What is your max battle size without crash?

[kwokboy]

Hi all, so what is your stable max battle size so far?

I am using "Warband Battle Size Changer v1.5",
and the game keeps crashing if in-game battle size>840 or so
(Somehow in-game size gets a 3.5 multipler)

My PC isn't that great but with 4th generation i5 cpu, 16gb ram, nvidia gt 720 2gb
i thought it should be able to handle at least 1000 troops....

 

[Leonion]

Doesn't it lag horribly with such BS?

 

[kwokboy]

Doesn't it lag horribly with such BS?

Sorry but what does BS mean?

Indeed it's a bit laggy, but still acceptable,
afterall, having a huge battle size is so fun so cool. 

 

[Aldoarip]

100. And I get like 10 fps in big battles.

 

[jelf]

Razer Blade 2016 with i7 6700HQ, 16GB ram and GTX970 6GB
It crashes sometimes with 530BS.
The framerates are high but it stutters a lot at 530BS that it is unplayable. So I usually play on 400BS with minimal stutter.

 

[Beanus Weanus]

600, no crashes yet, also the highest tradeoff between FPS and BS I found. 700 and upwards I found the performance was getting increasingly worse and 800 and upwards is where the crashes begin. Current generation hardware.

 

[Gorvex]

500 for me, which allows me to keep my fps above 35 on the highest graphical settings under the most crowded situations as well (I have dead bodies set to 0 though)

@kwokboy:
No matter how good your PC is, it won't be able to run Warband on 1000 battlesize and beyond fluently, because the game engine itself was not designed to have a bigger battlesize than 150... As such, the performance demand of Warband increases exponentially past the initial battlesize. And there are memory leaks too.

Also, don't use battlesizer for PoP, because it has its own one built-in already. If you still use BattleSizer on top of that, then the effects will add up (multiplied actually), that's why you can see a ratio of 3.5 difference

 

[Draenor]

About 300 with medium graphics with.
After that, manual blocking gets hard due to lower fps.

But, talking about this mod's performance...
I've played other mods iwth half the battle size and mimimal graphic settings with drastically worse performance.
Impressive.

 

[Pacific_Salmon]

I have a high end rig which I just bought and I play 530 BS with Max graphics settings.  Its smooth except for when troops spawn which gets a little lag. 

 

[Leonion]

Sorry but what does BS mean?

Indeed it's a bit laggy, but still acceptable,
afterall, having a huge battle size is so fun so cool. 

BattleSize or BattleSizer depending on the context.
Also bull****.

For me any lags = fun killers.
So I don't play with BS above 250-300 because that's where first noticeable lags start for me (16Gb RAM, i7-4790K, GTX 1060).
I wonder if powerful duo-core CPUs can handle Warband better than high-end eight-or-more-core CPUs.

 

[Beanus Weanus]

I wonder if powerful duo-core CPUs can handle Warband better than high-end eight-or-more-core CPUs.

You can squeeze out some performance by disabling hyperthreading on the i7. I am yet to encounter a single video game that can utilize hyperthreading to any effectiveness.

 

[King Edric]

With 400 I have 60 fps, everything above that starts to lag

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I using 530 and I get 40 or sometimes 10-20 depending on situations when were almost 2000 combatants in battles counting reinforcements

 

[kwokboy]

wow...I didn't expect so many people have issues with large battle size, it looks like the game engine really is a bit outdated.
BTW, I should've mentioned that I have been using DirectX7 as Render Method, it would be pretty laggy in the mid-stage of battle if DirectX9 was used.

 

[Leonion]

DirectX7

Spoiler

Playing such a beautiful mod as PoP with DX7... this is blasphemy!

 

[kwokboy]

DirectX7

Spoiler

Playing such a beautiful mod as PoP with DX7... this is blasphemy!

Haha, you're probably right, everything looks totally oldschool, that's a huge compromise.
But having 160+ archers raining arrows on the enemy is really amazing, i'm kind of addicted to it now.

 

[King Edric]

still... DX7 tho 

 

[Cianog]

125bs with carefully selected graphics options. Battles take forever

 

[Hadhod]

I play on Battlesize 500 but with bodies turned off. Works fine most of the time besides the start of the battle (if too much cav is present).

 

[Jonxx]

I play on 300bs, more than that and game sometimes start to stutter. But at 300 it's smooth.

So I don't play with BS above 250-300 because that's where first noticeable lags start for me (16Gb RAM, i7-4790K, GTX 1060).
I wonder if powerful duo-core CPUs can handle Warband better than high-end eight-or-more-core CPUs.

I actually use use Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 stock 3ghz overclocked to 3,8ghz. Does the job coupled with a Radeon HD 7750 gddr5 version. Well at any rate not quite that powerful of a cpu, but just putting it out there.