Real System Requirements?

[hrotha]

This is something I've asked a couple of times but which I haven't seen addressed yet: what are the REAL system requirements of Viking Conquest? When all the optimization, bug fixes and memory leaks are out of the way, what kind of computer can we expect to be able to run this smoothly, comfortably and with graphics that actually look good?

You see, when I check the requirements on Steam, this is what I see:

MINIMUM: 
OS: Windows® XP, Vista, Windows 7 
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or AMD 2.5 GHz 
Memory: 2GB RAM 
Hard Disk Space: 1.2 GB available space 
Video Card: Graphics card (128 MB+) (does not support integrated graphics card) 
DirectX®: Directx 9.0c 
Sound: Direct X-compatible sound card

STRONG: 
OS: Windows® XP, Vista, Windows 7 
Processor: Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 
Memory: 4GB RAM 
Hard Disk Space: 1.2 GB available space 
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600, ATI Radeon HD 2600, or better (does not support integrated graphics card) 
DirectX®: Directx 9.0c 
Sound: Direct X-compatible sound card

However, that's NOT what the system requirements said when I bought the DLC. Back then, they were identical to those of Napoleonic Wars:

MINIMUM: 
OS: Windows® XP, Vista, Windows 7 
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or AMD 2.5 GHz 
Memory: 1GB RAM 
Hard Disk Space: 1.2 GB available space 
Video Card: Graphics card (128 MB+) (does not support integrated graphics card) 
DirectX®: Directx 9.0c 
Sound: Direct X-compatible sound card

STRONG: 
OS: Windows® XP, Vista, Windows 7 
Processor: Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ 
Memory: 2GB RAM 
Hard Disk Space: 1.2 GB available space 
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600, ATI Radeon HD 2600, or better (does not support integrated graphics card) 
DirectX®: Directx 9.0c 
Sound: Direct X-compatible sound card

You might be thinking I'm imagining things, since I didn't think to take a screenshot of the original requirements. But you just need to look them up on GOG:

Minimum system requirements - Windows: Windows XP/Vista/7/8, 1 GB RAM, Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz or AMD 2.5 GHz, 3D graphics card with 64 MB memory, 900 MB HDD space, Mouse, Keyboard.

Here's a comparison for your benefit:

Sites like this one still have the old system requirements, both minimum and recommended.

So my question is, where the system requirements changed AFTER the game was released, and why? Were they copy-pasted from Napoleonic Wars without taking into consideration whether Viking Conquest would be more demanding? What happens to any customers who bought this DLC with the understanding that their computer would be able to run it, but that might now find out that won't be the case? And why are the system requirements listed on Spanish-language Steam so bizarre?

PS: my computer still meets the revised recommended requirements, in case anyone wants to tell me to "get a computer not a toaster". But I'm still worried about my computer not being able to run this properly none the less, despite the announced specs which I carefully examined before deciding to purchase VC.

 

[GuardianOfBlind]

The old RAM requirements seem totally unrealistic, I want to hear if anyone plays it with 1GB RAM.

It uses about 2.8GB RAM on my machine after about hour of playing (highest settings).

 

[Glycerius]

It's poorly optimised even for Warband which chugs where Rome 2 flies.

 

[hrotha]

The old RAM requirements seem totally unrealistic, I want to hear if anyone plays it with 1GB RAM.

It uses about 2.8GB RAM on my machine after about hour of playing (highest settings).

I've never had it at less than 1.4 GB, freshly started. If any poor soul got this with 1 GB, I sure hope they got a refund.

The system requirements were a big concern for me and I'm not happy to find out the ones they published were meaningless.

 

[Abelardo]

Well, it was probably a mess up of whoever created/sent the information to create the steam and gog pages, probably some intern on TW I'd wager...

I didn't even knew there were PCs with less than 4 GB of RAM in existence still.... is this an actual problem? I pretty much haven't checked system requirements in a while now since my PC will run anything I throw at it.

 

[Urban_Viking]

Well, it was probably a mess up of whoever created/sent the information to create the steam and gog pages, probably some intern on TW I'd wager...

