Bigger Battles!!!

[GreatAugustus]

I would just like to say, well done CA. What you have done so far with Rome II is incredible!

Anyway, I am afraid I must ask for more. You see, throughout the Total War series, I have noticed a lack of improvement in the individual unit scales. Sure I can go to the preferences.txt and increase the multiplier but I wish to be able to handle more units and still have reasonable performance stability.

In shogun 2, the scales were more reasonable, but in Empire and Napoleon, they didn't even compare to 1/4 of real life. Bigger battles means longer battles, more destructive battles, greater tactical strategies and formations, better singleplayer and multiplayer, greater Total War experience. Please work on this before its too late!

[STELLover]

YES!! I mean Battle of Waterloo with only 5000 men total? I mean its outrageous... it had tens of thousands... some battles at this time had over a hundred thousand men total.. like

[Asgaroth]

YES!! I mean Battle of Waterloo with only 5000 men total? I mean its outrageous... it had tens of thousands... some battles at this time had over a hundred thousand men total.. like

Anyway, I am afraid I must ask for more. You see, throughout the Total War series, I have noticed a lack of improvement in the individual unit scales. Sure I can go to the preferences.txt and increase the multiplier but I wish to be able to handle more units and still have reasonable performance stability.

As they say you can never say never, but I say that in near future(the next 4-5 years) I certainly won't see hundreds of thousands men on the filed.

Because the graphics are made out of polygons and there is no new system for graphics that games use for now. As the unit, tree, rock, etc is more detalised it means that it is made out of more poligons and many units + detail graphics mean many poligons which means you will need a monster truck's engine to run that on you PC without lagging.

So in the near future that won't happen for sure. Even if the make a WWI TW that won't happen.

[Lord Baal]

And then, here I come, saying that I don't mind less prettier graphics, if that means realistic numbers.

[ironbrigade]

Bigger battles means longer battles, more destructive battles, greater tactical strategies and formations, better singleplayer and multiplayer, greater Total War experience. Please work on this before its too late!

I would love larger units size especially up to say 1000 each.

[Zimmy]

Yes, because we all have 100,000 dollar supercomputers at our disposal.

[Petroniu]

Yes, because we all have 100,000 dollar supercomputers at our disposal.

Only 100,000 $? Bah, you're cheap! And you dare to say you play TW games!

[Holger Danske]

Yes, because we all have 100,000 dollar supercomputers at our disposal.

You don't need a super computer. You simply need CA to stop their pointless fetish with useless eye-candy and focus on engine optimization for larger battles. Because that was initially the very core that made Total War a unique strategy game. They have progressively dropped the ball ever since Rome Total War. Which is what? 8 years ago?

Graphics are more than fine, and have been so for years. We Want SCALE now!

In other words: a Roman cohort consist of 480 men... not 150... Maxing it out at 1000 men per unit should both be fine and doable, and with more than 20 units per stack (we have seen 40) we could approach more "realistic" sized battles.


In theory 80,000 to 360,000 (9 full stacks against each other)

[Zimmy]

You don't need a super computer. You simply need CA to stop their pointless fetish with useless eye-candy and focus on engine optimization for larger battles. Because that was initially the very core that made Total War a unique strategy game. They have progressively dropped the ball ever since Rome Total War. Which is what? 8 years ago?

Graphics are more than fine, and have been so for years. We Want SCALE now!

In other words: a Roman cohort consist of 480 men... not 150... Maxing it out at 1000 men per unit should both be fine and doable, and with more than 20 units per stack (we have seen 40) we could approach more "realistic" sized battles.


In theory 80,000 to 360,000 (9 full stacks against each other)

But you fail to realize without the graphics set on low and 2d sprites, some computers can't run it either way.

[Holger Danske]

I don't give a damn about the graphics, they're more than sufficient and have been so ever since Empire. Working on good animations (should be doable even with reasonable low poly skeletons) and scale should be far more prioritized than making small pretty hollywood battles.

I simply refuse to believe that technology hasn't moved an inch since 2004 and if RTWII is going to be on the same scale as RTW then it will be a massive fiasco (imo). Especially since Empire domonstrated that we could actually have units with more than 500 men and 40 units per army stack...

As for computers. Play on low scale with low graphics if you can't afford to invest in high-end gaming gear. For those of us that can afford proper rigs we should be allowed to enjoy massive battles in all it's entirety... and that's the beauty of Total War. You can adjust the scale, but the scale boundaries haven't been pushed considerably for nearly a decade now. That is not acceptable...

[petertel123]

Graphics are more than fine, and have been so for years. We Want SCALE now!

speak for yourself, I would certainly like larger battles, but I would certainly not like the graphics to be worse than the previous TW

[Markas]

speak for yourself, I would certainly like larger battles, but I would certainly not like the graphics to be worse than the previous TW

Seconded. There is no way in hell we could have the scale of Scourge of War and maintain the graphical quality of Shogun 2. Reducing the quality to be the level of SofW would be commercial suicide.

I don't ever recall CA claiming they make anything close to Simulators, either. The paper posted appears to be under that delusion as many on this forum are.

[Holger Danske]

Did you even read it, or did you just pass it as anti-CA bashing? The author clearly states the differences, but effectively highlights CA's inability to use the right terms for the game. Stuff that I didn't realize untill pointed out. If you disagree, then fine but the point about CA focusing almost entirely on visuals over scale with every new title still remains! I have never heard them state that this time they will REALLY put an effort into bring us truely large battles. It's always the standard 10,000 men crap.

Also I never said I wanted worse visuals!... Why would I? No I want them to start giving a damn about scale!

Now I don't expect CA to downgrade their scale. That would be equally stupid, and we have seen that Warscape is capable of supporting +500 man units with up to 40 controllable units in an army (not counting A.I reinforcements)... But I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they cut back to have more Hollywood eye-candy.

[Lord Baal]

You know, Cossacks back in the 2000 managed to have up to 64K units in the game, and that required a computer not above 1k dollars mind you... I don't know why people seem to think they need a nuclear quantum pc to have such numbers.

[MrOuija]

You know, Cossacks back in the 2000 managed to have up to 64K units in the game, and that required a computer not above 1k dollars mind you... I don't know why people seem to think they need a nuclear quantum pc to have such numbers.

Those were sprites though weren't they? Not 3d models?

[Zimmy]

If you want the game to look good and not have stuff in 2d, yes you do. Hell, I could put in my Rome total war disc, load up, turn the graphics to medium, and have maximum units and lag.

[Zimmy]

Yeah, no, you're not getting it. If I set my graphics on low and put in 300000000000000000000000000000000000000000 men, the game will lag regardless.

[Holger Danske]

I get it, but I doubt you got the message, so let's try the simple way: Lower your unit size or upgrade your hardware...




Also I don't recall any battle that involved more men than has ever lived...

[Zimmy]

It was a hyperbole, look it up.

[Holger Danske]

I know...

Either way it's properly best for us to simply agree to disagree...

and wait for Jack to clear up these questions...