[Tapper]

caladanbrood, on 04 June 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

It's only just been announced, but they've been working on it for quite a while already, by the sound of it, hence it being a bit sooner than might be expected.

Yeah, and this is also the 'evolution' game: E:TW was the new engine, modeling and AI (* cough*), Shogun 2 will likely use an upgrade of that one, so not a whole lot of designing from point zero onwards to be done, just making everything more efficient.

[Satan]

In this interview they say that they've upped the bones in every (human?) body by 25%, suggesting that this isn't just a mere "mod" for the Empires engine.

[General King]

56,000 units holy shit, does anyone see them being able to have that many troops on the field

[Tapper]

Gothos, on 03 June 2010 - 11:06 AM, said:

The AI isn't the whole problem - there's also the very, very limited number of diplomatic options. The strategic level almost doesn't exist in this game. I'm seriously considering trying out Europa Universalis III instead.

Don't. EU 2 was fun, 3 I thought a bore. Better go and find Hearts of Iron (3 would be good, can be bought on steam, 2 is fun too if you can get it cheaper).

[Tapper]

Brynjar, on 05 June 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

In this interview they say that they've upped the bones in every (human?) body by 25%, suggesting that this isn't just a mere "mod" for the Empires engine.

More units or more detailed units on your screen seems to me (with no knowledge of designing and programming whatsoever) to just be a graphics/procession issue, not a design thing.

[Jusentantaka]

Tapper, on 06 June 2010 - 02:20 AM, said:

Brynjar, on 05 June 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

In this interview they say that they've upped the bones in every (human?) body by 25%, suggesting that this isn't just a mere "mod" for the Empires engine.

More units or more detailed units on your screen seems to me (with no knowledge of designing and programming whatsoever) to just be a graphics/procession issue, not a design thing.

You sir would be right. Bones are a model thing. More bones = more connections (rather than say 'foot bone connected to the spine bone') = more realistic movements. This change wouldn't even make for too much of an increased load on a PC over the Empire resource uses.

General King, on 05 June 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

56,000 units holy shit, does anyone see them being able to have that many troops on the field

There are people out there with a 3.5 ghz quad core, 16 gigs of ram and a pair of 1gig DX11 video cards in SLI... if they actually optimized the engine to usefully use the system resources rather than blowing GPU power on SPARKLES!!!!! (that stupid ass bloom effect) then its not such a big hurdle.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 06 June 2010 - 02:49 AM

[General King]

Yeah but I say why have a quad core processor until the next couple of years there going to very few programs written to utilise them. Look at how long 64 bit processors have been out for, I mean nearly all my games were written for a 32 bit machine, so I run a 32 bit OS on my 64 bit gaming rig. Also the quad tech while impressive is reliant on a architecture that is nearly 10 years old. It's just 4 pentium 4 hyperbridged. It gives you a stupid amount of processing power, but P4 architecture has problems with effiency. Like when you pick a processor it not just speed, but the level of complexity of command that the architecture can handle and AMD processors are a lot better in that regard.

How many times have you seen system specs that say runs on 2.4 GHz P4 and on 2.0GHz AMD equivalent quite a few times.

More often you see runs on 2.4 GHZ P4 or equivalent, itjust suggest that Intel is the only way to go in games which is a load of hack.

The 16 gigs of ram though I wouldn't mind though lol. 2 * 8 gig ram cards are going to expensive though.But it would be nicer to have a bigger gram for such a game.

[Jusentantaka]

General King, on 06 June 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yeah but I say why have a quad core processor until the next couple of years there going to very few programs written to utilise them. Look at how long 64 bit processors have been out for, I mean nearly all my games were written for a 32 bit machine, so I run a 32 bit OS on my 64 bit gaming rig. Also the quad tech while impressive is reliant on a architecture that is nearly 10 years old. It's just 4 pentium 4 hyperbridged. It gives you a stupid amount of processing power, but P4 architecture has problems with effiency. Like when you pick a processor it not just speed, but the level of complexity of command that the architecture can handle and AMD processors are a lot better in that regard.

How many times have you seen system specs that say runs on 2.4 GHz P4 and on 2.0GHz AMD equivalent quite a few times.

More often you see runs on 2.4 GHZ P4 or equivalent, itjust suggest that Intel is the only way to go in games which is a load of hack.

