Quad/Triple Core CPUs..Will Empire be optimised?

[Belgolas]

Keeping the CPU debate aside, I still don't get how you managed over 10000 men. The custom battles have what, 8 armies in all, on huge scale, with full stacks..........I had done some math, I could just reach to 10000 in theory. Perhaps you could elaborate more?

Well in custom battles with 8 armies with huge unit scale and having the maximum soldiers (150 per unit) and each is full you can have up to 24 000 men on one battle. Now that is to many troops for current PC(mine gets like less then 5 FPS with that many troops). Now to prove that I can have more then 10 000 troops I just played a battle with 12 000 peasants (for a quick battle) and it was pretty smooth. So I could probably do more. Going to try to see the max I can run with out it being a slide show.

[Pinxit]

Well in custom battles with 8 armies with huge unit scale and having the maximum soldiers (150 per unit) and each is full you can have up to 24 000 men on one battle. Now that is to many troops for current PC(mine gets like less then 5 FPS with that many troops). Now to prove that I can have more then 10 000 troops I just played a battle with 12 000 peasants (for a quick battle) and it was pretty smooth. So I could probably do more. Going to try to see the max I can run with out it being a slide show.

I do 14,000 troops as a maximum playable limit. Everything over that is to laggy. I play on a:

AMD Dual Core 64 - 3 GHZ
Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB
4 GB RAM

[Belgolas]

I do 14,000 troops as a maximum playable limit. Everything over that is to laggy. I play on a:

AMD Dual Core 64 - 3 GHZ
Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB
4 GB RAM

That is actually far better then I though you could get. That is cool.

I just tried 3 more battles.

First at 15,000 peasants lol. That battle had fairly smooth gameplay.

I then tried another battle with 18,000 troops and that was playable but had some lag.

And lastly I play with 24,000 troops and that is to laggy but I can control the units and all as it is still a few frames per second.

Mind you all games I play are at these settings of....

1920 x 1200

Shader 2, 8xAA, 16 X AF, Effects and unit detail at very high, Shadows at Extreme, everything else is at high (the highest possible).

I really got to say Extreme shadows are so much better then very high shadows.

Anyways my system spec is...

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.6ghz
4 GB of DDR2 @ 1066 mhz
4870 X2
Windows XP.

[hellenes]

That is actually far better then I though you could get. That is cool.

I just tried 3 more battles.

First at 15,000 peasants lol. That battle had fairly smooth gameplay.

I then tried another battle with 18,000 troops and that was playable but had some lag.

And lastly I play with 24,000 troops and that is to laggy but I can control the units and all as it is still a few frames per second.

Mind you all games I play are at these settings of....

1920 x 1200

Shader 2, 8xAA, 16 X AF, Effects and unit detail at very high, Shadows at Extreme, everything else is at high (the highest possible).

I really got to say Extreme shadows are so much better then very high shadows.

Anyways my system spec is...

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.6ghz
4 GB of DDR2 @ 1066 mhz
4870 X2
Windows XP.

that card of yours and the CPU are 2008 monsters and they struggle to max out a 2006 game....
Heh and people still believe that Crysis is the most demanding game on the planet....

[Pinxit]

that card of yours and the CPU are 2008 monsters and they struggle to max out a 2006 game....
Heh and people still believe that Crysis is the most demanding game on the planet....

Yes, but that is quite unfair :: Crysis is more demanding in its own way. I mean, I am certain that Crysis would be unplayable if you were to fill the screen with 20,000 enemy soldiers, as would most games. Especially Crysis, I might add.

[Pinxit]

Yes, but that is quite unfair :: Crysis is more demanding in its own way. I mean, I am certain that Crysis would be unplayable if you were to fill the screen with 20,000 enemy soldiers, as would most games. Especially Crysis, I might add.

You make perfect sense. Although, I must add, it is still very remarkable that a game that was launched in 2006 cant be played fully even with todays best consumer hardware. Total War designed for the future? Maybe in 2012 I will be able to play Empire Total War without being limited by numbers.

[hellenes]

Yes, but that is quite unfair :: Crysis is more demanding in its own way. I mean, I am certain that Crysis would be unplayable if you were to fill the screen with 20,000 enemy soldiers, as would most games. Especially Crysis, I might add.

Crysis in its original form (no mods) and M2TW in its original form...M2TW is FAAAR MORE DEMANDING....
Custom battles
8 armies of 20x150 units each= 24000
Now kingdoms which is essentially the same game:
8 armies of 20x250 units each= 40000
MAYBE an 8 core CPU with 4 Dual core GPUs will run that at 30fps....Crysis cant even touch the level of hardware demand of TW series....

[Pinxit]

Crysis in its original form (no mods) and M2TW in its original form...M2TW is FAAAR MORE DEMANDING....
Custom battles
8 armies of 20x150 units each= 24000
Now kingdoms which is essentially the same game:
8 armies of 20x250 units each= 40000
MAYBE an 8 core CPU with 4 Dual core GPUs will run that at 30fps....Crysis cant even touch the level of hardware demand of TW series....

Well, yes, Im not arguing that it is not. Im simply making the point that when people say that Crysis is the most demanding game ever, they are refering to its demanding visuals, which far surpasses the visuals in any Total War game. My point being that even a 20 year old strategy game would be more demanding than Crysis if you allow enough units on the screen at the same time.