Anyone fought a battle with 8000+ men in full version?

[avesta]

I'm wondering if anyone has fought a huge battle with at least 8 or so thousand men or more, in the full version. I'm interested to see how much it affects framerates, and when these huge battles become cpu limited.

[Lusted]

I've fought one with 6000. I had minimal lag when all troops were engaged.

[The_Dark_Legion]

I've fought one with 6000. I had minimal lag when all troops were engaged.

how many fps?

[Germanicus75]

how many fps?

Also, what are your game settings and system specs, Lusted?

[Germanicus75]

I'm also interested to see what the max number of men on the field ppl are finding with the full game when they try a custom battle (i.e. when the numbers go red and they can't add any more men). Thanks.

[Lusted]

how many fps?

This was at the gold code day, fraps wasn't on any of the pc's.

[Ceasar]

The amazing thing about this battles was the performance. The pc's we were playing on had the following specs:

Intel P4 3.0ghz
2gb RAM
Geforce 7600Gt.

Taken from the Gold Code Day Event Report thread.

[Germanicus75]

Thanks, just read it....just wondering on the game settings now Lusted...

[Salil]

everything highest and huge unit size.. from the report as well :wink:

[Germanicus75]

Oops must have missed that - thanks! :-)

[General Dissaray]

I remember reading a long time ago the engen was theoreticaly capable or handeling more than 10,000 men on the field. I am interested if they lived up to the theoretical claims.

[Spart]

I used custom battle selector's biggest battle in the demo, (I think it was England, HRE, Spain, France, Aztecs) at least 7-8 thousand men I quess. Couldn't run it at all, fps was 1-2, even on lowest possible settings. So how is it in full version for a bit weaker cpu's?
P4 3GHz's and Athlon 3000+'s? But meh, I don't need battles of that size, I'm happy with my 3 or 4 thousand men

[Napoleon of Scotland]

I remember reading a long time ago the engen was theoreticaly capable or handeling more than 10,000 men on the field. I am interested if they lived up to the theoretical claims.

I think RTW claimed the same thing. So the biggest and best computers will run 10 000, meanwhile the rest of us will settle for RTW scale.

[edmont]

I used custom battle selector's biggest battle in the demo, (I think it was England, HRE, Spain, France, Aztecs) at least 7-8 thousand men I quess. Couldn't run it at all, fps was 1-2, even on lowest possible settings. So how is it in full version for a bit weaker cpu's?
P4 3GHz's and Athlon 3000+'s? But meh, I don't need battles of that size, I'm happy with my 3 or 4 thousand men

Not quite like on Demo(I for one go to check price for better VGA tomorow)From other side I'm not sure after I've installed latest driver for VGA it turned better

[avesta]

What I'm trying to figure out is whether the huge battles are CPU or GPU limited when running high in-game settings/high AA and AF/high resolution. Rome was purely CPU limited during large battles for me (even at the highest settings), but M2TW has a lot more eye candy so I'm wondering whether to upgrade my CPU or video card.

[Germanicus75]

Well, I'm figuring it will put equal strain on the CPU *and* put more strain on the GPU than Rome, so better have both a good CPU and GPU

[Sommo James]

I think this game is very GPU dependent, indeed if you turn the camera in the way that the troops are not on the screen the fps grow a lot.

[General Dissaray]

That could be due to the fact that the CPU dose not have to pull up the files rendering the soldiers though. It can just run the couculations and remember the results so it can go faster and display what ever you are looking at with more FPS. Thought it could be a GPU thing still there. I think the only way to know for sure would be to pull the game apart and look at the codes and what they tend to.

[Zhuge_Liang]

In one of those custom battles made for the gold demo i fought a battle which must have had 10000 men or more at max settings. The performance really started to die (although strangely after a while the frame rate increased when the troops moved from the highyly compact starting position -> before people started being killed). I would be interested to see what improvments there are in the final version. I'd say between 7000-10000 men my frame rate halved. My specs are:-

AMD 4800+ dual core
X1900XTX
2GB RAM

[Sommo James]

That could be due to the fact that the CPU dose not have to pull up the files rendering the soldiers though. It can just run the couculations and remember the results so it can go faster and display what ever you are looking at with more FPS. Thought it could be a GPU thing still there. I think the only way to know for sure would be to pull the game apart and look at the codes and what they tend to.

I think my next upgrade will be the CPU (I have to buy a 939 dual core now that they have come out of production), so I will pass from Venice 3200+ from Manchester 4600+, the VGA will remain the same. I'll let you now the results.
Now on Otumba, at the starting, zooming out just a little in the way that camera display all the units (spanish and aztecs), at the resolution of 1280*1024, and using Fraps I have the following results:
-EVERYTHING on max (yes, AA at 6X and shadows on exterme) I get 10 FPS
-same as before except for shadows that are totally disabled I get 17 FPS
-same as first point but whith shadows and reflections disabled I get 24 FPS
-EVERYTHING on lowest as posibble I get 36 FPS
So i guess that the city of Otumba entirely reflected in the mini-lake is pretty heavy to handle for my poor VGA
My specs are:
Ahlon 64 3200+
2 GB DDR 400
Sapphire X1800XT 512 GDDR3

PS Sorry for the possible mistakes, English is not my first laguage, not even the second really.