Is the battlefield too small?

Nerfix · #1 July 8th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Just wondering what's the general opinion on the size of the battlefield.

Truper · #2 July 8th, 2005, 08:28 PM

The battlefield is just fine.

GriffinOfBuerrig · #3 July 8th, 2005, 08:59 PM

Arralen · #4 July 9th, 2005, 03:20 AM

If it's too small to hold your armies, you have stockpiled for much to long. You should have attacked much earlier ...

Endoperez · #5 July 9th, 2005, 04:07 AM

Besides, I think battlefield scales to the amount of units present. So if one plays with small armies, the battlefield can hold more units than one excepts.

FrankTrollman · #6 July 9th, 2005, 05:07 AM

It's small enough that Ermorian field armies regularly get smooshed, but large enough that no other army should have that problem.

Whether you think that makes the current size a bug or a feature I suppose depends upon your POV, therefore.

-Frank

Agrajag · #7 July 9th, 2005, 06:04 AM

If you have more troops than the battlefield can contain, it doesn't really matter, because if you try and move all of them the game will probably crash during hosting *grin*.

magnate · #8 July 9th, 2005, 06:55 AM

How many are we talking about here? I don't tend to play on maps bigger than Orania so I've never seen an army of more than about 500 Ermorian chaff. Presumably you have to hit four digits before either hosting or battlefield size becomes a problem?

Oversway · #9 July 9th, 2005, 10:32 AM

I've never hit the battlefield limit but I think it would be cool to have the potential for even bigger battles, like a scaleable field size.

Ed Kolis · #10 July 9th, 2005, 01:31 PM

I don't think it's too small, but I do think the trees in front should be removed - they prevent you from getting a good zoomed-out view of the action

And yes, a moddable/scalabel battlefield size would be helpful!