Raise the numbers

[NED]

Raise the battlesize from 40 to 64 or something...Mount and Blade being a fun game running well, 40 is nice, 60+ is nicer.

 

[Janus]

You can unofficially raise the battle size much higher (be careful how high you set it though):
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,8058.0.html

The thing is, lesser systems will get all sorts of crashes from battle sizes over about 40, which is the reason I surmise Armagan set that as the max.

 

[jagger]

I think something like 60 should be the max though, with say a marker showing the recommended battle size on most machines.  Just to be able to change the battle size higher and lower without running the battle size changer.

 

[Archonsod]

You'd possibly need to rebalance the tactics skill if you did increase the size.

 

[Eird-Way]

. . . but then the tactics skill is obviously a gamey contrivance to cover the fact that the game allows you to have more soldiers than it can handle at once.

I had great fun with the mesoamerican mod in .731, watching two lines of thirty dudes with atlatls and shields take fire for two more lines of thirty dudes with bows. And when I went around to flank the bowmen, the framerate was silk when I couldn't see anyone.

I therefore take this opportunity to reiterate that a good LOD system will make this game truly flourish. If this game could handle fifty or a hundred guys on a side (which in all honesty it should be able to do given the level of detail), all those arguments you guys are constantly having about formations might actually have some meaning.

 

[PIL313]

i think it would be really cool to see 100 on each side charging at each other but i don't think my cpu could handle that but it would be cool.

 

[Tarrak]

This is a beta...

I can't see why Armagan shouldn't make it so that we can set the limit a bit higher. At least if not for just finding the upper limit of the general computer. That way we could arrive at a more 'tested' result, perhaps 60 is a workable limit for many computers... The slider could get some sort of warning the higher up it gets?

 

[thaimodz]

A normal slider, limit up to 60. And another button 'Set Value' which warns the user first then let them kick the number up to their desire using a number box.

 

[Cajesar]

There should just be no limit to potential battle size. You should be able to set the battle size as high as you want, and just test it for yourself to find out how many people/battle your PC can handle. Why have Armagan do it, when it woulod be so easy to do it yourself? All he needs to do is make it so the slider can go further, and we can all leave this thread happy as clams.

 

[Janus]

There should just be no limit to potential battle size. You should be able to set the battle size as high as you want, and just test it for yourself to find out how many people/battle your PC can handle. Why have Armagan do it, when it woulod be so easy to do it yourself? All he needs to do is make it so the slider can go further, and we can all leave this thread happy as clams.

And then we can have a flood of people going to Bug Reports and Customer Support saying they keep getting crashes in battle and can't figure out why.

 

[Cajesar]

Which is where the warning mesage comes in, explaining why the game might crash if you have 64 mbs of ram and take the battle number up to 190.

 

[HardCode]

Who needs a warning message for that? Armagan, I am sure, has already decided the definition of "minimum specs" and is developing to that. Of course, as time goes on, it can change. But why allow people to overexceed the target minimum/maximum PC for the game, and allow the floodgates of complaints as YAH-noos states above?

 

[Cajesar]

                                                                                                           

If                                                  Because
You                                                They
Put                                                Would
In                                                  Have
A                                                    Been
Warning                                          Warned.
Message
They
Would
Not
Post
Complaints,                                             

 

[Andrei]

Just as if you showed this every time someone started a new topic, people would read it.



EDIT: NEWS JUST IN: Apparently, some people are still not using the search function, despite the obvious warning!  Could it be that some people just don't read warning notices?

 

[calandale]

hee hee.

 

[NED]

You can unofficially raise the battle size much higher (be careful how high you set it though):
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,8058.0.html

The thing is, lesser systems will get all sorts of crashes from battle sizes over about 40, which is the reason I surmise Armagan set that as the max.

You don't have to set it above 40 atleast give us the ones who can that little extra feature

 

[Andrei]

I don't know how easy it is for a program to detect computer settings.

If it's quick to run and easy to code, you could add in an

IF (RAM > 1023MB) THEN (MAX_BATTLE_SIZE=200)
ELIF (RAM > 511MB) THEN (MAX_BATTLE_SIZE=100)
ELSE (MAX_BATTLE_SIZE=50).

Having said that, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest - I have to have mine in the twenties.

 

[Archonsod]

. . . but then the tactics skill is obviously a gamey contrivance to cover the fact that the game allows you to have more soldiers than it can handle at once.

You think so? So you think some tactical genius wouldn't attempt to place his troops in a position where he can defeat the enemy in detail, rather than lining them up and attempting to take on the entire army at once?

]
I don't know how easy it is for a program to detect computer settings.

Its not just the RAM that determines it though. Someone could have 2 Gb of Ram and still be using an integrated card. Or you might have someone with excellent specs but a really badly configured Windows. It would probably take an entire program in itself to determine the final performance of the PC, and even then it would still be a best guess
Upping the maximum and just letting people try it would be the best way to work it I guess, but the big problem there is how much of the code is set up for this battlesize. We know the AI has problems, I could see it deploying its 60 Swadian Sharpshooters at once and the entire battle consisting of "Swadian Sharpshooter killed by Swadian Sharpshooter"

 

[Andrei]

My little brother and I have identical computers, apart from some extra ram which he added.  We both have low-end internal graphics cards and about 1.5GHz CPUs.  However, whilst I am limited to under thirty people per battle, he can run about 80 smoothly and up to 200 (as many as I've seen him try) without crashing.  So I think RAM is the limiting factor here.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I have 240MB, he has just over 1GB.

 

[Archonsod]

RAM helps, but the engine also puts a stress on the graphics card too. Thing with integrated cards is the system takes up the slack the card can't cope with, so if he has more RAM it's going to assist in both areas.