realistic battlesize

[awetzel]

I have read many posts pertaining battle size. I hear many testimonies to why people use a cettain battlesize but I can't find any that pertain to realistic gameplay. So my question is if you didn't have to worry about computer strength or difficlty which battle size would probably represent the most realistic battles as far as outcome and casualties.

 

[Adrale]

The most realistic would be to have every swinging D in the action but no way my comp would handle that. Would be awesome though.

 

[Evelyn]

The most realistic would be to have every swinging D in the action

what

 

[Adrale]

every swinging D = every swinging ****, every man available. I guess its a redneck thing.

 

[Evelyn]

I know, I've just never heard that expression before. I'd sig it but I have no room.

 

[PsiShock]

Join the military and you hear it all the time. That or "La de doddy, everybody".

As for realism, I agree. Every SOB on the field at once would be "realism" but don't forget that a REAL scenario would involve waves, not every jackhole standing around in range of arrows awaiting their turn on the ladder. And for 1 ladder, which is there for difficulty, is not realistic, but neither is the idea that they wouldn't kick that mother down every few seconds. And so on, and so on. I would say, max battlesize your PC can handle and goto town. Even retreating is silly because a capable and effective defense would most likely sally and chase your happy ass across Pendor to pay you back for what you did. But that's me.

 

[Adrale]

If warband managed to soup up the engine enough to handle all combatants and allowed a more involved form of siege warfare, it would be the best game there is.

 

[Evelyn]

Warband and Dwarf Fortress are tied for "best game there is" in my book currently.

 

[PsiShock]

I have to agree. Dwarf Fortress is cumbersome and intimidating until you get a graphic pack, but it's got a stupid amount of depth. But on the topic of Warband, I paid for Mount and Blade original back in its early infancy. It was worth every penny. The best part was, I did this in 05, joined the Army and came back a year and a half later. I asked their support if they had any records of my purchase, and in 24 hours I was back into full fledged sale Mount and Blade in 06. Bought Warband without a thought. Mistake doing that for With Fire and Sword, but whatever! Worth it!

If they could spin the siege warfare in a better fashion, and manage to manipulate the system into a fashion that doesn't maul resources (which I doubt is possible) this game could evolve into something much more than its previous life.

 

[krisvk]

I play with 140-150 battle size, I like to have my tactics skill make a difference, I probably would play on 200 if my pc could handle it.

 

[Clagius]

If your PC can handle, I'd suggest a number of 300. Above that the battles get too wild.

 

[Filou]

Yeah, I find around 300 is a good range.  I'm at 330 (battle_size = 2.5) now up from 270 when I was using my older computer. 
More than that I find the siege scenes are too crowded.  Realism is lost when you see guys falling off the walls on the attacker's side because there's too many guys on it.
Fields battle also get crowded in forest maps if there's too much people, but at least that can be mitigated with a bigger battle map.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Yeah, I find around 300 is a good range.  I'm at 330 (battle_size = 2.5) now up from 270 when I was using my older computer. 
More than that I find the siege scenes are too crowded.  Realism is lost when you see guys falling off the walls on the attacker's side because there's too many guys on it.
Fields battle also get crowded in forest maps if there's too much people, but at least that can be mitigated with a bigger battle map.

same

 

[minimumdifficulty]

When I got my new computer, I ran with 1000 battlesize.  It was epic, up until I entered a siege and there simply wasn't enough room for all of the participants to spawn properly.  It was a right proper mosh pit!  I find 600 gives enough room in sieges while still allowing for awesome field battles. 

 

[habeo123]

350-400 is the cap. You can't play a forest battle with 1000 troops.
Also the game will have trouble handling the AI as well. Especially when VI is on.

 

[minimumdifficulty]

As in, the game won't generate more than that number of troops, even if Battlesizer is set above it?  What a shame.

 

[habeo123]

Oh the game will, and you will see a forest of man colliding into eachother, and confusingly never able to pathfind their way anywhere.

 

[awetzel]

I have been running at 300. Thanks for the input.

 

[khornebread]

If you get too big, the cavalry w/ dismount.  300 seems to stop that. 

 

[HybridSoldier]

200 is enough for mer!