Battlesizer - How many soldiers do you manage to get on the field?

[Lord Rust]

To me, the massive battles is my absolute favourite thing in mount and blade, and frankly i'd much rather have 1.000 soldiers lag free (with slightly better ai) than a gfx upgrade, normally I can play with about 300 soldiers on the field without lag (I haven't measured fps but it runs smoothly with no chopping, and i'm not really an fps whore).

How many are you guys able to get on the field?
Do you have any tricks you'd like to share on methods of getting more soldiers and less lag?
And what bits of your computer have more to say when you try increasing your limit? (if this is painfully obvious, forgive me, I am rather a tech-nub).

Personally, i've noticed that if I set a fully mounted army vs a khergit army, I can get about 400-450 soldiers on the field with hardly any lag at all, given how the soldiers will naturally spread evenly across the field, creating a very cool but frustrating as time passes battlefield *mutters and curses about chasing down those godamn horse archers*

 

[Dragon13]

I play on an old laptop, and to cut down on lag, 100-130ish. Yeah, it sucks, but it cuts down the lag.

 

[Lord Rust]

I play on an old laptop, and to cut down on lag, 100-130ish. Yeah, it sucks, but it cuts down the lag.

Heh, you're lucky then, i'm away visiting family atm and i've tried the game on two laptops, neither will run it.

The lag is so bad that the adventure map is hardly playable, and thats with *every* setting on the lowest, not quite sure why that is but *shrug*

 

[laminblake]

I GET to 500 before i start lagging, its fun as s#%^

 

[amondrubee]

1000 on a self modified power laptop. I had all graphical settings set to max as well.

 

[AA0]

I find that uneven battles lag worse by having all the soldiers in one location, so I can only get about 200 or so on.  But I do tend to keep my graphics quality up high, I'd rather have it look decent and have a moderate amount of soldiers than the clunky Native look and a thousand. 

 

[Sir Lulzalot]

250.

 

[Lord Rust]

1000 on a self modified power laptop. I had all graphical settings set to max as well.

What sort of specs do you have for that?

 

[OL 512]

280

for some mods i use 180 - 140...

I hope my new computer come soon 

 

[kc102]

I had it @ 250 but it crashed in a castle siege.
200 now, well 199 as I can't get an exact 200

 

[ddrake]

HW: 2005 PC
AMD Athlon 64 3400+
2Gb RAM
GEForce 6200
battle size = 180 (usually)

I can actually play with up to 250 but the problem is when troops are spawned. That causes a serious block of the action at 250. At 180 I still experience it but to a less extent. Besides it's always annoying as it always happens just as you were going to hit somebody...

Besides with 250 had crash in a siege too.

[...] a very cool but frustrating as time passes battlefield *mutters and curses about chasing down those godamn horse archers*

you have my sympathy for that

 

[Lord Rust]

I used to have problems with siege crashes myself, I discovered the reason was the buildup of corpses on the battlefield.

Lower the max amount of corpses to some low number or to zero and you shouldn't expirience the problem anymore during sieges.

 

[Kayne]

i have 200 soldier with everything (save anti-aliasing) on. And ENB Series stuff
run at 35fps minimum until i look at the pile of corpses during seiges (12fps roughly)
and oddly, i get lower framerates with DX7, but i think it has to do with Windows 7 

1000 on a self modified power laptop. I had all graphical settings set to max as well.

i highly doubt this. Especially since it's a laptop.

 

[JohnLukeG]

On flat terrain, I can run up to about 500, but when it's very mountainous, I can hardly run with 50.

 

[Varric]

over 300, but I always have problems with respawn and castle sieges that I have to turn it down
Having more ram would probably best if you want to have more units on the field and having quad core helps a lot

 

[wanderlust13]

On my laptop I have the battle sizer set at 300.  Graphical settings aren't that high, but I found a good compromise that looks decent enough while allowing 300 soldiers to collide.  My specs are athlon 64 x2 @ 1.9ghz, 2gb ram, integrated geforce graphics.  I don't think it takes a super computer to field lots of soldiers, you just have to be willing to compromise.  I think the game setting that will help you the most is ragdolls, I set mine to 1.  I used to get more lag when it was set at max.

 

[CalCD]

with all settings at maximum, i could probably do about 200.
however, i was playing a graphics intensive mod and i could only do about 100  ()
anyone else get slowdown when playing chronicles of talera with the large forests?

 

[Dragon13]

I got tired of lag, so I switched it down to 75 ( ) But, at least it doesn't randomly freeze.

 

[Monglor]

220 in highest graphics settings barring FSAA and also I have a body limit, rather than all corpses left in the world. This is as high as I can get it without crashes during sieges. Were it not for that I could have a lot more but I can't be bothered to swap it over every time I get a big siege. The siege crashes are the killer, I believe they are related to some sort of graphics overload. It'd be good if somebody could mod it so that sieges ran on a different battle size.

 

[Lord Rust]

220 in highest graphics settings barring FSAA and also I have a body limit, rather than all corpses left in the world. This is as high as I can get it without crashes during sieges. Were it not for that I could have a lot more but I can't be bothered to swap it over every time I get a big siege. The siege crashes are the killer, I believe they are related to some sort of graphics overload. It'd be good if somebody could mod it so that sieges ran on a different battle size.

All the corpses gather up in a bunch on the wall combined with the mass of people, once the corpses pile up the mass becomes too much in a small area and the game will crash, turn max corpses down to 5 or 0 or something, and you should no longer have issues during sieges.