They fucked up Bannerlord

>implying even RTSs can field that many models at once without frying your pc
Weak bait.

OP's experience of history is reading about the couple of giant battles that have happened on Wikipedia.

Total War, Ultimate General: Civil War and Supreme Commander, my man.

You're correct.
The only empire that had nearly the amount of troops to what OP is talking about was China, but even they never actually used all of them.

Large scaled units of 120 peasants each with 20 maximum units per battle means you can have 2400 peasants getting massacred by 1200 heavy infantry and 400 heavy cavalry at once.

in Total war games***
Love total war
Love history
Love RTS
Simple as

>only 20,000
you dumb faggot. they obviously should have shot for a six digit figure. anything less than 100,000 on both sides is boring and a sign of lazy ass money grubbing devs (as if you needed more proof...)

Battles of 5000+ were possible in Battlefront 2 engine back in 2005. Fuck off.

youtu.be/N6ZSllNfyWM

But Supreme Commander?

100,000 on both sides you won't be able to control the army.

The scale would be too vast for a singular leader to control, you need captains for that.

The battle plan would also be held in a camp before hands.

>when in the medieval times they would go at it with hundreds of thousands of troops
No they didn't. Early medieval period that Bannerlord is analogous to had less powerful states than in antiquity or in high medieval period or later. I can't quickly find a source but if I recall correctly, even the total population of (Western) Europe was still in recovery following Crisis of the Third Century. For example, one of the largest most decisive battles of the period, Battle of Hastings, had 25k troops in the highest estimate and fewer than that would have actually been in the thick of it.

Attached: 2020-04-08_093506_371946706.png (336x757, 243.34K)

I think the hundred thousands of troop is only a Napoleonic era thing.

The romans were definitely making up numbers.

>medieval times
>hundreds of thousands of troops.
Not in europe, no.
Rome and disease depleted europe so much, battles like that wouldn't happen again until the napoleonic era.
That's why castles were so important, better to maximize the troops you have rather than try to steam roll with huge numbers.

Haven't played it. Been an old command and conquer and Total war fanboy, mostly.

it's a video game

Wheres all the guys. Doesnt look like 500

And? It's impossible to control Mount and Blade as it is if it's really 100.000 units.

Maybe if you can switch out to bird view and direct troop then jump back to character view, like in Shogun 2.

no, xerxes' army at thermopylae is estimated at 100k, which was still a big deal but not unheard of

You illiterate retard doesn’t know anything about medieval warfare. They rarely had massive armies like youre implying. God please kill urself

Sound like exact bullshit since how the fuck can 300 spartans and thousands of militia helpers and mercs manage to delay a 100.000 strong army?

Can you even imagine a 100.000 strong army marching?

I like the cut of your jib, user

because all 100k guys cant attack at the same time? and because the spartans were in a phalanx and holding a narrow pass?

some modern historians think xerxes had as many as 300k

Do you think napoleon sent all of his troops to attack wellington at the same time at waterloo?

Attached: Captre.jpg (313x837, 64.4K)

It takes Napoleon and industrialized Europe to even that kind of numbers to bear.
I'm calling these numbers bullshit and the romans having been adding zeroes.

>Roman ""historians""

Waterloo was a multi-front battle that lasts almost for day(s).

There were large battles in the antiquity as well. For example, we can be pretty confident Battle of Cannae had roughly 80k Roman troops (8 boosted-strength legions and equal number of allied troops) and Carthagian forces would have been substantially less but still in their tens of thousands.

In Western Europe this scale of warfare wouldn't be matched until the Napoleonic era, yes, but it's not like the scale of Napoleonic era battles came out of nowhere (China always had a big population, and Eastern Mediterranean/Levant didn't see similar decline so their ability to field big armies wasn't as greatly impacted). Growing (up to a point, recovery of) population and more powerful states could field increasingly larger armies in late medieval and early modern periods.

100k is massive but still believable
300k is a logistical nightmare and most likely impossible

Remember when Hannibal marched his 500k troops across the alps. Truly a genius with such a small amount of troops for his time

China myth and history are intertwined with each other so I doubt their numbers as well.

>make it inside the gate in a siege
>hmm, not a lot of enemies here this should be f
>big blob of enemies spawn right on top of me
HALP

why?they lost 60-80k at Cannae

I'm doubting that as well. It could 6000 or 8000.

okay retard

It is possible they count things differently back then.

That's over 12 years

THREE
HUNDRED
SPARTANS

Attached: Spartan Male And Female.jpg (1600x1040, 220.99K)

12 years of war user,not a single battle. And moss.

