Div Art Cos'

[Von_Clausewitz]

Sorry for my ignorence of the subject but how many men were involved in the battle of Gettysburg for it to be impossible to have the full oob on the same battlefield?

VC

[estabu2]

There was around 93,000 Union and 70,000+ confederates. I dont' have the figures in front of me, but I loaded up a full OOB and the Union army took up three-quarters of the map. Not very conducive to maneauver. But you also must remember that each map only represents a section of the terrain, it does not represent the whole battlefield.

[Von_Clausewitz]

I see so with about 10 to 1 ratio it is about 17000 men. It should not be that hard to run these with today's systems on low settings. Probably the highly detailed maps is what slows it down. No matter, we can have scenarios built fighting the huge battles in sectors. It wouldn't be manageable to control 90000 men in corps and divisions unless you had 10 players on each side. Besides like you said there would not be room to maneuver.

I hope a map editor is released sometime after the game is released. I understand the reason behind holding on to it but hopefully newer releases will have improvements to the engine that players would pay for instead than maps. I would pay for any of the group's released to support the group in their effort to provide us with enjoyable highly accurate historical games. After all a napoleonic mod needs napoleonic maps.

VC

[BOSTON]

estabu2 wrote:

There was around 93,000 Union and 70,000+ confederates. I dont' have the figures in front of me, but I loaded up a full OOB and the Union army took up three-quarters of the map. Not very conducive to maneauver. But you also must remember that each map only represents a section of the terrain, it does not represent the whole battlefield.

Do the maps overlay/overlap one another to some extent?

Hoistingman4

[estabu2]

hoistingman4 wrote:

estabu2 wrote:

There was around 93,000 Union and 70,000+ confederates. I dont' have the figures in front of me, but I loaded up a full OOB and the Union army took up three-quarters of the map. Not very conducive to maneauver. But you also must remember that each map only represents a section of the terrain, it does not represent the whole battlefield.

Do the maps overlay/overlap one another to some extent?

Hoistingman4

Yes

[Jim]

We are running at a 4:1 soldier:sprite ratio and the June 30 OOB runs to ~157,000 total troops or something over 40,000 total sprites potentially visible counting artillery and cavalry. I have a 2.83 GHz quad core system with 4 GB of RAM and that is not enough for this oob, even on one of the sparse maps. Norb is continuing to work on improving performance, but the largest historical scenarios set our minimum standards.

The historical maps have a lot of overlap but are designed to give room for historical and speculative scenarios specific for each area and day.

-Jim

[BOSTON]

Jim wrote:

We are running at a 4:1 soldier:sprite ratio and the June 30 OOB runs to ~157,000 total troops or something over 40,000 total sprites potentially visible counting artillery and cavalry. I have a 2.83 GHz quad core system with 4 GB of RAM and that is not enough for this oob, even on one of the sparse maps. Norb is continuing to work on improving performance, but the largest historical scenarios set our minimum standards.

The historical maps have a lot of overlap but are designed to give room for historical and speculative scenarios specific for each area and day.

-Jim

Enough room to do a Longstreet end run on day two or three? Or could that be one of your What Ifs? in the stock package? leaving enough time in one of the scenarios would be nice, another way of being creative for either side.

Another thing, on that History War site, they have plans to do a 500,000 man game, it could'nt possibly be on the 4:1 scale of GB. I'm coming to the realization that the smaller the ratio the better the quality for game play and visuals, would that be true?

Hoistingman4

[Little Powell]

hoistingman4 wrote:

I'm coming to the realization that the smaller the ratio the better the quality for game play and visuals, would that be true?

Hoistingman4

It's neat to see what a 1:1 ratio looks like (Grayghosts SR1 mod for TC2M comes to mind) but when you have to make a compromise to have enough forces on the field, it's well worth it to have a higher ratio like 4:1.

With a 4:1 ratio, you really get a sense of the mass of the forces. In this game; a division looks a lot more like a division than in TC2M. And a Corps.. Well, it's a HUGE force!

[BOSTON]

Little Powell wrote:

hoistingman4 wrote:

I'm coming to the realization that the smaller the ratio the better the quality for game play and visuals, would that be true?

Hoistingman4

It's neat to see what a 1:1 ratio looks like (Grayghosts SR1 mod for TC2M comes to mind) but when you have to make a compromise to have enough forces on the field, it's well worth it to have a higher ratio like 4:1.

With a 4:1 ratio, you really get a sense of the mass of the forces. In this game; a division looks a lot more like a division than in TC2M. And a Corps.. Well, it's a HUGE force!

Took a quick look into the TC2M manual, could'nt find the ratio of that game. So what is the ratio of TC2M ? if GB is 4:1.

[Little Powell]

hoistingman4 wrote:

Took a quick look into the TC2M manual, could'nt find the ratio of that game. So what is the ratio of TC2M ? if GB is 4:1.

I'm pretty sure it's 10:1, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.