Limit Battle Radius

[Brutal]

What do you guys use for this setting? I'm curious which of the three options offers the most balanced tac gameplay. I'm tempted to go 'no limit' . . .

[Ezra]

I use limited or medium. "No Limit" is too painful for the bigger operations. I also have a really beefy rig as well. No Limit will bring the best consumer computer to it`s knees at times in the larger operations. Too much physics going on (which is a good thing).

Limited setting is the way to go for me. All it does is break down the larger battles into smaller chunks.

[Zephyr]

Yeah, this is a matter of taste. If you can stand 15 FPS and love very large scale battles (the biggest I have seen in a 3d game) then no limit is for you (this is with up to date hardware, GPU does not matter much). If you want 40-60 FPS choose medium or limited.

[ThunderChief]

Originally posted by Ezra:

I use limited or medium. "No Limit" is too painful for the bigger operations. I also have a really beefy rig as well. No Limit will bring the best consumer computer to it`s knees at times in the larger operations. Too much physics going on (which is a good thing).

Limited setting is the way to go for me. All it does is break down the larger battles into smaller chunks.

Don't you feel it's a bit gamey to be able to attack along a flank that you know is defended on the Op Map by an enemy BG who would rip your troops up if they were "allowed" onto the battlefield?

I play with No Limit for this reason. I know there is always a map edge to exploit, but at least with No Limit I have to think more about where my flanks are.

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by ThunderChief:

Originally posted by Ezra:

I use limited or medium. "No Limit" is too painful for the bigger operations. I also have a really beefy rig as well. No Limit will bring the best consumer computer to it`s knees at times in the larger operations. Too much physics going on (which is a good thing).

Limited setting is the way to go for me. All it does is break down the larger battles into smaller chunks.

Don't you feel it's a bit gamey to be able to attack along a flank that you know is defended on the Op Map by an enemy BG who would rip your troops up if they were "allowed" onto the battlefield?

I play with No Limit for this reason. I know there is always a map edge to exploit, but at least with No Limit I have to think more about where my flanks are.

This is why I suggested before that 'limit battle radius' should actually limit the size of the tactical battlefield, for example instead of 3 x 3 squares it should be 2 x 2 or 3 x 2 or even 1 x 2. We already fight on such limited battlefields when at the edge or in the corners of the map, nobody minds.

What sets these games apart is the focus on realism, I understand that performance is an issue for many players, the BG system really makes it impossible for some to play certain operations without limiting the radius, but the sacrifice made in order to run the game is realism.

I don't know why they don't tie each limit radius setting to map size, this will automatically improve performance and have zero impact on realism, no more ghosting through occupied territory or fighting over ground you can't hold. For me it's so obvious, I mentioned before but zero response from devs, so I guess they don't see it.

As for the ability to use off map roads etc to maneuver, a feature I think is great generally, but this should be impossible if the enemy holds the adjacent 'off map' territory on the operational map.

[ThunderChief]

Originally posted by Red Squirrel:

Originally posted by ThunderChief:

Don't you feel it's a bit gamey to be able to attack along a flank that you know is defended on the Op Map by an enemy BG who would rip your troops up if they were "allowed" onto the battlefield?

I play with No Limit for this reason. I know there is always a map edge to exploit, but at least with No Limit I have to think more about where my flanks are.

This is why I suggested before that 'limit battle radius' should actually limit the size of the tactical battlefield, for example instead of 3 x 3 squares it should be 2 x 2 or 3 x 2 or even 1 x 2.

What sets these games apart is the focus on realism, I understand that performance is an issue for many players, the BG system really makes it impossible for some to play certain operations without limiting the radius, but the sacrifice made in order to run the game is realism.

I don't know why they don't tie each limit radius setting to map size, this will automatically improve performance and have zero impact on realism, no more ghosting through occupied territory or fighting over ground you can't hold. For me it's so obvious, I mentioned before but zero response from devs, so I guess they don't see it.

Yes - you make another good point and that is I also use No Limit because I hate the idea that I can ignore a square that the enemy cannot capture and hold. That is just so silly. They can make a perfect maneuver to take a village or some other critical point but, hey guess what, you can't keep it.

It makes sense to me that Limited means that the map gets smaller to make it impossible to ghost and removes the un-capturable squares.

[Toppopia]

So does no limit mean that you fight on the whole operational map with every available unit on the operational map in 1 giant tactical battle?

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by Toppopia:

So does no limit mean that you fight on the whole operational map with every available unit on the operational map in 1 giant tactical battle?

No lol, no limit means you fight on normal size area (3x3 or 2x2/2x3 edges/corners) and all units that occupy those squares are present and all territory can be won or lost.

Limited means you fight on the exact same area, but some units may be absent and some territory cannot be won or lost.

[Toppopia]

Originally posted by Red Squirrel:

Originally posted by Toppopia:

So does no limit mean that you fight on the whole operational map with every available unit on the operational map in 1 giant tactical battle?

No lol, no limit means you fight on normal size (3x3 or 2x2/2x3 in corners) and all units that occupy those squares are present and all territory can be won or lost.

