Is there a reason for Hardcoded limits?

[Allu X]

Simply as the question says really, what is the reason that in past Total War games there have been hardcoded limits such as 199 regions + sea, or 500 units?

How easy would it have been for CA to decide to increase the unit limit in M2:TW to say, 1000? A simple text variable?

It just seems that seeing the fuss over the limits in the previous games for modders, wouldn't CA remove the region/unit + other caps altogether for Empire: Total War? Or have they?

I heard that there is no region limit in Empire, which is good now because it can mean an extremely fun campaign map with a lot more to do, but what about the unit sizes and number of them?

I was thinking maybe the reason for the limits in past Total War games and in Empire is because it causes instability?

Anyway please discuss (sorry for so many questions here)

[Polemists]

The reason normally would be graphcis I think, and stability issues.

They are trying to improve AI with advanced codes now. So it's much easier to do code for a set number and test it then for a countless number of variables.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

The engines in last TW games were not as good as this one. Also, AI played a big role in them just like Polemists pointed out.

[Polemists]

This is espically true if you watch the tactics video.

The AI now has a plot. So when you go at them, they say, ahh, I have this many calvary, this many infantry I am going to try and do this formation

Then if you scatter them they are going to try and reform or try a new formation.


For formational combat with lines and formations marching, it is rather difficult at 10,000 let alone at 20,000, 30,000, etc.

I don't know coding but I do know science, a controlled variable is always easier to test then a variety of uncontrolled ones.

[Allu X]

This is espically true if you watch the tactics video.

The AI now has a plot. So when you go at them, they say, ahh, I have this many calvary, this many infantry I am going to try and do this formation

Then if you scatter them they are going to try and reform or try a new formation.


For formational combat with lines and formations marching, it is rather difficult at 10,000 let alone at 20,000, 30,000, etc.

I don't know coding but I do know science, a controlled variable is always easier to test then a variety of uncontrolled ones.

But won't this make the AI become too predictable and scripted?

[Polemists]

Yes and no.

If I give Army A 30 different formations depending on 30 different scenarios, with 30 different fall back scenarios. You've got a plethroa of options, plus the AI can constantly switch back and forth.


In previous TW games the formula was simple. Frontal attack, flank if possible, charge calavary against either weaker units or bull rush your general.

Now, if you do frontal attack it has maybe 30 or 50 formations to choose from. It can garrison, it can build fortifications, it can also the map. High and low terrain, certain ambush poistions, and slowly the strategies build. Not to mention this is not simple numbers, the AI may see you like to use horse charges in the flank and suddenly mid game switch it's strategy.

Where you once had one strategy it may now have 5 different options of how to employ that strategy.

Combine this with the fact that factions are unique and they are going off historical stratgies there could be thousands of options.

Now if they let 30,000 troops on the board, what strategy can the AI use? Formation loses all meaning at that many numbers as it is merely a brawl. It would have to subcode, by dividing units into groups or armies, and then use those armies in formations. Which the Ai is currently not designed to do.

The AI is designed to fight a player on the single player campaign, possibly with allies or reinforcements on either side. It is not designed to field 30,000 troops against 10,000 troops.

Even if a pc could handle it, the AI would become confused and the combat would just be a mess of chaos.