Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Numbers


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 10:18 PM

To keep the question simple and to the point and in the main interest of realism gaming:

Will we be able to field company-sized or oversized platoon elements on the battlefield at the same time?

Let's say I cut out the mumbo jumbo like the horse-drawn platoon supplies and their management.

For the Germans it was a medical sergeant at company level and a medic in each platoon. Let's cut them out since there's no medic system.

Here's a standard British Army Infantry Rifle Company from '43 - '45

Company HQ (2 Officers, 14 men) * each Company HQ reduced by 2 men, November 1944

Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;

Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 3 men)

Light Mortar Section (3 men)

Three Rifle Sections, each comprised of 10 men


Now for a Heer Grenadier Kompanie

http://www.wwiidayby...n131n1mai44.htm

Company HQ (1 Officer, 1 NCO, 7 Men)

Three Platoons, the first led by an Officer and the 2nd and 3rd led by a SNCO comprised of;

Platoon HQ (1 Officer/SNCO, 2 Men)

Three Sections, each comprised of (1 NCO, 8 Men)

Heavy MG Section (3 NCOs, 12 Men, with 2 HMGs)


So that's 127 men for a British Rifle Company (37 per Platoon) and 114 men for a German Sch├╝tzenkompanie (30 per Platoon).

Given the possibility of armor on the field, the manpower numbers drop, but is due to everyone being motorized. Let's say we wanted to field a full German platoon with a full StuG platoon ( http://www.wwiidayby...tn4461jun44.htm ). This would be 3 StuGs fully crewed with 4 men with a total of 42 men on Axis with such a loadout. Usually there are components that fall outside of the regular platoon, such as mortars, anti-tank guns, tank hunters, and snipers. So let's bump the Axis team to 50 men.

Well, with even numbers, the server would have to be able to host and play with 100 players. Is this feasible with EU4 and FE? My heart won't be broken if not - it's plain and simple curiosity.

Cheers.
Posted Image
"Nach Drill und Dreck, Gibt's Erbsen mit Speck, Aus der Gulaschkanone~"

#2 Shurek

Shurek

    Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 12:09 AM

The truth of the matter is that we don't know for sure yet. We are still confident that 64 (32 v 32) is do-able and thus we are building our gameplay around that number. If we can reasonably expand it beyond 64, then that will allow us to indulge in a few other ideas we have in mind.

3ka2.png


#3 Dietrich Landrik

Dietrich Landrik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 06:04 AM

Certainly is a lot more flexibility with larger numbers. Yet, having the smaller maps for when servers aren't fielding that many is also vital.

Thanks for looking into it when possible.
Posted Image
"Nach Drill und Dreck, Gibt's Erbsen mit Speck, Aus der Gulaschkanone~"

#4 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 09 October 2015 - 12:15 AM

Another question: how many bots can be included before a server become overloaded?  I seem to recall that Wilson added 70 bots on top of the 70 players in the DH1 server one night, and it worked just fine until the server crashed.


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#5 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 09 October 2015 - 01:29 PM

Another question: how many bots can be included before a server become overloaded?  I seem to recall that Wilson added 70 bots on top of the 70 players in the DH1 server one night, and it worked just fine until the server crashed.

 

 

This strongly depends on the kind of the server and of its internet connection. We are not testing these kind of things at the moment. However, due to the major capabilities of the UE4 compared to UE2 and to the superiority of newer hardware I think we may end up with better results.



#6 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 09 October 2015 - 08:12 PM

UT has always had really well made bots, and, with the advances in algorithms like pathfinding for non-movement based goals, as used in L4D, approach very close to how humans play.  (BTW, could climbing be added, as described in that PDF, starting on page 29?)


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#7 SilentAssassin

SilentAssassin

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 14 October 2015 - 12:10 AM

I'd really like to see 64 vs. 64, but I'd settle with 32 vs. 32 if the first choice isn't possible.