Limited means you fight on the exact same area, but some units may be absent and some territory cannot be won or lost.

Ah ok then that makes more sense. I should give this a go then and watch my brain melt handling all the etc units.

[Defiant Squirrel]

Originally posted by Toppopia:

Originally posted by Red Squirrel:

No lol, no limit means you fight on normal size (3x3 or 2x2/2x3 in corners) and all units that occupy those squares are present and all territory can be won or lost.

Limited means you fight on the exact same area, but some units may be absent and some territory cannot be won or lost.

Ah ok then that makes more sense. I should give this a go then and watch my brain melt handling all the etc units.

If your brain melts before your PC you're doing well.

[ThunderChief]

Originally posted by Toppopia:

So does no limit mean that you fight on the whole operational map with every available unit on the operational map in 1 giant tactical battle?

That would be nice. It would also require a supercomputer.

No Limit means that when the battle is determined on the Op Map, all of the squares are in play and all BGs in those squares will join the battle.

[Ezra]

Battle radius for me is always a compromise between what I considers to be acceptable "smooth" play regardless of the unit composition. eg: Try operation Pugilist (Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943) and see how long you can tolerate the slide show.

It should be noted that I also play @ 4K so the demands are greater on the comp for sure. I`m addicted to the sharp resolution of 4K so there is no going back for me. I can live with limited, or medium since a reasonable level of tactics still apply. Although, the length of one turn can be cumbersome when set to limited for sure.

I can justify the latter from what I consider to be a more micro perspective of the operation coupled with smooth play and stunning visuals. It elevates the immersion factor and experience for me.

Cheers.

[Brutal]

Thanks for the input everyone, I think I’ll give no limit a try and see if my computer explodes :) I’m loving this game so much.

[Zephyr]

Personally I just cannot live with being able to ignore whole squares.

Sometimes 3 of 9 squares can be safely ignored (medium battle radius) and so many more units can be put into VP squares without risks (flanking, danger of losing favourable ground etc. becomes less of a concern). So a slide show it is for me at times in the bigger operations.

The idea to tie the limit to the available area would indeed solve most of those problems. Perhaps it is not simple solution (technically) but this is by far the best suggestion to solve this.

[ThunderChief]

Originally posted by Ezra:

Battle radius for me is always a compromise between what I considers to be acceptable "smooth" play regardless of the unit composition. eg: Try operation Pugilist (Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943) and see how long you can tolerate the slide show.

It should be noted that I also play @ 4K so the demands are greater on the comp for sure. I`m addicted to the sharp resolution of 4K so there is no going back for me. I can live with limited, or medium since a reasonable level of tactics still apply. Although, the length of one turn can be cumbersome when set to limited for sure.

I can justify the latter from what I consider to be a more micro perspective of the operation coupled with smooth play and stunning visuals. It elevates the immersion factor and experience for me.

Cheers.

Can you post your specs? Curious as I do experience 15 fps but will upgrade to an i9 soon.

Operating System: Windows 10 Enterprise 64-bit (10.0, Build 18362) (18362.19h1_release.190318-1202)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: System manufacturer
System Model: System Product Name
BIOS: 0408 (type: UEFI)
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz (12 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 32768MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 32692MB RAM
Page File: 19512MB used, 18044MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 12
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: 144 DPI (150 percent)
System DPI Setting: 144 DPI (150 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: UnKnown
Miracast: Available, with HDCP

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Type: Full Device (POST)
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1E04&SUBSYS_1E0410DE&REV_A1
Device Status: 0180200A [DN_DRIVER_LOADED|DN_STARTED|DN_DISABLEABLE|DN_NT_ENUMERATOR|DN_NT_DRIVER]
Device Problem Code: No Problem
Driver Problem Code: Unknown
Display Memory: 27394 MB
Dedicated Memory: 11048 MB
Shared Memory: 16346 MB
Current Mode: 3840 x 2160 (32 bit) (60Hz)
HDR Support: Supported

[Ezra]

Dear ThunderChief,

I`ll be brief. I built this system with Flight Sim in mind knowing full well it would be good for Mius Front.

Computer Specs:

Fractual R5 Tower Case (best full size case for the money in my opinion).
OS: Win 10 Home 64-bit (latest update)
MoBo: Asus Hero X Maximus
Power Supply: Corsair Platinum 850
CPU: I7 8700K (OC @ 4.2ghZ), (Noctua NH-D15S Dual Tower with Twin 140mm Fans)
Memory: Corsair 32MB @ 32MHz speed)
Video Card: NVIDIA MSI GTX 1080ti (never goes above 60c maxed out)
Storage: Samsung SSD EVO 500GB M.2 NVMe (for OS), Samsung SSD 850 PRO 512GB, Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB, (planning on another 1TB SSD).
Monitor: Asus 29" 4K (1ms) TN Display
Current Mode: 3840 x 2160 (32bit) (60Hz)
Computer Cooling: Nine Noctua fans in total. CPU rarely spikes @ 70c under full load. CPU idles @ 26-29 depending on ambient temp.

Things look fantastic and I average 30-60 frames for smaller scenarios. However, even at 20-25 frames things are silky smooth.