The 16 gigs of ram though I wouldn't mind though lol. 2 * 8 gig ram cards are going to expensive though.But it would be nicer to have a bigger gram for such a game.

relevant part:
Quad cores have been out for what, 2-3 years now for desktops? When dual cores for desktops first came out, it was 2-3 years before games were optimized for them, and now any modern game (in terms of graphics, animations, ect - stuff that makes a game look like it is from now, rather than three or four years ago) requires one. I think we'll be seeing quad-core only/optimized games at the end of this year, or the beginning of next year. Of course, everyone was talking about how Alan Wake was going to be all quad-loving...

irrelevant crap:
1. to AMD vs intel. I have a AMD quad core. Its based on AMD, not Intel. But its not that simple. Intel is better for running multiple intensive programs, like lightscribing multiple disks while downloading and watching high def porn. AMD strokes out if you try to lightscribe more than one disc, no matter what else you're doing. (Ok, lightscribe is stupid, but I can't think of any other programs that CPU intensive. 3dsmax I guess, but I don't think it actually lets you run parallel renders anymore) For gaming though, there's no difference because no one writes a game *yet* that pushes those processors.
2. This could very well be one of the first games optimized for quad core and x64, if those troop numbers are at all accurate. I doubt it, but its possible.
3. x64 OS lets you have 16 gigs of ram. x32 OS lets you have "4" gigs of ram. (or rather, it will only use this much and then lie about using more), so x64 is better
4. 8 gig ram cards? damn. I have 4x4 and they get pretty hot. 8 gig ones would be a 3 minute man. Oooh oooh oooh BEEP BEEEP BEEP *hardware failure*

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 06 June 2010 - 04:33 PM

[General King]

Actually windowns basic 32 only accesses 3.5 gigs.

64 bit processes have been out for the home market for 7 years, yet how many companies in software do a 64 bit version, a lot of them are still producing 32 bits. THus that has strangled the market as people end up running 32 bit os to ensure their programs run fine with no problems. It only until recently have 64 bit versions of common programs have become common, and i suspect that is due to competition from the community having done so years ago.

ALso if the game is written in 32 bit it won't try and use more than 2 gigs worth of memory. That will impact on how many feautures you can run.

Now let say if Total war was to have on the field of battle 56,000 warriors and run smoothly at 60 fps, that would tax a dual core unless it is in the 3.5Ghz range or over, you are going to need more than 4 gigs of memory. cause that will exceed the two gig limit. SWo to place safe they will use 64 bit.

That to truly deliver in my eye what they said.

Hear the question how the hell are they going to develop for quad core.

'll give an example Supreme Commander has four process group like AI and graphics and so forth that get run to run the game.

They are split 2 processers on each core when you use a dual. You would think that quad one process group but if you do that the load on each processor will not be equal, you would have one running at 10%, while one ran at 30%, one at 25% and one at 15%. You want them to share the load as evenly as possible.

Now AMD I say there best processors are there dual at the moment, I wouldn't at this point get a quad from any company. Partly due to the price of them and that there is no software that I know of game wise that uses them perfectly.

Also here the question how many of the gamers that Creative assembly will be hoping to get have a quad core rig, I would bet more of us have at the moment a dual core rig with a 64 bit os running on it. That means they are going to develop with that crowd in mind. Now do you think a dual core set up will survive say 54,000 arrows being loosed, it has to plot the fall, and then register if where they land, is a unit there if so, is he killed by it, or was it deflected by armour.It also has to represent this data visually in real time.

Now let me state this Creative assembly empire game if you tried marching something like 4000 troops at a fort the pathfinding becme glitched and it lagged like hell and that was before they even started firing muskets. If it 8 or 10 sides on a battlefield that over 5,000 troops. Everyone with dual core was screwed, it even slowed some quad cores. Hence why a no fort mod was made.

What I'm trying to get at is, considering the tech needed to make what they want to work most likely it will cut into their customers too much. If it had a release date of 2012 maybe 2013 it could be very likely but if it any sooner I don't think they will deliver.

[Jusentantaka]

General King, on 06 June 2010 - 07:45 PM, said:

Actually windowns basic 32 only accesses 3.5 gigs. hence "4"

Now AMD I say there best processors are there dual at the moment, I wouldn't at this point get a quad from any company. Partly due to the price of them and that there is no software that I know of game wise that uses them perfectly.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103727

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819116369

Err. What? AMD quads are cheaper than an intel dual core. And the motherboards for an AMD quad are cheaper. And the fans are cheaper. Theoretically, this lower expense will even factor in to buy-built Dells and shit like that. A low end AMD quad core (2.9ghz) doesn't even cost 100$, and that's about the price of AMD dual cores. So why wouldn't someone get a quad core for any reason again?

But really, the crux is thus: 54k is not for 'normal gamer systems', just like rome's promise of '10k' (when it came out) was not for normal pcs. 54k is for the people with the fast as fuck quad cores and 18 inches of big bad video card. There is trickery which can be done to make this work, somehow, some way.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 06 June 2010 - 08:26 PM

[General King]

Those are nice prices for quad cores. But getting them in britain was still dear last time i checked prices.

Rome can do more than 10K, I've done 18k battles on laptops. But Let's say 56K troops on shogun 2 is for all the high end rigs but for a rig like mine.

2.7 GHz AMD AM2 Athlon Dual.
4 Gigs of ram
896 MB of DDR3 ram 260 GTX

That set up could run a lot of games on either high or highest settings. But what sort of quality drop would I get from shogan compared to a rig like yours I mean. If it goes too much they lose sales from players who have rigs like mine.

