More units

[franek12354]

Is annoing as i made lots of army which is 160= I get information about limit how about to make it 700+ 1000= per player it will make or have to bigger maps and massive battle filed imagine 4 players got 4000 in battlefield

[Ryo]

Imho more Units would only be suitable for VTOL atm.
While using 100 Tanks, the actual Pathfinding let them drive in an endless column. If you are playing Maps that are not plain without any hills oder barriers, i think your giant army will be dripping unit by unit into enemy defence

[Roux Le Corps]

true, but you have to admit, once the path finding bugs have been ironed out, this would be an awesome idea, especially if we could add movement formations in game ^_^

[franek12354]

yeah colums are use less defecne ca just pop out all of your tanks 1 by 1

[JDW]

how about to make it 700+ 1000= per player

There used to be a higher limit on number of units. I'm not sure how much exactly but I think it was 300, according to one veteran. It was limited to 150 because of some technical problems, something to do with sync problems on MP i guess. The staff could explain this better.

[cybersphinx]

I think there are three problems with units (so more units → more problems): Pathfinding (needs CPU), drawing them (needs GPU), and syncing them (needs bandwidth). For 2.3, the first two mean a drop in the framerate (at least on slower systems), which again leads to worse sync.

[Ryo]

You could implement a dynamic unit-limit:
If one of the computers in the game tells the host: "im on my hardwarelimit, PLEASE stop!" the hostcomputer sets the unitcount of the player with the (actual) most units as limitation ^^

[Merowingg]

Well 300 was good, but 150 is also not bad I think..

I am a little bit confused now

[franek12354]

150 bad
300 good 500 is best

[Zarel]

You could implement a dynamic unit-limit:
If one of the computers in the game tells the host: "im on my hardwarelimit, PLEASE stop!" the hostcomputer sets the unitcount of the player with the (actual) most units as limitation ^^

The unit limit affects game balance. Admittedly, it's not a very big effect, so we can change it every few releases without too many problems, but it's still there.

I don't really want the effectiveness of unit massing strategies to change depending on how good the host's computer is.

(This reasoning, incidentally, also applies to why we don't just restrict features to singleplayer if the netcode doesn't support it - we feel it's important that everyone is playing the same game.)

[Verin]

150 is good enough

[Merowingg]

Well being the Commander of 10 000 units must be great too

But becuse of problems mentioned earlier I suppose for now 150 to 300 is enough

[Wolftrak]

I would suggest lowering it at 100.Having 1000 units prolongs the games,and it gives boring gaming experience.Take Starcraft 2 for example,you can build around 100-150 units which are well balanced and you build strategy around them.Even so,you can rarely use the whole limit in a game.

Games needs to be short,fast and interesting.That's why Starcraft is considered to be a better RTS than Red Alert.

In RA,once you amass a large number of units,even god can't stop you.As far as i remember,in RA2,the noob attack was amass apocalypse tanks and attack.Once you had a certain number of units,the game felt freakingly sluggish.

In SC,you work with what is given,and at the end,the player with a knowledge in strategy will win.If you analyzed opponent's army,you can crush him easily.If you barricaded yourself well enough,you will crush the attacking army.

Whether is 150 vs 150 units or 1000 vs 1000 units,or even 15 vs 15,the outcome will be the same.The better player will always win.

[Wibble199]

How about adding a variable limit that the host can change, like you do with the las sat post?

[Merowingg]

Well las sat can be turned on or of only but yes many structures can be limited

Your idea sounds good too