Can somebody explain?

[Untamed Waters]

I loved Pikmin when I was a little kid. The fact that I could control a 100 person army was amazing at the time. I loved that game.

One day last week I saw overlord and thought What the heck Ill rent it. While playing it something kept on bothering me. If technology truely is getting better I should have more than a hundred people following me. Why cant I have a thousand followers? I still dont get why this isnt feasoble with todays tech?

And the same goes for RTS's Why cant I have 100 person units instead of 9? I like seeing giant battles unfold instead of just 16 troop battles.

If someone can explain this to me it would be great.

Try the Kingdom Under Fire series. The crusaders is only eight bucks used on gamestop.com and Kingdom Under Fire : 2 is coming out this year.

Although it still only may be in the hundred. Not sure.

 

[FURY_007]

becaust RTS is Real Time Strategy, emphasis on the Strategy, not RTC which would be Real Time CHAOS

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

Perfect example of regular people not knowing WHAT they want. This is why we have game designers.

While you think you want to see "huge battles", the fact is that generally that leads to a more chaotic, less orderly game. And while chaos can be kind of neat sometimes, it gets boring quickly. One comprimise is to have "units" that you control, which LOOK like a group of maybe 10 or so units but function as just one.

Exactly. This is what I was trying to allude to. I honestly hate micro managing but Having a cheap infantry that has 40 units as one one serve as a easy way to control your battle and to create chaos which I for some reason like.

I just find it really weird to meet someone who played Pikmin when they were a little kid. How old are you? Also, if you want HUGE armies, try a few Total War games.

I was 7 when I got it so figure it out for yourself if you care. Why is it weird?

Also I was not asking for reccomendations but I probably should pick up some of the ones you mentioned that I dont own. Also Whats wrong with chaos? I for one love the chaos of battle, Something I blame watching The Lord of the Rings as a little kid and playing alot of shooters but Once I tell my troops what to do I zoom in as much as I can and get a cinematic look.

Surely by increasing numbers you're just increasing the numbers of people assigned to groups so 10 units of 10 is a hundred. if you had 1000 the units would just be 10 of 100 people. Are you saying you want to individually organise 1000 people. because that's dumb (to think you could) everyone delegates to middle managment.

The game would be for the supergenius (as yourself) only and would sell very poorly. And who would play against?

Shurikens and Lightning vs Stephen Hawkin(assuming he's clever)

Or

Do you mean you just want more people on the screen?
Because that's graphics.

You got me. I hate micromanaging. I just feel like having bigger squads for the el cheapo units would allow a little chaos and epicness that a RTS doesnt have. I wonder how Hawking would play a RTS though.

This isnt a thread about wether more troops equal less strategy. I just feel that we have the ability, Devs just dont do it. Im not saying that every RTS should have 10000 units its just that some should, but they dont.

Another way I can put this. In games were there is a city and something goes down. Why are there only 10 people in the middle of a crowded street? If I start a shoot out I want to see hundreds of AI running for their lives. Assasins creed did a pretty good job with this.