And I'd guarantee a lot of those numbers are just Roman dickwaving

Well yes, it's not like you should take Cao Cao's boast of 800k men for Battle of Red Cliffs at face value, any more than Herodotus claiming Persian force of 2,641,610 for Thermopylae. However, China most definitely always had big population and usually had states powerful enough to mobilize them in large numbers.

I would believe it as 1000 or 10.000 as most.

Actually I'm pretty sure most battles during the medieval ages were skirmishes.

>they should have improved it for battles that never happened in real life

i know it's a war u dipshit,do you also realize it's casualties and not total forces listed?
>i'd guarantee
that means nothing

Fuck off

>20 legions of just casualties
lolno

lolyes

prove it

We know how big Roman legions were at the time, that's 4000 strong. We know the legions were boosted in strength because the Romans really wanted to get rid of Hannibal. We know Romans sent eight legions. And we know legions were accompanied by an equal number of allied troops. The math here is pretty clear. Romans had roughly 80k troops. Are we going to doubt the scale of Battle of Leipzig or Stalingrad as well, by an order of magnitude no less, even though we have clear lists of orders of battle?

>ow the fuck am ai supposed to take seriously 500 man fights when in the medieval times they would go at it with hundreds of thousands of troops?
They absolutely did not. Stop taking Hollywood as source of information. Medival battles had 5000-20000 troops on each side. There wasn't even infrastructure to sustain larger armies.

wikipedias right there nigger,you're the one talking out yer ass

You fucking illiterate idiots, when have I mentioned a hundred fucking thousand?
What fucking medieval battle ever had a maximum of 500-1000 men battling? I don't expect 100 000 troops on screen but man you guys are fucking retarded to say that 10 000 to 20 000 man fighting is not realistic in medieval times.

prove wikipedia’s claims, NIGGER

Here: > when in the medieval times they would go at it with hundreds of thousands of troops

The part where you mentioned hundreds of thousands, fucktard.

What the fuck are you smoking man? Big Battle Mod was just a collection of huge maps, it didn't allow 5,000+ simultaneous units in one map.

>when have I mentioned a hundred fucking thousand?
>in the medieval times they would go at it with hundreds of thousands of troops?
The best part about idiots is how they keep making the same fucking mistake.

And doing so is not realistic on modern hardware. What part of that are you not able to understand? Or would you prefer for the engine's complexity to be pared down so you could see loadsa twoops on screen?

Nah fucks, hundreds OF thousands NOT hundred thousand, that's a fucking big difference. Nobody in medieval times would get in battle all of it's fucking troops at once.
Learn to read you mongoloids.

references are the bottom of the page lazy cunt

>hurr if some roman faggot wrote how he squashed a million strong enemy then it must mean he did durr

retard

Attached: rz468gf5pgr41.png (680x324, 87.39K)

No, because those were modern era with modern medicine and logistics.

Hundreds of thousands balloons the number even more since it's anywhere between 100k to a million. Why don't you learn basic English?

You had me in the first half. Game runs like shit honestly and am just considering going back to Warband since it runs infinitely better.

>hurr i'm some faggot and i kow better hurr

Attached: 72c.jpg (600x450, 18.95K)

Are you ESL or just retarded?

This

>no argument

my dicks bigger so i'm right

You fucks are the only ones balooning , medieval times had hundreds of thousands of troops waiting and moving around when a war was going on. Tactics and logistics are a big thing.
You retards think that every battle consisted of giant slaughter fests, no. Learn history and most importantly learn to read, faggots.

Attached: my brain vs your brain.jpg (960x898, 57.96K)

Play total war

unless you’re black, I highly doubt that

Based gaslighting exaggerating samefag.

Go choke on your bfs cock

I'm talking about your retarded as fuck explanation of your use of hundreds of thousands, fucking retard. Do you mean hundreds of thousands or a hundred thousand? Can't even argue like a literate human being and he wants to be taken seriously.

Ignoring the OP's ESL background and 1mm dick, any of you started looking into the mods for Bannerlord? So far I've only used the Bannerlord Tweaks mod to enable a few things like more troops during hideouts and more militia for settlements so they don't get steamrolled as hard.

YESS!!1! Cant believe we cant fight with at leas 100k soldiers at a time, we should have 200k limit, fucking shit game cant even have 500k soldier battles baka

Battles in ancient times with hundreds of thounsands of troops took days, it wasn't just one face off they would regroup and replenish supplies and sleep and rest a part of troops while other are fighting.

It's just not fun they did what was necessary to survive, not what was fun and practical