Will we ever experience battles with at least 100k troops

Bunch of uninspired retards in this thread. Atleast let the patricians have the option to play a real scales battles whilst retarded kiddies stick to their skirmishes

With how ugly and terribly optimized the new total war games are, I don't even care anymore.
Whoever came up with the muddy blue filter on the newer games must hang

go, play fornite or something kiddo

> 100k troops
> real scales battles

You shouldn't be able to field 11 full armies then.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking this

ancient battles rerely exceed 100k troops, atleast Medieval ones didn't.

OP is talking about 100k+ troops every army.

I'm talking about whatever a given TW game considers a max size army, whether the actual number if 100k or 2k. The fact is that Total War campaigns have become unexciting because everyone can field so many giant armies that you have max size battles every turn, and thus every battle must be quickly decided. So instead of having a big showdown that decides the fate of the entire war, as was often the case with medieval era conflicts, you have 20 giant battles that don't really mean anything and end before you can make any meaningful decisions.

Also, the battles aren't during your turn, its battles after you end turn. 7 consecutive battles 30+ mins each?

WW1 when

Its because their AI is so braindead that they need cheats to compete with the player. So when they lose an army, the AI is not affect as they have huge bonuses to shit out armies.

Thats why I dont like DEI population system and supply system because they dont affect the AI at all. So essentially its just extra hurdle for the player that has no repercussions for the AI.

What part of "less battles" are you missing? When you hit end turn you shouldn't be getting engaged by 7 different armies unless you are actually at war with 7 different nations. A major war between two powers should see maybe 1-2 full armies on each side.

>Implying 100K battles would actually be fun to play
Grow a brain literal NIKKER

This bro, so much this. I love total war but the formula needs a change, I remember my first shogun 2 campaign was like that, i landed 1 1/2 stacks on the main island used the shittier 1/2 to cap a fortress then hid the main army in the bushes, My enemys alliance sent three stacks to re-take the fortress but i was a total war noob and the ai actually rushed the fortress as my main force assembled piece-meal the way it does in total war. Long story short the defenders barely held out while the main force routed the attackers. I even had a pivotal moment where i realized the enemy would take the castle square before being full routed so i did the motherfucking helms deep charge. The daimyo's most seasoned general and his youngest son suicide cav charged out the front gate which bought just enough time for the reinforcements.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're talking battle mode, you're talking campaign, you're talking auto-resolve, and no details about.

OP is talking about 100k soldiers in battle mode.

I'm saying that will result in 30+ minutes per battle.

Good. That's not a problem if there are less battles occurring over all

You, as a faction, should not be fielding 7 armies with 100k men. You should be fielding 2.

You, as a player, should not be fighting multiple 100k army battles per turn, you should be fighting one every 5 turns.

Playing for 10 turns of a campaign and having two 30 minute long battles that decide the outcome of a war is far more interesting than playing for 10 turns and having 12 battles lasting 5 minutes, and that decide the fate of a region that will be taken back the second you leave it

You've ever been under attack by 7 nations? Because that has happened, can happen, and will happen.

Tell that to OP

Holy fucking shit I'm talking about CHANGING THE WAY THE CAMPAIGN WORKS SO THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN

Are you seriously so small minded that you can't conceive of any potential change to a Total War campaign besides more men being thrown into a battle? Can you really not conceive of a campaign where maybe you as a player aren't attacked by every nation around with and fighting 20 battles every turn because that's what CA thinks is fun? Have you played a single other strategy game in your entire life?

>about 5k troops
>giant armies

I have no problem with increasing the battle size or any modifications, my point is that you'll get tired faster than you would with the current state of total war games.

Therefore, current state of total war games should change.

Yeah, but you can't guarantee that you'll have "less" battles during your campaign.

OP wants battle mode changes, not campaign changes.

>Will we ever experience battles with at least 100k troops

That would require the graphics to drop which is never tolerated in this industry

>that would require some work put into the engine and optimization*
I don't expect to see this battles that big at least until 2024

And what change(s)?

OP thinks 100k men on screen. You're in agreeance?

I find it would cause burnout

They could have massive armies and still look good, but that would mean that CA actually need to learn to optimize their fucking games

Who gives a shit what the OP wants, this is an evolving discussion. Read the rest of this thread you mongoloid

>muh optimisation
Console niggers are retarded.

Not even NASA super computers can run these games above 10fps when you have a full 8 player match with maximum size armies, so probably never. If it can't handle that, it could never handle 100x that.

no, because 100k troops in a single battle would mean the battle would take forever and CA's shitty engine couldn't handle that many troops at all, it can barely handle the ~2000 or so we have now

>brainlet can't micro more than 5 units at the same time
>engine optimization is hard
>dropping quality is never ok

>being this much of a brainlet

Attached: 1500840878988.jpg (470x470, 39K)

The actual number of troops on screen is not that important, but in my opinion, the game should be reworked the way that every individual battle is much more important. Therefore, they should happen less often, and, to offset the rarity, be bigger. Maybe even up to 100k.

the whole "armies need a general" thing is still idiotic

t. retards who don't know what optimization means
Your potato pc won't magically be able to play games at 140fps because of it

You sure showed me.
Optimisation =/= Magic. Fuck off retard.

Care to explain how, idea guy?

while it isn't magic, several of their games are poorly optimized
there's absolutely zero reason why Atilla should run worse than any of the Warhammer games and yet it does

Animations.

some kind of manpower mechanic where if you lose to many battles you can't just magically shit out an army because you have money could do it

Not only will it take forever (good point), it will cause fatigue/burnout. Which is detrimental.

Oh dude, you gotta play total war more.

not just animations, the fps on the campaign map in that game is notoriously horrible even on powerful pc's
gods sake my pc is younger than the game and it still runs like crap on the campaign map

We will when self learning AI will be in a common use

Total War is unironically shit.

>t. /gsg/ autist

Never.

works on my machine

Map painters are even worse.

A matrioshka brain could simulate a billion instances of that scale with just a fraction of it's computational power so it's definitely possible.

Attached: dyson-sphere-artist-2.jpg (1400x788, 1.03M)

what was his problem

Unfortunately it kind of does, but what other strategy game lets me fulfill the fantasy of commanding an organized battle with thousands of troops?

Can someone tell me if they fixed the tiny font that the games had since Empire?

Not him but what ?

Total war would be a more engaging game and more fun if there were a system that limited the amount of orders you could give troops or a delay between order and it being acted out.
it's just micro your archers and horses and tie things up with meat at the moment. Very few tactics actually involved.
Plus matches are over far too quickly, why put all this work into impressive graphics and animations if I can't actually view them if I wish to play the game effectively.
Medieval 2 had the pace right, being able to watch a battle unfold instead of having to micro shit should be what the series is about.

Not really. It's just a concept that I would personally like to see and play. Maybe limit strategic movement speed and the amount of big armies, and make it possible to recruit them only in the heartlands, so they would need to spend a while getting anywhere after a defeat. Rework a strategic map in general, so maneuvering becomes more important. But I'm just spitballing in the middle of the night here
Oh yeah, shifting the command level from tactical to operational would also fit a lot with bigger and more important battles, but that is pretty hard to implement in a good way.

At the very least I wish there was some level of unit level AI. The fact that I can have a battle line where a unit of infantry not in guard mode sits idly by staring at space while the unit next to them is getting crushed is infuriating, it feels more like I'm keeping a bunch of children alive than commanding an army.