Unit actualy Sizes

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

Hey, I was thinking a bit. As I've mentioned before, the units are really tightly-packed. However, they also look very small. When zooming down to lowest camera point, a unit wont take much place at all, you'll see more of the sky than the unit. Maybe the units are under-dimensioned? I mean, perhaps every individual should actually be a bit larger?


Im not sure if it is either the camera or their actual size. It might be a mix of both. If camera could go lower, they would ofcourse look bigger, but even at that low point, they should be a bit larger (I think). See attachments, 2 pictures from Real Warfare 2, compared to 2 pictures from Napoleon Total War (Just for comparing). I've taken camera to lowest position on both RW 2 pictures, and at one of the Napoleonic pictures (the other one is slightly higher up). It is a quite big difference
Is this something that can in an easy way be changed/adjusted/improved?

(It's still a great game)

[mitra]

Take present her the space between soldiers is not a graphical effect like in the TW but has impact on the battle mechanics and so also the numbers of lines. I think the effect is due to fact TW soldiers appears a little bigger with near camera.

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

Originally Posted by mitra

Take present her the space between soldiers is not a graphical effect like in the TW but has impact on the battle mechanics and so also the numbers of lines. I think the effect is due to fact TW soldiers appears a little bigger with near camera.

Yes that might be right. Then it's probably that the camera should be able to go lower, so they'll look a bit bigger.. Hmm? Maybe? :S

[PeteSKTemplar]

And also do not forget that people used to be smaller than are now just look at armors in museums though northern people were for long time known to be taller than Mediterraneans for example in Ancient and Medieval times.
I am more-less kidding of course when looking on topic but it is true as a fact (and also it is always tempting for me to search for other than obvious answer).
I would like to know whether besides game mechanic difference alteration of size could change performance too because as for me I would prefer rather no pushing performance more.

[Goblin Wizard]

Originally Posted by PeteSKTemplar

I would like to know whether besides game mechanic difference alteration of size could change performance too because as for me I would prefer rather no pushing performance more.

It depends on how they change the model. If they only scale it up a little it doesn't have any impact on performance but if they change number of polygons it surely has an impact on the amount of generated frames. Of course, the same texture on the scaled up model will look a little less detailed and blurred.

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

Originally Posted by PeteSKTemplar

And also do not forget that people used to be smaller than are now just look at armors in museums though northern people were for long time known to be taller than Mediterraneans for example in Ancient and Medieval times.
I am more-less kidding of course when looking on topic but it is true as a fact (and also it is always tempting for me to search for other than obvious answer).
I would like to know whether besides game mechanic difference alteration of size could change performance too because as for me I would prefer rather no pushing performance more.

Yes, that is true but, there was no huge difference exactly from 1200's to the early 1800's (The average length). It's probably the camera as the major factor for why the units looks so small, but really, some should be able to stand a bit more loose (irregulars, militia and sergeants mostly). Knights (both dismounted and mounted) have a quite nice basic formation.
So it is possible making the units bigger? :O

[Goblin Wizard]

Originally Posted by ThisIsRealWarfare

So it is possible making the units bigger? :O

It's always possible but bigger than what (or how much bigger? by 20%, 50% or maybe 100%). Bigger, smaller are general terms and they have different meaning for each of us. To be precise we have to compare the size of a soldier to something else which size we all already know and agree like e.g. a building or horse. No offense but saying that soldiers look small because we can't move camera low enough (as in the other game) is not the best way to compare things.

Technically speaking - I doubt that something like general scale factor for all game models exist (correct me if I'm wrong). So if you significantly change the size of a soldier it means that you have to change size of all objects to make the whole game looks "on scale" and believable (e.g. knights can't ride ponies). It needs a lot of work and time. IMHO the devs can better spend this time creating some new content rather than working on a cosmetic changes like the size of a soldier.

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

Originally Posted by Goblin Wizard

No offense but saying that soldiers look small because we can't move camera low enough (as in the other game) is not the best way to compare things.

Thats not really what I meant. The point with the camera is that, moving it lower will make a unit look bigger (Which makes sense because if you crouch and looks at another person, he/she would look bigger). It was not really my intention to compare it, just giving it as example for what might be "wrong" (dont misunderstand) with the "small" units.

Originally Posted by Goblin Wizard

Technically speaking - I doubt that something like general scale factor for all game models exist (correct me if I'm wrong). So if you significantly change the size of a soldier it means that you have to change size of all objects to make the whole game looks "on scale" and believable (e.g. knights can't ride ponies). It needs a lot of work and time. IMHO the devs can better spend this time creating some new content rather than working on a cosmetic changes like the size of a soldier.

Yes that's also what I meant. (The reason why I asked if it works). So basically, it doesn't work, because it'd take a lot of time, and not even I think it's worth it. The developers have done a great job, and this is something they can think on when making their next strategy title
And a bit more loose formations.

[PeteSKTemplar]

If considering what was diet of "irregulars" - peasants in comparison to knights than they should be "bigger" than peasants. On the other hand just their gear should make them so. I remember that in Golden Horde game it was big difference even in size among those different levels of troops. When I zoomed bigger battle it was nice to see visually some "giants" among "regular" soldiers. (though I did not like that huge difference like in Warcraft III for example where heroes were too big among the rest of army)

[Goblin Wizard]

Originally Posted by PeteSKTemplar

If considering what was diet of "irregulars" - peasants in comparison to knights than they should be "bigger" than peasants. On the other hand just their gear should make them so. I remember that in Golden Horde game it was big difference even in size among those different levels of troops. When I zoomed bigger battle it was nice to see visually some "giants" among "regular" soldiers. (though I did not like that huge difference like in Warcraft III for example where heroes were too big among the rest of army)

That's a good idea! In order to hide that units are generally clone army every unit has 3 types of helmets and e.g. knights has two totally different types of soldiers (knights and squires). Additionally devs could add 3 types of tallness. For example actual size would be the medium and two others like half-head taller and half-head shorter. It will bring much more variety to units' look and hide the problem ThisIsRealWarfare was talking about. Seems like perfect solution/compromise for me (needs very little work).