When can we drool !

[Oaty]

With increasing computer technology, how long will it be when programmers can effectively and efficiently put 100,000 men on the battlefield. Currently I can have up to 10,000 men, all the same type of unit and no missile troops without too much of hangup. 6000 troops if it's a mixed variety. I'm sure there's plenty of other orgers here who'd just drool at being able to fight such battles.

[Bombasticus Maximus]

It's just a matter of time and depends on what graphics card you have insode your PC to handle that amount of men. You may be able to do it in MTW2??

[The Spartan (Returns)]

With increasing computer technology, how long will it be when programmers can effectively and efficiently put 100,000 men on the battlefield. Currently I can have up to 10,000 men, all the same type of unit and no missile troops without too much of hangup. 6000 troops if it's a mixed variety. I'm sure there's plenty of other orgers here who'd just drool at being able to fight such battles.

lucky! i can only play up to 4800 men! (sometimes itstill goes fast if it goes over the max)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We could probably have 100,000 shogun quality men on the field. But they usually try to up the quality of the the graphics rather than the quantity of men, so it will be a while I think.

[naut]

I agree with Sasaki Kojiro, it will be a while.

[Vladimir]

You can do it now if you pay the price. The question is, do you want to? Imagine having to manage 100,000 troops and reacting to 100,000 enemy troops. Besides, do you want to take on the horde? How many 200,000 man battles have been fought in the Medieval and Ancient periods?

[naut]

, You could recreate the Persian Wars.

[Avicenna]

You can do it now if you pay the price. The question is, do you want to? Imagine having to manage 100,000 troops and reacting to 100,000 enemy troops. Besides, do you want to take on the horde? How many 200,000 man battles have been fought in the Medieval and Ancient periods?

A lot. Think Persians, and Cannae. Until the Somme in 1916, Cannae has been the single battle with the most kills, with a total Roman defeat inflicted by Hannibal. The dead numbered, I think, one fifth of Rome's population.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

You can do it now if you pay the price. The question is, do you want to? Imagine having to manage 100,000 troops and reacting to 100,000 enemy troops. Besides, do you want to take on the horde? How many 200,000 man battles have been fought in the Medieval and Ancient periods?

funny it would look more than 500,00 troops in LOTR3. it HARDLY looks like 500,00. more like 50,000 or 60.

[Ciaran]

You can do it now if you pay the price. The question is, do you want to? Imagine having to manage 100,000 troops and reacting to 100,000 enemy troops.

I suppose the point is to have larger units, a thousand soldiers per unit instead of a hundred. Or maybe a command structure with more levels of command, like the Take Command series. The latter would be definitely needed if the size of the smallest unit is to remain about a hundred men, I find twenty individual units are what can be reasonably well managed without getting too hectic. Imagine you had in RTW battles to take care of two hundred units

Of course, that would require a far larger battlefield map as well, on Huge setting I´ve got the feeling that I lack room for maneuvering if I use a full-stack army. In the end I wonder what it would really gain, apart from a loss of overview.

[Fwapper]

That really would be too many troops. The map would have to be massive, and therefore take ages to examine. It would just be impractical.

Until the Somme in 1916...

Just so people get an idea of the scale of the Somme... on the first day, there were 60,000 British casualties, and over the entire offensive, there were 1.2 million casualties on both sides. All for seven miles of mud.