Large or Huge?

[Intranetusa]

Which settings do you guys play it on? Large o Huge battle settings?

I can play it on huge but the gameplay is a bit different from large...what do you guys recommend?

[Landwalker]

I play it on huge. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I just can?

The issues I run up against are: Maneuvering huge units around the battlefield is clunky and awkward, and is just made even worse when they're phalangite units. You can't really "see" as much of the action, because fewer units will fit on your screen (relatedly, the action will be more "spread out"). Outside of battle, recruiting huge units versus large units has a dramatic effect on the population and growth of your cities, which in turn considerably affects your economies.

On the other hand, playing on huge means a lot more guys with pointy metal sticks running around poking each other.

Cheers.

[Bootsiuv]

I find the sizes in huge more realistic, so I always used to play it on those settings.

Once I figured out how much large will help with the overall choppiness of battles for me, I play large now.

After playing large for so long, I often find huge units unwieldy to say the least.

I would say for realism sake, huge would be the best bet.

[The Celtic Viking]

Huge. The bigger the battle is, the more fun I get out of them.

[Intranetusa]

I find the sizes in huge more realistic, so I always used to play it on those settings.

Once I figured out how much large will help with the overall choppiness of battles for me, I play large now.

After playing large for so long, I often find huge units unwieldy to say the least.

I would say for realism sake, huge would be the best bet.

I might have to take that into consideration. What are your specs?

[CaesarAugustus]

Large. It is easier to maneuver your units, phalanxes don't take a ridiculously long time to destroy, and even on huge the unit sizes are still somewhat small and unrealistic, so that doesn't really count for me.

[Bootsiuv]

My specs are hurting in the game tbh...

Pentium IV 2.7 ghz
Radeon 1600x 256 MB vidoecard
756MB of RAM (ya, I know, I know)
and I know my HD speed is 5200 rpm, if that's at all relevant (which I think it is, but am not sure.

BTW, it's over 3 years old now....any 500 dollar rig of today will likely beat mine hands down, but it's sufficient for most games I own...

[Intranetusa]

Large. It is easier to maneuver your units, phalanxes don't take a ridiculously long time to destroy, and even on huge the unit sizes are still somewhat small and unrealistic, so that doesn't really count for me.

Yeh, that might be a problem...some units are overpowered on the larger unit settings

[russia almighty]

Huge and by God I wish there was a ****ing huge size . I would cream myself if CA made for uber PC's a setting that had some units as large as 1024 men .


Can you imagine the Phalanx battles with that ?

[Landwalker]

Huge and by God I wish there was a ****ing huge size . I would cream myself if CA made for uber PC's a setting that had some units as large as 1024 men .


Can you imagine the Phalanx battles with that ?

Sure can---every battle would end in a draw, because the two opposing phalanxes would never manage to kill or rout their opponent in the 45-minute time limit. Besides, can you imagine the depopulation that would wreck on your settlements?

Cheers.

[Intranetusa]

Sure can---every battle would end in a draw, because the two opposing phalanxes would never manage to kill or rout their opponent in the 45-minute time limit. Besides, can you imagine the depopulation that would wreck on your settlements?

Cheers.

Then that would actually be a DETERRENT to war...lol

[Pharnakes]

I have always played on huge because i feel its is more realistic, not because of the more men (which as people say is still wildley unrealistc) but because it makes the units much more clumsy and hard to manouver, which I feel is better, afterall, in RL a general wouldn't be able to line his untis up exactly, he would just tell them "go over there and do this, that and the other."

I feel that the greater difficulty in manuvering in huge scale is much more realistic, and the slowed down battles actualy give the AI a chance. Also, phlalanxes preform much more realistcly on huge scale, and as I am a principaly Greek player, this means alot to me.


Also the greater impact on population and economy means you actualy have to think before throwing away your levies, afterall if you keep doing that you will rapidly run out, which would have been an issue IRL, IMHO, but it is not an issue with the lower unit scales.

