Scourge of War Boards

So I'm trying to play a full army vs army battle in HIST

the map is antietam afternoon, the oob is gettysburg day 3.

I only get 10fps, I've tried with 1500 meter view distance on troops and trees ect. I've tried with standad 1:4 sprite.

8-10 fps, get a headache after just a few minutes.

I then tried to decrease view distance to 1000 meters on all, and down the sprite ratio to 1:6 still 8-10 fps.

This is not how a game should run on my pc.

I have an i7 3770k 3.5ghz
16gig ram
and gtx 780oc x2

The problem isn't the number of sprites, but the number of regiments. You have found the limit of what your computer can handle. You can improve that only by overclocking your CPU.

I have a 3770 and run it at 4.6Ghz. I can use armies of 110K men at 10fps. It starts to lag though if all the units are engaged in fighting.

But that shoudln't happen, this game should not demand more then all other games made, I can't think of any game that gives me 10fps, a game should not let you play something that almost no pc can play.

It's not a graphics thing, yes nobody can problebly play GTA V with the special options added and keep 60fps.

But thats extras, figiht with armies in a strategy game is not an extra. if almost no pc can play it, they it there is a fundamental flaw in the game.

But thats extras, figiht with armies in a strategy game is not an extra. if almost no pc can play it, they it there is a fundamental flaw in the game.

Indeed there is a flaw. It's the fact that this is an extremely good AI. Good AIs require a lot of CPU cycles. The more regiments on the field, the more calculations needed.

The game runs best with corps level battles. If army size battles are a requirement for you then I'd suggest Histwar as an alternative. The AI is brain dead, but you'll get large armies on a beautiful landscape.

But thats extras, figiht with armies in a strategy game is not an extra. if almost no pc can play it, they it there is a fundamental flaw in the game.

Indeed there is a flaw. It's the fact that this is an extremely good AI. Good AIs require a lot of CPU cycles. The more regiments on the field, the more calculations needed.

The game runs best with corps level battles. If army size battles are a requirement for you then I'd suggest Histwar as an alternative. The AI is brain dead, but you'll get large armies on a beautiful landscape.

Not an excuse, if you make the ai to "powerfull" to play all of the game, you either have to find a solution or recode the ai.

It's like selling a Madden game, but the xbox can't handle a full team so all matches are 4 vs 4 on the field. but atleast the ai is super good.

But thats extras, figiht with armies in a strategy game is not an extra. if almost no pc can play it, they it there is a fundamental flaw in the game.

Indeed there is a flaw. It's the fact that this is an extremely good AI. Good AIs require a lot of CPU cycles. The more regiments on the field, the more calculations needed.

The game runs best with corps level battles. If army size battles are a requirement for you then I'd suggest Histwar as an alternative. The AI is brain dead, but you'll get large armies on a beautiful landscape.

Not an excuse, if you make the ai to "powerfull" to play all of the game, you either have to find a solution or recode the ai.

It's like selling a Madden game, but the xbox can't handle a full team so all matches are 4 vs 4 on the field. but atleast the ai is super good.

I would rather say that it's like making a game that allows for a range of different ways of playing it, including some that leads to suboptimal situations depending on the users hardware if pushed too far.

Some would maybe argue that then they should have disallowed that sort of scenario but really, I'd say it's better that the option is there. Surely, more options is always better?

Not an excuse, if you make the ai to "powerfull" to play all of the game, you either have to find a solution or recode the ai.

I make no excuses. The AI is the best on the market for 19th century warfare. Nothing else comes close. Compromising that in order to field larger armies is illogical. Histwar meets all your criteria for a 'proper' wargame; good fps, large armies, beautiful landscape. Enjoy.

Not an excuse, if you make the ai to "powerfull" to play all of the game, you either have to find a solution or recode the ai.

I make no excuses. The AI is the best on the market for 19th century warfare. Nothing else comes close. Compromising that in order to field larger armies is illogical. Histwar meets all your criteria for a 'proper' wargame; good fps, large armies, beautiful landscape. Enjoy.

It's not a given that the best ai also makes almost any pc explode, thats bad design. Even when this game come out, multicore was standard, can't remember if quad core was yet, but duel core for sure. So designing a game that is not degigned to take advantage of current techoogolgy or possible future techonolgy is a degin flawe as the core of the game. Given that the size of single cores have been stable from 2-4(depending on price) this game will never be able to propperly run a army vs army game. unless they start designing new quad or octocore cpus with higher hgz pr. core. if the game needs a 8ghz core to run, all of it's features then it's a big flaw.

I don't understand why you bring up histwar(in a negative way too) I have not complaied about the grapihics, just the desgin of the ai, it's nota a given, smart ai =exploding pc. Especaly when we KNOW it uses only one core when it was standard atleast with dual core when it was made.

Saying I want a dumb pretty game,(scourge of war is far prettier then Histwar, even histwar napoleon) simply because I feel the game lacks a big feature when nobody can propperly play an army vs army game is not the same as wanting it to be dumb.

In another thread where you were moaning about fps Con20or posted that in the Waterloo game he has run the full historical 100 days OOB armies at 20fps.

Gettysburg was NOT optimised for multi-core CPUs, that much is well known and has been made clear in NSDs forums many times. Gettysburg will probably only give you 10fps in army vs army games. Please don't waste your keyboard time complaining about this since the game has now been superceded by SoW:Waterloo.

NSD have improved the threading for Waterloo.

The decision calculations you get with SoWs AI is exactly why the game is such a demand on CPU resources; it makes very light demands on graphics card resources.

This is the opposite of almost every other game out there - almost all other games are graphics intensive with little to no AI decisions and calculations/requests that demand a lot of CPU power. You've been told this several times now; why won't you accept that this level of complexity of AI costs processing effort?

What on earth is your obsession with high fps? You wiggled out of the issue in the other thread by saying high fps is what games reviewers demand, yet quite clearly its what you demand as well. You need to shift gears mentally and in your expectations. As the sprites only have 16 or 32 frames of animation 60fps or even 30fps is simply a waste since you just won't even see that in this game.

I've played on 10 to 15 fps for 5 years or more and it does not detract from the gameplay immersion or make the screen hard to watch for extended periods (I play in MP games that frequently last over 3 hours). If you are getting headaches you need to adjust your sitting posture or the distance at which you view the screen, or the room lighting, or see an optometrist to have your vision tested because 10 to 15 fps should not give you headaches.

We could have put in limits. We could have guaranteed that the game ran perfectly on everyone's computer. Really flew. We could have capped regiments, taken away the sprite ratio option. Basically turned off all the modding capability. We could have capped the number of players in mp, locked the camera. Lots of little things that we decided to keep free form rather than place restrictions. See, I'm all about freedom in most things. The freedom to do what you want, how you want. So we don't place limits, we allow people to find those limits themselves. Let them find the limits that fit their platform. But if you would rather us cap stuff so that it runs great everytime, the first thing you'll have to nix is that army vs. army you are playing. That's just got to go or at least we'll have to go to a 10:1 sprite ratio.