#8 SolitarioSoldat

SolitarioSoldat

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 15 October 2015 - 04:58 AM

Squad tested their game that's build on EU4 and they are still in Alpha. Looks like the 100 players server is feasible with the EU4, I also know their maps will be bigger then FE, but FE might just deck out the environment so much that it would be impossible to have more than 64 players without the server crashing.... A lot of things are at play, but the engine itself is pretty much amazing. Here is the video of Squad alpha stage with 100 players server

 

https://youtu.be/J3WfHrIB2EY


  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson likes this

#9 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 15 October 2015 - 10:22 PM

Squad tested their game that's build on EU4 and they are still in Alpha. Looks like the 100 players server is feasible with the EU4, I also know their maps will be bigger then FE, but FE might just deck out the environment so much that it would be impossible to have more than 64 players without the server crashing.... A lot of things are at play, but the engine itself is pretty much amazing. Here is the video of Squad alpha stage with 100 players server

 

https://youtu.be/J3WfHrIB2EY

...and if the 29th server can run 35v35 stably on a badly overloaded UT2004 engine, UE4 should be able to a lot better.  (Yes, I understand that the more complexity there is, the higher the server load/etc., the fewer players can be accommodated, but still...) 


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#10 SolitarioSoldat

SolitarioSoldat

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 16 October 2015 - 03:05 AM

...and if the 29th server can run 35v35 stably on a badly overloaded UT2004 engine, UE4 should be able to a lot better.  (Yes, I understand that the more complexity there is, the higher the server load/etc., the fewer players can be accommodated, but still...) 

yea but how long a go 29th server achieved that number of players? doubt it was when DH released. If FE can give us 64 players at start, I don't mind if later on they can try and give us more slots if possible



#11 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 16 October 2015 - 04:44 AM

yea but how long a go 29th server achieved that number of players? doubt it was when DH released. If FE can give us 64 players at start, I don't mind if later on they can try and give us more slots if possible

 

Actually, it was DH, 24/7/365, for a long time, and once Wilson packed one of the 29th servers with 70 players and added 70 more bots on top of that in Arad (IIRC.  I believe it was because only the RO maps have waypoints for bots to work properly.  You'd have to ask him.)  The bots didn't work great, but it stayed stable with 140 players + bots for almost an hour, I believe, before crashing.   ...and someone did a UE3 MMO test with 140 players in a local area to stress test their code, and it ran just fine.  If you do some Google searching, you'll find that the limit is more one of data throughput and memory use than anything else.

 

Modern engines and infrastructure are achieving insane numbers, and UE4 is a very modern engine.  Planetside 2, for example, currently holds the world record for most players active simultaneously in a single battle: 1,158!  The 'Man vs. Machine' event in 2012, with 999 simultaneous players, was running in Unity, for Pete's sake, and players played in their web browsers!!!!!  Can FE support 128v128 battles?  Possibly, but the trade-off could be DH quality models/textures/etc.  :twitch:  (...actually, I wouldn't mind much, as the gameplay would be better and the bugs and current limitations would be dealt with, sooooo yeaaaaah...)


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#12 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 18 October 2015 - 06:53 AM

Possibly, but the trade-off could be DH quality models/textures/etc.


Only the location and pose of skeletal meshes (characters, vehicles) and the location of stuff like
sounds and particle effects gets replicated over the network.
So graphics&sounds quantity and not quality is the stuff being limited.
Since network replication can be limited by not replicating stuff that is too distant or/and the player does not give importance to, everything would be easier with pretty large maps.
  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson likes this

#13 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 19 October 2015 - 12:39 AM

Only the location and pose of skeletal meshes (characters, vehicles) and the location of stuff like
sounds and particle effects gets replicated over the network.
So graphics&sounds quantity and not quality is the stuff being limited.
Since network replication can be limited by not replicating stuff that is too distant or/and the player does not give importance to, everything would be easier with pretty large maps.

 

Thanks for the info.


