StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvcUKJ3WrGU&t=192s[/youtube]

Basically, someone decided to build an engine that could match Total War in terms of scale. Hearing and reading about 100,000 men armies is one thing, but actually seeing it visually is something quite different. I don't even think the CGI armies in LOTR is as big as the one depicted in this video.

While this is certainly not a realistic depiction of warfare, it really does show just how difficult it is to command an army anywhere near that size without modern technology. It's also a lot more apparent how big an actual battlefield need to be if it was to accommodate armies of such size.

That does show well why close formations were the default until the invention of explosives and machine guns, spreading out more then slightly makes command nearly impossible, and you just cannot command anything you can't see, requiring all the various echelons of command we have today, and which aren't much changed since Antiquity. As well as the problem, one can imagine, of deploying from the march, since even today its entirely possible that an entire 100,000 man army might be deploying off one main road. Major possible advantages in tactics will fall flat if nobody reaches the fight...god is that so much of history too, but then their is a reason basket why armies over about 25,000 men were not too common for long periods.

This is individually-modeled, too, right? Whereas TW simplifies by grouping a few hundred 'men' together as one unit. Couldn't possibly help with either the mechanical or individual issues.

Esquire wrote:This is individually-modeled, too, right? Whereas TW simplifies by grouping a few hundred 'men' together as one unit. Couldn't possibly help with either the mechanical or individual issues.

There is less AI for this game engine as well. There's no real concept of units or having troops that react to being flanked and etc. This is just a render machine.

Who (what; I don't care) does a better job of that, though? Nobody springs to my mind.

Sea Skimmer wrote:That does show well why close formations were the default until the invention of explosives and machine guns, spreading out more then slightly makes command nearly impossible, and you just cannot command anything you can't see, requiring all the various echelons of command we have today, and which aren't much changed since Antiquity. As well as the problem, one can imagine, of deploying from the march, since even today its entirely possible that an entire 100,000 man army might be deploying off one main road. Major possible advantages in tactics will fall flat if nobody reaches the fight...god is that so much of history too, but then their is a reason basket why armies over about 25,000 men were not too common for long periods.

And, for that matter, when armies did get up to huge sizes, the first thing a smart commander did was split the troops up into smaller armies that operated separately. On top of it being so very much easier to feed them, something a battle simulator won't model as a rule.

Amusing update:

Adam Reynolds wrote:Amusing update:

So, who won?

Looks like there were Romans left on the top of the hill in the final wide shot....