Is The Performance Still TERRIBLE?

[Dark_Swordmaster]

I own all of the ACW Scourge of War titles and they run TERRIBLY. Even at the default settings where objects don't draw very far and the sprite ratio is 1:4 I'm lucky to hit 30 FPS. Is this game any better optimized or is this yet another grog game where the developers don't understand the concept?

And to head off the obvious "What are you running" questions:

i5 2550K (@3.3)
nVidia 970
8Gb RAM
Win 7 64-bit

I'm capable of running modern AAA titles like GTAV, Witcher 3, and Fallout 4 at 60FPS and yet this series that uses the exact same look and technology as the old Myth:TFL / Myth II: Soulblighter games barely runs.

[Spud]

I find with these types of games, because they tend to strive for realism and go the extra mile in the quest for accuracy and detail, well the performance can often suffer. All those units firing countless projectiles that require trajectory and damage calculations, the AI having to follow all those orders and the GPU having to try to render everything that's happening in real time.

It's not only this series I am sure, the Total War series has always had issues, as does Graviteam Tactics, the game that led me to this one. large maps populated by entire armies and millions of simultaneous calculations, it's not fair to compare them to AAA FPS games, especially when those games have the benefit of multi million dollar budgets and teams of 100's working round the clock.

[Gunfreak]

It will still run badly, but you might get a few extra fps over say gettysburg

[Ridcully]

bummer, i wont pay 40€ that barely has less than 30 fps (independent of my hardware)

[Volunteer]

My rig is sim to yours D_S and performance is fine. If you crank to the sprite ratio to 1:1 then a beast of a machine would be needed for an army v army game!

[con20or]

This is not an FPS, no lag, no split second reactions required - anything over 20 FPS is perfect for these games, and to be honest anything over 12 FPS plays fine you dont even notice.

[Calpurnius]

i7 4650k AMD 6000HD series GPU, never had an issue with lag and it uses a small <10% CPU when running large armies against each other. this is because they use sprites rather than individualy modelled units like in the Total War series allowing you to control larger forces at a fraction of the useage. Multiplayer in large battles with numerous people >10 can cause lag as timing has to be syched across client and host and is throttled by the player with the slowest potatoe or worst internet connection.

[MAC-TEM]

This is not an fps, so you shouldn't complain about stuttery gameplay. You should be happy to get at least 12fps

[Clem]

Originally posted by Steve-Z:

This is not an FPS, no lag, no split second reactions required - anything over 20 FPS is perfect for these games, and to be honest anything over 12 FPS plays fine you dont even notice.

The camera is already quite slow and clunky, low fps doesn't help. Also good fps allow a better micromanagement, unless you think a strategy game doesn't require micromanagement.

[MAC-TEM]

Reminds me of when I complained of lag in Rise of Flight. I was told 'simulators are supposed to run like ♥♥♥♥ because they are so complex'

[The Hoff]

Damn, I would have bought this game too. Stutters and low fps is a big no no for me although I appreciate people not being too bothered about 20fps and I do see their argument. But for me, smooth map scrolling in a top down strategy game is a must.
I would need to be able to run it at least 60fps at 1080p with my Titan X and i7 6700k but I appreciate the complexity put into this game and it probably is the best of it's kind on the market.

[con20or]

I tested this game - with a medium - good system. I get 15-30 FPS on the scenarios at full settings - 15 being on Full Army battles. Anything over 12 is not noticeable - this is not a FPS. The camera always runs smoothly - you can speed it up or slow it down as you pan around. You can lower or raise the settingsa as required.

[Gunfreak]

Play a division vs division battle, then an army vs army battle.

Its noticeable. You can only dream about 30fps in anything above corps vs corps. Army vs army averages 8-10 fps, thats not game its a slide show.

[Achilleslastand]

Originally posted by Steve-Z:

I tested this game - with a medium - good system. I get 15-30 FPS on the scenarios at full settings - 15 being on Full Army battles. Anything over 12 is not noticeable - this is not a FPS. The camera always runs smoothly - you can speed it up or slow it down as you pan around. You can lower or raise the settingsa as required.

When you say medium/good system, what do you mean?
I am seriously thinking of getting this but the reports of FPS issues have me concerned.
Here is my system...
i7-4790K
R-290 4GB GPU
16 GB ram@1866
Windows 7/64
Running at 2560x1440 resolution.

[Herodotus]

Originally posted by Vegetable Juice:

Reminds me of when I complained of lag in Rise of Flight. I was told 'simulators are supposed to run like ♥♥♥♥ because they are so complex'

Whoever said that doesn't know anything about flight sims. I've played "RoF" since it's release some years ago and my rig even then allowed me to play maxed-out (it really isn't a demanding title specs-wise). Flight sims, and strategy titles like this require smooth animations (might not be a FPS, but it's certainly a TPS). I won't accept that stuttering and lag are acceptable. It's even worse when devs and publishers state that this is "okay". It's not!

[Charley_Bourne]

No one has said its ok - the issue is a trade off between fps and AI calculations and graphics and historic accuracy of sprite representations and modelling every bullet and canon ball fired. Its a balancing act which works for some and not others. Total War went more down the graphics route rather than AI and historic immersion.