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#14 SolitarioSoldat

SolitarioSoldat

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 03:05 AM

Actually, it was DH, 24/7/365, for a long time, and once Wilson packed one of the 29th servers with 70 players and added 70 more bots on top of that in Arad (IIRC.  I believe it was because only the RO maps have waypoints for bots to work properly.  You'd have to ask him.)  The bots didn't work great, but it stayed stable with 140 players + bots for almost an hour, I believe, before crashing.   ...and someone did a UE3 MMO test with 140 players in a local area to stress test their code, and it ran just fine.  If you do some Google searching, you'll find that the limit is more one of data throughput and memory use than anything else.

 

Modern engines and infrastructure are achieving insane numbers, and UE4 is a very modern engine.  Planetside 2, for example, currently holds the world record for most players active simultaneously in a single battle: 1,158!  The 'Man vs. Machine' event in 2012, with 999 simultaneous players, was running in Unity, for Pete's sake, and players played in their web browsers!!!!!  Can FE support 128v128 battles?  Possibly, but the trade-off could be DH quality models/textures/etc.  :twitch:  (...actually, I wouldn't mind much, as the gameplay would be better and the bugs and current limitations would be dealt with, sooooo yeaaaaah...)

Ok lets just say the game can support 128vs128 and all is smooth server side and gamer side hardware wise, that's assuming for gamers who can afford decent PC. Here are 2 issues that I see coming along with this sort of numbers:

 

1. I doubt maps will be large enough to give enjoyable gaming experience when 256 people battle it on that map.

 

2. What clan is willing to pay for a server with that many slots, stuff like this can get expensive.

 

From what I have heard about the map sizes, server side hardware strength, player side hardware strength I would think:

 

- 64 players ( Extremely acceptable and pleasing)

- 80 players ( acceptable and pleasing)

- 100 players ( acceptable and pleasing but not for all) - not for all servers that claim they can handle the 100 slots the proper way and not for all gamers that they think their PC's can handle 100 player server.

 

For example my rig is: I5-3570 at stock but can go up to 4.5 ghz on stock voltages steady and stays in the 50-55C max (if needed be),  2x R9-290x , 16gb ram.  Even I scratch my head if my rig can hold its own on 100 players server, I might have to tune down graphics settings so I don't lag around....



#15 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 21 October 2015 - 03:49 PM

Ok lets just say the game can support 128vs128 and all is smooth server side and gamer side hardware wise, that's assuming for gamers who can afford decent PC. Here are 2 issues that I see coming along with this sort of numbers:

 

1. I doubt maps will be large enough to give enjoyable gaming experience when 256 people battle it on that map.

 

2. What clan is willing to pay for a server with that many slots, stuff like this can get expensive.

 

From what I have heard about the map sizes, server side hardware strength, player side hardware strength I would think:

 

- 64 players ( Extremely acceptable and pleasing)

- 80 players ( acceptable and pleasing)

- 100 players ( acceptable and pleasing but not for all) - not for all servers that claim they can handle the 100 slots the proper way and not for all gamers that they think their PC's can handle 100 player server.

 

For example my rig is: I5-3570 at stock but can go up to 4.5 ghz on stock voltages steady and stays in the 50-55C max (if needed be),  2x R9-290x , 16gb ram.  Even I scratch my head if my rig can hold its own on 100 players server, I might have to tune down graphics settings so I don't lag around....

 

I hear what you are saying, and you have some good points that need addressing.

  1. I was unable to find *any* hard numbers about how many players a server can support.  I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I couldn't find them.  The same thing is true for PC's.  I've been in some truly huge Planetside 2 battles, and my older system doesn't do too badly.  I could even run Star Wars Battlefront for quite a while without it become a slideshow too often.  :grin:
  2. Clans can pay for what ever size servers they desire and/or can afford.  I don't know of any games that require server owners to have a certain number of open slots.
  3. Most games' 'huge battles' are 32v32 and seem to be no larger than 1km per side.  I provided the heightmaps for a number of 4kmx4km (tank) maps in DH, and 35v35 ended up just being a fun little fight.  I'm not sure of exactly how big the Berlin map is, but having a full 64/70 slot server makes for a very intense battle.
  4. BF2 was the first shooter I ever played that varied the map depending on how many people were playing, either 16, 32, or 64.  This worked very well, and should be copied.  That way, whether there is 14, 40, or 240, there will be a properly scaled epic battle.  There can even be a number of different battle areas on a larger map, so, for example, a map that can support 128v128 might have 4 areas that play well with 16v16, giving a (necessarily) limited number of initial maps excellent replay value.  A map can even (theoretically) change scale mid-battle.  For example, while playing Stoumont, if the number of players drops below 16, both tanks could 'break down', and all but the middle caps & spawn exits turn off, shrinking the battle area to something that works better with the limited number of players.  (I would make this votable, personally.  Many players enjoy not being crowded.)