Ok it got at least 2 years to allow for more players to upgrade in the time, but as I said players will only really start to heavily consider quad core when the games they want to play require it or it gives it the way you see in the trailers. For that to happen there has to be at least one or two decent quad core games released this year.

[Jusentantaka]

General King, on 06 June 2010 - 08:41 PM, said:

Those are nice prices for quad cores. But getting them in britain was still dear last time i checked prices.

Rome can do more than 10K, I've done 18k battles on laptops. But Let's say 56K troops on shogun 2 is for all the high end rigs but for a rig like mine.

2.7 GHz AMD AM2 Athlon Dual.
4 Gigs of ram
896 MB of DDR3 ram 260 GTX

That set up could run a lot of games on either high or highest settings. But what sort of quality drop would I get from shogan compared to a rig like yours I mean. If it goes too much they lose sales from players who have rigs like mine.

Ok it got at least 2 years to allow for more players to upgrade in the time, but as I said players will only really start to heavily consider quad core when the games they want to play require it or it gives it the way you see in the trailers. For that to happen there has to be at least one or two decent quad core games released this year.

Gah. I know cars are prohibitively more expensive than here, (30% or so?) but tiny little computer parts too? Ridiculous. American, British, all come from Taiwan!

Did you do 18k with a laptop built before the game came out? Really? I had one of the best laptops you could get at the time (through work). a 2.4ghz single core Pentium4 with a 512mb nvidia card, and it had some god awful stability issues maxing everything out with huge unit sizes, not to mention when the first couple 'i want more troops on the field' mods came out.

for your rig, I would assume you won't be able to max everything out anymore. That is what the large and normal unit sizes are for. Or just turn shadows and that stupid, inefficient bloom effect off.

[General King]

In Britain I could get an AMD quad core for 200 dollars first site i checked.

[General King]

The 18000 lagged a bit until it got down 12,000 and it started to run fine. But i did reduce some of the graphic options though.

[hmqb]

Hmm ive got a quad processor and I did something with around 12,000- 14,000 and it was fine, but unless they use some kind of voodoo magic there not going to be able to get 56k troops out there. Unless they just represent each 100 troops with a giant blob, that would work.

[Tapper]

I think I hyave the solution to this particular quandary: it's going to be 2D sprites again!!



Thank you, I'm here all week.

[hmqb]

no tapper I have it! They are just going to include a free computer powerful enough to play it with every purchase of shogun 2 total war, 18$.

[Gothos]

I think I'm quite safe with my rig for quite a while, Shogun 2 included.
But to even get 56,000 troops into on battle... you'd need a true clusterfuck of every faction in the game bringing their every unit to one spot.

[General King]

Again this is one thing I noticed with Total war games, your rig may run fine with say 12,000 -18,000 units on the field if you add a fort to the equation it just noticeably. The Path Finding for the open field is fine but for cities it can be improved.

Also you here gets annoyed with how cramped armies can get? some of the situations I've seen there more space in a sardine can. especially trying to get your army into a city. There been slight imporvements with each version but only cause there is less troops generally.

[Gothos]

Oh - about Westeros: Total War... played a campaign as the Krakens... was pretty awesome. The breaking point was sacking Lannisport. At the start you have sea superiority, unquestioned, but your provinces are very, very poor. After the initial taking of The Crag and Banefort, I had trouble raising more troops whatsoever... then I saw that Lannisters are getting pushed by the Roses, so I decided to chime in and raided Lannisport- 33k, that's THIRTY THREE THOUSAND DRAKES, from the sacking. I just abandoned it afterwards, but they didn't seem to want to take it back. With the cash I got from the sacking I raised like two full stacks of Ironman Warriors and Raiders and took Casterly Rock (it has insane income, btw, easily more than all my initial islands combined), making short work of the one stack army stationed there. From then on I just kept raping the shores, Crakehall, Oldtown, Arbor, they all fell to sea raids. Tyrells are really fucked if Greyjoys get a major army going due to the mobility of the fleets. I could easily pick my fights. After taking these shores I just went in and systematically conquered the remainder of the Reach and then pushed for the Westerlands while keeping the Arryns near Seagard, Fairmarket and the Twins at bay (they really rocked up there... Tullys always seem to get raped in every game)
It's one of the way of playing this mod - just keep on going and sacking cities to support your army. Ironmen troops just own mainland knights.
A few woes: Victarion is a totally overpowered general, he starts with almost every stat at maximum. OTOH, Euron is a fucking weakling, so is Theon (well, ok, Theon deserves it). Dagmer is pretty good too.
Anyway, this made me think about ADOD... what will Petyr do with the Vale of Arryn once Dany comes back? Oppose, or support? That's one faction that was just about not touched by the War of the Five Kings so far, even more so than Dorne.