Huge units/nullfies cavalry and speed

[Oaty]

Well anyways for me it seems that huge units is much better at nullifying cavalries effects. Plus it is much easier to form a solid line. The other thing it does is allows troops to hold out just a bit longer to allow a tactical maneuver. Now for regular size units and such it does seem units do break too fast before you can maneuver. So if the speed or cavalry is killing you you might fare much better on huge unit sizes but hopefully your comp can handle that

[Red Harvest]

Well anyways for me it seems that huge units is much better at nullifying cavalries effects. Plus it is much easier to form a solid line. The other thing it does is allows troops to hold out just a bit longer to allow a tactical maneuver. Now for regular size units and such it does seem units do break too fast before you can maneuver. So if the speed or cavalry is killing you you might fare much better on huge unit sizes but hopefully your comp can handle that

Thanks for the report. I was considering this (although I didn't like anything but standard size in MTW.)

Phalanx and spear units should be double sized anyway. They need enough men to create a long front since they are densely packed. I was thinking of modding this and adjusting price accordingly.

Speeds might be OK if the unit scale was the same. But units are about 1/10th their actual combat scale, while speed is full and map is decent size. This really impacts flanking and such.

[Oaty]

Another thing on huge units(wich is a great improvement) is a huge unit cost the same as if you were playing on small unit sizes. The only downfall is on small unit sizes it takes away less of the population. So huge unit sizes is a gift to keep populations down but a downfall if you are going for growth. Also huge units do'nt take any extra time to train over small units.

[son of spam]

Why would CA only want to make the game playable on huge unit size? Surely they could have made an option for people with modest machines (like me) to slow down the speed enough or something to make the game fun on large or standard unit size also?

If I really want a clickfest I'll go back to playing castle blood in AOK.

[Thoros of Myr]

Phalanx and spear units should be double sized anyway. They need enough men to create a long front since they are densely packed. I was thinking of modding this and adjusting price accordingly.


This would good and a good tradeoff for people with lower spec machines since not every unit will be huge as would be the case with turning on huge units.

[Turbo]

Why would CA only want to make the game playable on huge unit size? Surely they could have made an option for people with modest machines (like me) to slow down the speed enough or something to make the game fun on large or standard unit size also?

If I really want a clickfest I'll go back to playing castle blood in AOK.

I would like to see more games that cater to GOOD machines with state of the art graphic cards instead of dumbing them to run on crappy PC's.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I would like to see more games that cater to GOOD machines with state of the art graphic cards instead of dumbing them to run on crappy PC's.

Well, CA (or is it Activision?) has shown that it is trying to appeal to the maximun number people as possible (could that be an important principle in business, by any chance?). And so, catering to only the people with Alienware PCs will not accomplish that goal.

Some games (don't know about strategy, but certainly shooters) favor strong computers. Maybe the next generation of Total War games will have even more power (hopefully not until I can afford the latest Alienware, though).

I myself am happy with the current state, since my laptop is mediocre (sp?) at best.

[Thoros of Myr]

I would like to see more games that cater to GOOD machines with state of the art graphic cards instead of dumbing them to run on crappy PC's.


In some ways I agree with this but when it comes to making money it's not good business and for that reason you arent going to see many hardcore, bleeding edge engines with the exception of first person shooters since most of them these days are just a showcase for the graphics engine. The only other games in the last few years that have purely been trying to push the limits is flight sims which are sadly becoming more and more rare. The amount of 3D, detailed troops RTW can display, animate, and calculate is quite impressive and does push the envelope a bit.

Check this out if you want to see some bleeding edge stuff that runs on current gen cards http://www.artificialstudios.com/index.php ~:)

[Doug-Thompson]

I would like to see more games that cater to GOOD machines with state of the art graphic cards instead of dumbing them to run on crappy PC's.

The PC game industry used to do exactly that. They got killed by consoles. That wasn't the only reason, but it was a big part of it.

Drop a Playstation 2 game in any PS2 anywhere and it will play. Drop a PC game in a PC and it might play. Might not.

Cutting edge is a niche market.

[Turbo]

The PC game industry used to do exactly that. They got killed by consoles. That wasn't the only reason, but it was a big part of it.

Drop a Playstation 2 game in any PS2 anywhere and it will play. Drop a PC game in a PC and it might play. Might not.

Cutting edge is a niche market.

A good machine and state of the art video does not imply cutting edge mate. When I start reading about ppl complaining about game lag and not being able to run various features, I have to chuckle. People will lay down $50 for a game that is graphically intensive then will try to run it on an old clunky PC. It is like going out to buy brand new hubcaps for a beat-up oil leaking car with 100,000 miles on it.