No one else bummed out about army size?

[caissus]

I play this game, as I think many people do, for its epic and unprecedented scale. I just find it very disappointing that armies seem to be going to be limited to 20 unit cards like all the games before. While I get that casual players probably can't handle more than 20 units, I'm sure that the slightly more hardcore players of the TW series would love to have 40 card armies. This way, your army actually feels like an army, not some skirmishing rabble.

Personally, I think it should be an option to choose between 20 or 40 card armies.

[BeastG33]

I play this game, as I think many people do, for its epic and unprecedented scale. I just find it very disappointing that armies seem to be going to be limited to 20 unit cards like all the games before. While I get that casual players probably can't handle more than 20 units, I'm sure that the slightly more hardcore players of the TW series would love to have 40 card armies. This way, your army actually feels like an army, not some skirmishing rabble.

Personally, I think it should be an option to choose between 20 or 40 card armies.

Really - what's the difference between moving two 20-stack armies and one 40-stack army when, in the end, you can still control all 40 units during a battle? Sure, it's a pain to move the single guy I guess, but as long as he's on the same tile as the other army, you'll still be controlling all of them anyway, like in Fall of the Samurai.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Have you played FOTS?

[caissus]

Have you played FOTS?

FOTS doesn't have 40 card armies, only two 20 card armies.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

FOTS doesn't have 40 card armies, only two 20 card armies.

So you can have two armies next to each other. and control 40 units in the battle.

[Adreno]

itll be modded pretty fast, and this time we get adjustable unit cardsizes depending on the size of the army which will mean it will easy to make it look good aswell most likely

[Eofor]

Can I ask where twenty unit armies were confirmed?

[ptoss1]

Not even slightly.
I want the game to be able to run on my CPU thanks.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Who says you can't have 40 units?

[=Vastator=]

I'm not concerned about the 20 unit armies (which can become 40 in battle with 2 stacks). I'm a bit concerned by the fact that the unit sizes are the same since medieval 1 (when you have single core processor at 2 GHz), and it seems that little has been done to optimize the game to support more soldiers in battle, despite having today fast 4-8 core CPUs...

[-=PHX=-Hades]

I'm not concerned about the 20 unit armies (which can become 40 in battle with 2 stacks). I'm a bit concerned by the fact that the unit sizes are the same since medieval 1 (when you have single core processor at 2 GHz), and it seems that little has been done to optimize the game to support more soldiers in battle, despite having today fast 4-8 core CPUs...

Not everybody has a fast 4-8 core CPU.

[ptoss1]

Not everybody has a fast 4-8 core CPU.

Even if you have a 4-8 core processor, you might not be able to run CPU heavy games efficiently.
Having more cores never guarantees better performance, but having less cores does guarantee lower performance.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

Even if you have a 4-8 core processor, you might not be able to run CPU heavy games efficiently.
Having more cores never guarantees better performance, but having less cores does guarantee lower performance.

Also true. My overall point is that some people's PCs may struggle to handle 40 or 80 units. Especially now that we have much bigger battlefields and land/sea battles.

I'm not bummed by army size at all. I've had some VERY big battles on Napoleon and Shogun 2. Would I like it if they were bigger? Sure, but I'm not gonna dwell on it.

And I'm no game developer, but I'm guessing you can't just put twice as many troops in a battle and expect everything to work fine. Not only could it cause performance problems, but you could have pathfinding problems, you would need a whole new UI, you need a whole new AI to know how to handle that many units.

Plus large battles like that would take a LONG time. I don't mind it, but I'm sure some people do.

[HusKatten]

I'd rather have an army of 20 units with the ability to use reinforcement, rather than having 40 units without being able to use reinforcement. Reinforcements creates more dynamic and varying battle situations, if you ask me.

[Bearnation54]

I'm not bumbed at all. If you indeed do find yourself with enough resources and power to create 40 unit army then make 2 20 stack armies and march them side by side and BAM there you go.. You now have a 40 unit army

[Mamertine]

No. the bigger the army the less maneuverability, the less maneuverability the less strategy. 80 units in a siege might be fun once or twice, but will end up turning into a giant blob of people that will take an hour for an army to die off. If you want blob armies this is what unit size is for. Plus, you can control reserves and this would lag like crazy.

[kronpas]

I think its more of a deliberate choice to make sure the game can run on as many systems as possible. If you want, reinforce your stack with another stack to make a 40 units battle, it might be a hassle but not so much.

No. the bigger the army the less maneuverability, the less maneuverability the less strategy. 80 units in a siege might be fun once or twice, but will end up turning into a giant blob of people that will take an hour for an army to die off. If you want blob armies this is what unit size is for. Plus, you can control reserves and this would lag like crazy.

Unit size and army size are proportional to battlefield size and control mechanics (general bird view is the first improvement we see in Rome 2). You cant fight a 80 units battle in current small-ish zied battle maps, and I'm sure city battle would be a PITA to play. Then you have to count additional 80 units as reinforcement, so its really 160 units battle (no one want the cheap "reinforcement" style of E, Nap and Shogun 2 really). No ordinary folk's PC can run a 160 unit battle without turning in to a giant lagfest.

[eregost]

I think its more of a deliberate choice to make sure the game can run on as many systems as possible. If you want, reinforce your stack with another stack to make a 40 units battle, it might be a hassle but not so much.



Unit size and army size are proportional to battlefield size and control mechanics (general bird view is the first improvement we see in Rome 2). You cant fight a 80 units battle in current small-ish zied battle maps, and I'm sure city battle would be a PITA to play. Then you have to count additional 80 units as reinforcement, so its really 160 units battle (no one want the cheap "reinforcement" style of E, Nap and Shogun 2 really). No ordinary folk's PC can run a 160 unit battle without turning in to a giant lagfest.

Actually people run 160 units all the time in multiplayer 4v4. Runs fine.

[kronpas]

Actually people run 160 units all the time in multiplayer 4v4. Runs fine.

8 players controlling 160 units, not a single player controlling 80 units. I myself dont like 4v4 format, battlemap too small for my liking :\

[stradar1]

8 players controlling 160 units, not a single player controlling 80 units. I myself dont like 4v4 format, battlemap too small for my liking :\

Whats the difference if 160 players controlled 160 units 1 unit per player vs 1 player controlling 80 units or even 160 units same performance so I don't get what your saying there.