[Landwalker]

I have always played on huge because i feel its is more realistic, not because of the more men (which as people say is still wildley unrealistc) but because it makes the units much more clumsy and hard to manouver, which I feel is better, afterall, in RL a general wouldn't be able to line his untis up exactly, he would just tell them "go over there and do this, that and the other."

That actually gives me the terrible, terrible idea of playing a campaign using only General Cam (instead of RTS Cam), and using the "Place Groups under AI Control" function extensively, so that as the general, you can give units/groups of units general commands, and then they're largely out of your hands.

Think about how chaotic that would be... If you could manage that and still score heroic victories in battles where the odds are grossly against you, I would be most impressed.

Cheers.

[TWFanatic]

Interesting idea.

I use huge. I have to crank my settings down though. Say hello to bald grasslands and pointy feet. I turn unit settings up on small battles though. I never get to zoom in close and actually watch a unit fight in big battles anyways, so I don't mind much.

[Cyclops]

I am enjoying playing on "Huge" as a long time "Large" player.

I started a campaign as Hayasdan with general cam, by god is was interesting but it gave me a constant headache and I had to revert to fixed cam.

You keep turning your head away from the action, there's actually a pioint to posting your general on a hilltop, if you get into a melee its more confusing, and if you're over the crest of a hill you have nfi whats going on with your detached forces (ai control is a must here). I loved it but i just couldn't get used to it.

I switched back to fixed cam and trounced the AS out of Asia Minor.

[Lysander13]

Definitely Huge....The bigger the battles in terms of fighting men the better.

[Malik of Sindh]

I play on Large because my great video card(NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 (128 MB)) can't play on Huge.

[hoom]

*points at Malik & laughs at his Graphics Decelerator*

I play huge, with most stuff maxed, at 1920*1200 and it is great

I've actually had to drop AA down to low & unit detail to high for EB 1.0 to keep my framerate above slideshow :(

[Malik of Sindh]

Hey,Im getting a new one soon!RAM is what keeps my comp going!

[Leão magno]

Huge, and I would play it in the "hugiest" if my Pc could handle it since I would love the idea of a battle fulled with units and really have tousands of soldiers as the advertises say instead of role playing 2800 men as a 28000 men army, I would love to have a real army, something like the 80000 of Cannae and so on! Believe that would make for a real historical and challenging game!

[blank]

Huge. It's more realistic and also consider that the general did not have total control over his soldiers as in TW, and neither did he have a line of sight to all of them, so i have no problem with them being less manouverable

[Intrepid Adventurer]

I've always played on huge, because I thought it would be more realistic. So although the units might be less wieldy, I never noticed the difference. I think units are maneuverable enough.

[Malik of Sindh]

Also Huge drains settlements of their population.Ambrakia gets its population killed when you recruit 2 deuterois.

[The Internet]

Huge with all the setting on the highest possible settings.

[TWFanatic]

I would kill for your computer.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Don't play much atm.

Currently the same for me, but may revert it to large though.

[Centurion Crastinus]

I always play on the huge setting. The way I figure, it adds to the realism for several reasons. One is that it does make it more difficult to control, but imagine how difficult it would have been if you were an actual general controing the battle without the birds eye view that EB gives you. Also, for the romans at least, one unit of Principes is roughly the size of one Maniple, and one unit of Marian Legionairres represents 1/2 a cohort. Thus, the huge setting allows the player to recreate a legion pretty close to a 1:2 scale.

[The Internet]

I would kill for your computer.

Me and my wife built it up from scratch, it took us about half a year to find the money for everything and then we had to wait a while til we moved into our new place so that we could get the internet hooked up but it was all worth it.


Cost us about £750 altogether (monitor included).

[Watchman]

I use huge, for much the same reasons people have already mentioned; the bigger clunkier units just feel "more right". And avoiding the population depletion is certainly a major encouragement for building all those sewers and doctors and whatnots...

And, yes, my comp can take it. At highest unit detail and low anti-aliasing to boot, in 32-bit 1280x1024.

[Batahr]

Large, because ...
I think because that's close to the MTW unit sizes I was used to. But my current PC could handle huge I assume (never tried )