Minimap HUD Information Improvements: Shows average Fatique/Morale/Combat resolution for friends and foe alike.

The reason might be for not having more than 20 units, might be the AI being Updated every frame?