Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.


New way battles could work

jdcarson93jdcarson93 Registered Users Posts: 17
So i was thinking of a way CA could increase the scope of a battlefield. Thoughts? Concerns? Comments? Questions? Go!

1st 500 troop count minuim so one "army" has 10000 men/units

2nd make armys larger by encomperating 5 armys in one with custom set ups. Example 1 vanguard army in the front, 1 core army center 1 left wing army 1 right wing army and 1 reserve army to the rear would be standard set up. (You could change this tho 2 vanguards no reserves 2 left wings etc just core must always be center) Battles are spread out in real life and communication isnt instance so battles are seperate but you can call reinforcements but that weakens another front. Lets say the left wing was defeated the enemy would have the option to use there right that fought our left wing to strike at our core to slay our grand general or our researves in the rear to cut off escape and attack from cores rear or simple wait to strike also the possibility to double up on another front. So battles would be a tug a war with 50000vs50000 lasting days with large turn arounds ups and downs

3rd to make battlefields more tactical and strategic allow us to split units example 1 500 man unit is free in a battle but 2 units on oppsite sides of the battlefield are faultering to the enemy split the unit 250 to side to 250 to the other allows you to make the most out of a unit. Maxuim split would be 5 times

4th allow reinforcements to be selected not a whole army also travel times vary cavalry arrive first


  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,154
    edited February 2019
    Reason they have the current set up is:
    1. Performance - large the unit size and the more units on the map means more GPU and CPU power is required.
    2. Unit placement - Large units are harder to move around and place, a single rock can block them, the width of the street blocks worth while formations and so on.
    3. Micro - More units active at once is a problem for players then AI as you have to control directly more units which the AI has no problem with.
    So without solving these issues, it doesn't really do anything new than what they've done in the past.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    Not to mention larger armies means much longer battles. I don’t feel like having 45 minutes being the standard battle time.
  • FranzlomonacoFranzlomonaco Registered Users Posts: 11
    I do a post about.. I like a more age of empires/cossacks real time battle oriented.. something like a fusion of a two types of battle without loosing classical TW real time battles.

    So about performances, I think that the system of Ultimate epic battle simulator is more efficient than more others. No rock/tree or others think block the single units.. so this single units type selection seem more efficient. Maybe a fusion of a two system can help the performances..

    Sorry fo my english..
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    It's not possible with the current engine used for battles. Arguments about processing power are 'meh': it's been possible for modern PCs to account for tens of thousands of individual agents simultaneously, for years. It does so in plenty of games. The Total War engine just isn't up to it.

    Model detail scaling has been a thing for almost two decades, same with animation and culling of visual features which are not on-screen or within visible distance. These things don't kill performance when they're done properly; it's just the sheer number of dynamic-scripted agents. On this basis alone, there's no reason why older Total Wars with just as many agents should be peforming way better even on older hardware, but they do.

Sign In or Register to comment.