Your largest battle ever?

[recentiy03]

After assassinating their khan a few miles outside Gaza before he could link up his army with a second army that was besieging Gaza, I lifted the siege by finishing off one of the Timurid elite horse armies in an epic open-field battle, although at immense costs to the families of my countrymen. Efthymios the Chivalrous led an army of 2,509, backed up by a second army of 2,538, a third army of 1,675 and a fourth army of 1,667 (for a total of 8,400 Romans) against Yesublai of the Geniges's experienced legion of merely 1,528. At the end of the day, in a sort of role reversal, Yesublai's men evoked the spirit of the Greeks at Thermopylae, shedding the blood of more than 5,300 of my Romans...but we prevailed, keeping the city safe from Allah's jihad.

All in all there 9,928 soldiers on the field, just under 10,000.

[ksenagos]

i guess you did not control all of them but you put them under ai assistance...When this happens to me is frustrating.I almost always lead one full stack in battle with no reinforcements.On topic my largest battle well it was in RTW 2000 of my brutii against 6000 one from each other roman faction....In SS i have never managed to gather more than 6000 in a single battle(Byz (me)aprox2000 against 3 jihad full stacks)

[napoleonic]

the biggest I've ever had was in 6.2 RR/RC compilation with huger unit submod

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Dark Lord's Heir]

the biggest I've ever had was in 6.2 RR/RC compilation with huger unit submod

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your PC can withstand that many units? Impressive, or maybe its just that you have the most up to date computer lol

[napoleonic]

it's a 5 years old game....

[Dark Lord's Heir]

it's a 5 years old game....

Not everyone's PC can withstand over 6,000 units on the map with textures on highest quality

[Aenima]

Hell, my PC can't even handle 3 or 4 large armies on a battlefield at the same time on the lowest settings! It just lags and jerks like crazy. How your PC stood up to that epic is beyond me!

[napoleonic]

then your pc are beyond 5 years old outdated guys.... seriously I think a decent quad core gaming pc from 2-3 years back should be able to handle this game

[ziserman]

then your pc are beyond 5 years old outdated guys.... seriously I think a decent quad core gaming pc from 2-3 years back should be able to handle this game

Sadly that is true. Mine is 6 years old except for RAM and GPU which are 3-4 years old and HDD which is a year old. I still lag on battles beyond 3000 units, or after enough arrows have been fired with settings on relatively high.

[Caesar Clivus]

then your pc are beyond 5 years old outdated guys.... seriously I think a decent quad core gaming pc from 2-3 years back should be able to handle this game

M2TW can only utilise one core. So it doesn't matter if you have a quad or even a dual core rig.

[Bantu Chieftain]

M2TW can only utilise one core. So it doesn't matter if you have a quad or even a dual core rig.

how can you make it utilize both cores of a dual?? cus i got a 3.4 ghz dual core and my pc can withstand 6000-7000 units on high rez.

and another Q: how can you unite aragon and castille? cus i have no idea :<

[bɑne]

how can you make it utilize both cores of a dual??

You just can't. You can overclock one core or be lucky and have turboboost that does the o/c for you but it is tied to one core no matter what.

[Dark Lord's Heir]

then your pc are beyond 5 years old outdated guys.... seriously I think a decent quad core gaming pc from 2-3 years back should be able to handle this game

My PC is like 3-4 years, it just can handle battles with 5000 units but it unfortunately lags

[napoleonic]

yes but clock/clock performance and clockspeed has raised up quite significantly during the last 5 years

the performance of one core of 2.8ghz from C2Q 8000 series is way higher than 2.8ghz athlon FX57 (fastest cpu in 2006 IIRC?), newer quads like i5 series is even faster, newest i series also have auto overclocked speed

[Ichon]

Better video card also does improve performance slightly surprisingly. With my old GTX9800 battles over 2,000 on 6x speed lagged considerably that I couldn't really control battles. Now with 6950 I don't notice any lag at 6x speed until getting over 8,000 units. Also even the images look slightly better somehow though the GTX9800 could run all battles at highest setting(except full aliasing) at normal with no lag except when scrolling over battle quickly.

CPU cycles do make a difference but not as much as I thought. 6.4 with BGRIV and LA and some other stuff turned on the turns are still 1-2 minutes after a few turns. I have an 1100T but my friend just got an i7 2500K and while that single core is about 18% faster than one from the 1100T when we loaded SS with exact same settings the turn times only increased 11-14 seconds about 11% increase. Obviously some other things are different between the systems but while clock speed matters its not as dramatic as might be thought.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

....Could you run that battle at 6x speed?

[Ichon]

I don't know actually. that is over 16,000 and never had such a situation come up in any campaign.

[napoleonic]

6x speed definitely lag, and yeah, it's such a rare situation, only can happen on overcrowded part of the map + someone being superpower in that area + maybe crusade/jihad scenario or mongols horde...

[RedGuard]

i'm still in denial about my biggest CTD ev--- i mean uh, battle ever.

[midget_roxx]

You also have to look at the cache, not just Hz