"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#16 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 02:24 PM

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Sure thing  :)

 

Ok lets just say the game can support 128vs128 and all is smooth server side and gamer side [...]

 

Yeah, if the bandwith wouldn't be the bottleneck as you said, players computers would be.

 

 

However in this case, the probable solution to make bandwith smooth would be also a good solution to the client's performance problems.

 

For instance: If instead of considering a mega-fight concentrated in one area where 80-100 people are fighting we consider a combined arms battle in a large area, it is possible to both:

 

-reduce the necessary bandwith (no need to replicate over the network all the stuff that belongs to other fights in other places of the maps)

-reduce the required graphics power by displaying less stuff(characters are more difficult to be rendered than everything else and can make things can become problematic in a very crowded situation).

-reduce the required graphics power by scaling o the dstance with LODs.

 

 

1. I doubt maps will be large enough to give enjoyable gaming experience when 256 people battle it on that map.

 

Well.. in this case we are not limited by the engine because it is even possible to create open-world games :D

There are also examples at disposal to use as reference -> .

 

This kind of stuff needs serious graphics scaling to work though.



#17 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 23 October 2015 - 05:03 PM

Sometimes bigger is not always better. And sometimes it helps to stick with a "winning formula". DH was 90% of the time a perfectly good game with 32v32 or 35v35 max. I know there are people out there - including some DH fans - who want FE to be like the ArmA series with huge playable areas. I'm not one of them. I think what makes DH great is the tight infantry / armour interactions on levels like Raids, Stomount, La Gleise, etc (heck even Juno Beach). Think, even with 32 players per side with a squad system that would allow you 4 squads of 8 players each or 8 squads of 4 players each, or however you want to slice and dice it. That is more than sufficient to get your team infantry fix - or team tanking fix - on like Donkey Kong. And I do like the idea mentioned in another thread of assigning certain resources like individual vehicles, tanks, and weapons to specific squads - for example MDV1 goes with Squad 1. If you don't, it's a going to be real clusterf*ck with people "stealing" each others stuff and misusing / misplacing it.


Posted Image


#18 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 24 October 2015 - 05:14 AM

Sometimes bigger is not always better. And sometimes it helps to stick with a "winning formula". DH was 90% of the time a perfectly good game with 32v32 or 35v35 max. I know there are people out there - including some DH fans - who want FE to be like the ArmA series with huge playable areas. I'm not one of them. I think what makes DH great is the tight infantry / armour interactions on levels like Raids, Stomount, La Gleise, etc (heck even Juno Beach). Think, even with 32 players per side with a squad system that would allow you 4 squads of 8 players each or 8 squads of 4 players each, or however you want to slice and dice it. That is more than sufficient to get your team infantry fix - or team tanking fix - on like Donkey Kong. And I do like the idea mentioned in another thread of assigning certain resources like individual vehicles, tanks, and weapons to specific squads - for example MDV1 goes with Squad 1. If you don't, it's a going to be real clusterf*ck with people "stealing" each others stuff and misusing / misplacing it.

 
Good points.  One thing that we don't want is people spread out all over the place, so they don't know where the enemy is and/or their buddies are.  There needs to be some way to concentrate the action at certain locations without it feeling like it is forced.  Dynamic objects that are (intelligently) semi-randomly chosen during the battle would keep things interesting, and MDV's would make sure that spawn exits are right where the action is, as it moves around the map.  
 

"Good job!  We're done here, men.  Fall back to the MDV and mount up, so we can support retaking the town center."


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users