How about 1500 and 2000 troops on the battlefield?

[iRkshz]

Three reasons:

1. Nice computer and game console.
Many people know this moment when you finally get a good game console or computer and you want to get the most out of the game. This applies to both graphical quality and combat capabilities - such as a lot of troops. So why not 1500-2000 troops? I think the number of troops on the battlefield puts a lot of pressure on the requirements for the game.

2. No reinforcement management.
I noticed that the reinforcement system is not working very well (no management). I mean, at the beginning of the big battle, you need archers and infantry (for me), and only then cavalry (each has its own way). If there is no reinforcement management, then this can be solved by the number of troops on the battlefield.

3. AI problem with reinforcements.
For example - I won a lot of battles that I shouldn't have won, just because the AI is bad at managing reinforcements, even when it has a double or triple advantage.
If the AI had all the troops at once (or at most of them), it would balance the battles.

Anyway, I don't think it's difficult to allow players to make 1500-2000 troops on the battlefield. This is all optional. But it's always good when there is such an opportunity. And it will add epicness.

P.S. Or how about removing the limit optionally?

 

[NotSoSerious]

Agree, but you know at max they will allow you to edit in game files

 

[iRkshz]

Agree, but you know at max they will allow you to edit in game files

editing files is not a usability way
not everyone knows how to do this, and not everyone will do it, because no one knows how the game will react to file changes
so I think it would be correct to add three options to the menu:
1500 max
2000 max
unlimited

or something like that

 

[NotSoSerious]

even 1500 would be significant

 

[iRkshz]

even 1500 would be significant

I'll tell you on my own
if I had the opportunity to make an unlimited number of troops on the battlefield - I would sacrifice graphic settings (now I have the best quality)
why? because the epic battle is more interesting than the quality of the graphics IMHO

but here comes the second problem - the size of the maps
I already wrote about this many times, half of the maps are not ready to place many troops on the battlefield (for example, villages or canyons, or maps where the starting distance between large armies is 200-250 meters)

 

[NotSoSerious]

if the map size scaled with party size that would be nice, and I would also sacrifice graphics quallity 100%

 

[anoddhermit]

I would love an option to use different graphic settings for different battle sizes.

I'd totally have potato graphics to have full doomstacks fighting it out.

Though some of the issue may be more about so many calculations going on rather than graphical fidelity.

 

[yangot]

pretty sure configurable battle size that exceeds 1000 would not release anytime soon. For an EA game that still under development, they would not like to receive data from wide parameters.

Just imagine dev team received lots of report regarding game crash and performance issue, then they spent hours checking it but just to realize that bunch of reports are from users with bad computer that running the game above the recommended battle size.

For now, 1000 battle size is most stable for the current EA version of the game.

 

[Mad Vader]

Just imagine dev team received lots of report regarding game crash and performance issue, then they spent hours checking it but just to realize that bunch of reports are from users with bad computer that running the game above the recommended battle size.

This is exactly what Taleworlds would say and it's stupid.
Basically you are saying "let's not give the people with good PCs the option to have more fun, so we'll have less tech support to do".

 

[yangot]

This is exactly what Taleworlds would say and it's stupid.

its standard for all type of companies or businesses that provide products and services.

 

[KingEroc1st]

problem is the sieges are already a cluster fxxkfest if the defenders have more than 4-500 men at once.

 

[Mad Vader]

its standard for all type of companies or businesses that provide products and services.

It's not standard to remove legitimate options from customers when they could instead warn their stupid customers not to do stupid things.
It's possible for the game to detect that a PC is not up to the current settings, and explain to the player he needs to lower the graphics settings starting with the battle size. Whether it's in the option screen, with a low FPS warning during battles or in a crash report. You just need to communicate things and if that fails, there are forums and company tech support.