Why are the battles so small in this game?

[The adventures of Lyonic!]

For real I feel like im playing some bogus RTS spinoff with like 5 dudes.

I want to see Gaugamela sizes battles now this skirmish rubbish.


Real total war game when?

[Zeek]

Small unit scale -> ultra.

[Immortalis]

Probably when quantum computers become a reality and are cheap enough that every child owns one.

If you want to render a hundred thousands individual fights on a map big enough to accomodate them (even setting aside things like artillery, magic etc) you need the computational power and the graphic cards needed for it.

[The adventures of Lyonic!]

Originally posted by Zeek:

Small unit scale -> ultra.

i play ultra already..

[The adventures of Lyonic!]

Originally posted by Immortalis:

Probably when quantum computers become a reality and are cheap enough that every child owns one.

If you want to render a hundred thousands individual fights on a map big enough to accomodate them (even setting aside things like artillery, magic etc) you need the computational power and the graphic cards needed for it.

Good guess but incorrect - If recent gaming has taught us anything, its that people are willing to take a hit to the graphics if the gameplay is solid (for example Battlebit).

How hard would it be to make a stickman version I wonder?

[Donut]

put your unit size on ultra

then play any faction and go fight Grimgor and his Waagh then come back here and lemme know how it goes xD

Edit: FR tho if you find that battles are too small then it genuinely could just be your faction/opposition, Generally factions like Orks/Skaven will have alot more armies/units because of how much cheaper they are, If you find you want more "bigger" battles then you should try playing a faction that sits closer to danger such as Kislev having to hold back four armies of norsca, Dwarfs having to fight a Waagh, Empire having to fight anyone...

Outside of that the only thing i can suggest is try a mod maybe that increases unit sizes, though they can make your game unstable if your PC can't handle too many models in one battle

[Dagy47]

i want to see Gaugamela too, whatever it might be ....

[Aleera]

U wot mate.

Compare the amount of unit's in battle on your screen to actual RTS titles.

[Raider Deci]

Originally posted by Lyonic:

For real I feel like im playing some bogus RTS spinoff with like 5 dudes.

I want to see Gaugamela sizes battles now this skirmish rubbish.


Real total war game when?

Because its still runs on a 15 year old engine with the framework of a decade old game. The map & unit-sizes are the as they were a decade ago, the series has hardly made any big innovations in the last years.

If anything the maps and unit-sizes have gotten smaller over time. Even on ultra a unit of skavenslaves is not bigger than a ashigaru-unit from shotgun 2.

[Raider Deci]

Originally posted by Aleera:

U wot mate.

Compare the amount of unit's in battle on your screen to actual RTS titles.

Supreme Commander 2?

[Cyiel]

Originally posted by Raider Deci:

Originally posted by Aleera:

U wot mate.

Compare the amount of unit's in battle on your screen to actual RTS titles.

Supreme Commander 2?

The unit cap is 500 from some Steam discussions and 1000 with mods we are not even close to the number of models you can have in a battle of TW:WH3.

[Hex]

You wouldn't want bigger battles on legendary where you can't pause the game. Even now it's a massive pain to manage 2 full stacks, let alone 4.

[Shotgun Solutions]

Originally posted by Raider Deci:

Originally posted by Lyonic:

For real I feel like im playing some bogus RTS spinoff with like 5 dudes.

I want to see Gaugamela sizes battles now this skirmish rubbish.


Real total war game when?

Because its still runs on a 15 year old engine with the framework of a decade old game. The map & unit-sizes are the as they were a decade ago, the series has hardly made any big innovations in the last years.

If anything the maps and unit-sizes have gotten smaller over time. Even on ultra a unit of skavenslaves is not bigger than a ashigaru-unit from shotgun 2.

Well in the previous games I could get a 3x unit size mod and edit my save file to give myself and the AI 40 unit size armies.
That felt pretty epic. Too bad they hid the variables that would enable 40 unit armies in WH3.

[TheAlmightyProo]

Originally posted by Lyonic:

Originally posted by Immortalis:

Probably when quantum computers become a reality and are cheap enough that every child owns one.

If you want to render a hundred thousands individual fights on a map big enough to accomodate them (even setting aside things like artillery, magic etc) you need the computational power and the graphic cards needed for it.

Good guess but incorrect - If recent gaming has taught us anything, its that people are willing to take a hit to the graphics if the gameplay is solid (for example Battlebit).

How hard would it be to make a stickman version I wonder?

A fair point with a truth all it's own.

My own offering to this point would be something like Ultimate General: Civil War. A unit count and simulated numbers equal to and more than the historical battles of that war (or any from 50 years after or anytime before that period) And I don't even mind the graphics etc of that model at all, rather I think it fits it very well.

As for this game/series/IP though, Raider Deci has given the correct answer (if short on the whys and wherefores) which has less to do with the above mentioned game being a far newer engine than you'd think. It's more a case of CA having to pick some preferred (or vaguely reachable) targets out of a selection when it comes to what to prioritise... only it's more a case of 5 out of 10 than 2 out of 3, and then letting 2 of the 5 they pick wither on the vine due to 'other things' or whatever.

Tbf graphics is one they did go ham on, changing them up enough between Warhammer games to account for most of the 30% or so performance deficit between each (while allowing, for example, the resources, schedule and proficiency for the imo more important fixing and patching to go to hell) A new engine or such might have been better for x and y, sure... but could always be or have ended up worse otherwise for a year or game or two until matured.

Which is all btw why I'm leery of CA embarking on any new main TW titles rn, lest this one suffer more, and nm one's that would require hitherto unknown challenges on their part, like 40K or WW1 etc. I'd rather this one get some better end guaranteed first cos tbh CA had already painted themselves into a corner one way or another 3-5 years ago, the signs were there, so things were going to be messy either way.

[Xeonzs]

Originally posted by Lyonic:

For real I feel like im playing some bogus RTS spinoff with like 5 dudes.

I want to see Gaugamela sizes battles now this skirmish rubbish.


Real total war game when?

In skirmish you can literally do 8 armies of 20 units (4v4) or 4 armies of 40 units (2v2), each having up to 160 entities in them, that's a possible 25.6k entities on screen, if your pc can handle that without cracking and those battles don't impress you then I don't know what will.
They get chaotic as hell as well with all the magic and abilities going off everywhere.

I'm on a 7800X3D and RTX 4090 playing on 1440p ultrawide max settings, but even at a full-scale large battle like in the height of the battle, my fps drops from 120~ to 45-60.

[Many-Named]

there are no gaugamela sized battles in this game or this world.

Play something else.