I didn't even knew there were PCs with less than 4 GB of RAM in existence still.... is this an actual problem? I pretty much haven't checked system requirements in a while now since my PC will run anything I throw at it.

My 5 year old computer had 4 ram on it but i updated it 2 years ago.

 

[Dan11311]

I have 32 GB RAM. If only Warband were better optimized for multi-core CPUs including AMD.

 

[Noven]

I use 12gb of RAM and have a GTX 670. It is a mind blowing thing that this DLC stutters for me when Call of Duty Advanced Warfare does not. Am I doing something wrong?

 

[piichu]

Same here, 16GB RAM, i7 3770k 4,5Ghz, Radeon 7970 ghz and fps drops are insanse... especially in battles

 

[Plumbo_the_Norman]

16gig ram, GTX 650, i5 cpu at 3.4 GHz.

My game set itself at 600 size battles. which crashes my game ( set to 82 performance in video options ) so i lowered it to 400 ( 200 vs 200 i can do that on clash of kings which is pretty demanding for a m&b game. )

still no good, huge fps drops, stuttering, my screen flickers black here and there. i really dont want to lower it any further, but every lord out there has 300+ troops, and personally, i hate attacking someone, and having to keep attacking them multiple times, cutting portions of them army down at a time...i want to fight the whole army once...

 

[kalarhan]

16gig ram, GTX 650, i5 cpu at 3.4 GHz.

My game set itself at 600 size battles. which crashes my game ( set to 82 performance in video options ) so i lowered it to 400 ( 200 vs 200 i can do that on clash of kings which is pretty demanding for a m&b game. )

still no good, huge fps drops, stuttering, my screen flickers black here and there. i really dont want to lower it any further, but every lord out there has 300+ troops, and personally, i hate attacking someone, and having to keep attacking them multiple times, cutting portions of them army down at a time...i want to fight the whole army once...

OS? 32 or 64bits?

You should be able to handle 800+. Check drivers, updates and other softwares in the background.

I have a simular setup with Win8 64bits. My hardware is optimized for gaming tho as I build this machine myself. I am playing with 1000 troops. I tested with up to 1500 without issues.

 

[Abelardo]

16gig ram, GTX 650, i5 cpu at 3.4 GHz.

My game set itself at 600 size battles. which crashes my game ( set to 82 performance in video options ) so i lowered it to 400 ( 200 vs 200 i can do that on clash of kings which is pretty demanding for a m&b game. )

still no good, huge fps drops, stuttering, my screen flickers black here and there. i really dont want to lower it any further, but every lord out there has 300+ troops, and personally, i hate attacking someone, and having to keep attacking them multiple times, cutting portions of them army down at a time...i want to fight the whole army once...

OS? 32 or 64bits?

You should be able to handle 800+. Check drivers, updates and other softwares in the background.

I have a simular setup with Win8 64bits. My hardware is optimized for gaming tho as I build this machine myself. I am playing with 1000 troops. I tested with up to 1500 without issues.

1000 on this DLC? at what graphical settings? also what FPS you get while on 1000 troop battles?

I find that hard to believe since I have an i5 3570K running at 4.5 GHz, 16 Gb of RAM and a gtx 680 and can barely run a 500 man battle without it dropping to 30 or even lower FPS, I do have all graphics set to max though.

 

[kalarhan]

I find that hard to believe ....

Thats your problem.

For anyone else curious with my setup and graphics on max I get about:

100x100 -> 50-60fps
200x200 -> 45-60fps
350x350 -> 40-60fps
500x500 -> 30-60fps
750x750 -> 20-60fps

60fps is the cap. Anything above 22 fps is fine for SP. And I rather have 30 fps on some parts of a HUGE battle than 60 fps on a SMALL one.
Lowest FPS happens when both armies meet and last a few seconds.  I usually get 5-10 extra FPS after 5seconds of that event.

So if min is 30 (1000 troops limit) I start with about 60. Armies move around the map and FPS goes from 40 to 60. Big melee and FPS drops to min. Few seconds and goes back to 35-40. And goes back to 50-60 as more and more troops die.