Game Skyrim Forum

How long would you like a battle to last or even a war? How many npcs would you want to be in it?

Ok, this is the official TES V: Skyrim forum, not Mount and Blade.

50+ NPC-s, seriously?

The battles in Oblivion weren't epic at all, i agree. But 100+ NPC-s at the same place would make a little bit laggy...

Doesn't this really depend on you and how quickly you can take them out?

Like Oblivion more NPCs would be to much trouble to do with all of the different character styles.

not really the forte of this series

New engine might be able to hold much more NPCs then Oblivion could

When you say battles do you mean like the epic sort of Battle for Bruma?

Or everyday encounters? 50 NPCs is a bit insane, and would only be suitable for a storyline that involved an all out war.

However, the option for 50+ NPCs on the screen would be awesome, so when the flood of mods come out I can run FCSKM? as well as a large population mod (Because it's unreasonable to expect that Bethesda will have the time to make millions of NPCs

I know Playing my FCOM I have had 12 goblins and like 4 durzog's chasing me at once before. I like the idea of it and I thuroughly enjoyed getting thrashed by that goblin war party. So yes if the engine can do it do it (and if the consoles can't do it screw it and do it anyway ^.^)

correct me if im wrong, but its supposed to be some sort of clan wars in skyrim right? if so, would be cool if you could join one side and fight against the other clans in "big" battles, though big battles have never been the strength of TES series, so doesnt really matter that much to me..
im king of long sentences :facepalm:

50+ NPC's fighting and 200 mods running on the background I suspect would kill even the newest systems by the time the game hits live. Although I would love to see this in game, I just don't see how it would work.

No ... It would cause lots of lagg ... Not everyone has good computers ... I would totaly love that,but ...
Maybe they should come in waves? Lots of them , but not all at once ...

Small battle should contain a handful of NPCs. Large battles should be more than 50, on your side alone, depending on where it is, the importance of battle (major or minor) etc. I was disappointed with oblivion when the end battle came, i thought it would be epic. Cyrodiil vs the Dadera. I was very disappointed to learn it was around 10 guards, with two blades (not even all of them, when they should be protecting Martin!), Martin and myself. around 15 people fighting swarms of Dadera. The battle should have been 100s of NPC fighting 100s of Dadera for quite some time before the great gate opened. Hopefully Skyrim will have big and more epic battles.

I say yes, but only if mounted combat and a better companion system are in as well. As it stands, not being able to ride into battle and fight from a mount is dumb, especially if mounts are in the game. And its also highly unrealistic, as who would get off their horse or other mount in real life when you can just pull out your weapon and fight from there? And without a better companion system (or even just a plain better AI system, or both) you're inherently handicapped by stupid AI fighting randomly. Even stupid AI is useful if its fighting where you need it or want it to fight.

yeah i guess i exaggerated the 100+ fights a bit but maybe 15vs15 or 20v20 would suffice although that is still quite a lot. a type of 4 npcs and u vs 20 monsters would be cool.

50 npc's? You realize this is 2010, they haven't invented a video card that could handle that, right?

I would really enjoy being able to take part in wars. If you are a stealth character to run to the back lines and stabbity stab, if you are more of a melee/tank you stick to the front, if your restoration is good you put on some plate and heal anyone you can, if you are an archer or mage you stick to the back... we are talking about WoW PvP right?

On a more serious not, I really would like to take part in some large scale battles, but HEAVENS not an hour long! That's a bit ridiculous... 10/15 minutes would be a better length in my opinion, but (if the game can handle it) there could still be plenty of dudes on screen, just dying faster. The average fight should take no more than a few minutes though, and should involve only a handful of enemies at a time.

actually going back at mount and blade (a pretty graphically up to date game) could handle 75v75 and the likes but thats what the game was for. but yes im understanding it a bit much.

back to another part of the topic how long should a battle last? should it be those 2 seconds where u cast a flamebolt at a rat and it dies? or a attempt at a hit, block etc.

like either of the first two are even possible, they would never put this because consoles and a lot of PCs wouldn't be able to handle it, why do you think the cities were enclosed

unfortunatly i voted for 100+ battles before thinking realisticly, but it be awesome for there to big battles even some where you're not part of them. you're just traveling when up ahead you see two large groups clashing with each other. the fight finally ends the victorious side wanders away and before lies the aftermath of the battle. this can be the same for battles you don't actually see, but to come across afterwords, also with the snow, old battlefields may be half covered in snow to add a little atmosphere to the silent battlefield

I would love to see battles with upwards of a hundred soldiers, but to be realistic, that won't happen. I don't think the game could handle so many things going on, and it would be really, really laggy. Even fifty plus soldiers fighting is a bit much, but I voted for it anyway because I'd really like to see epic battles, unlike Oblivions ten man battles.

If Skyrim is in civil war, I think they could achieve the setting of battle like they did with Oblivion. Setting a group of nordic warriors here and there, having a pack of them waiting for you around the corner every once in awhile. But to have an all out, fully ranked army of 50+. CTDx9999

Um, M&B isn't graphically up-to-date by any standards. Not in the last 4 years, at least. Their models have probably 1/20 of the polys of an Oblivion model and are governed by rudimentary AI.

Aslong as it has better battles then the defence of Bruma I would be more then happy, that was a let down, I mean get everyone on your side just to get have about 15 people against a whole daedric horde? Battles should have more fighters, 50+ is a pushing it a little, but about double of the Bruma battle or a bit more is enough afterall we don't want a Fallout:NV happening, with the freezing and what not.lol

Other reply: I don't think anything besides a real-time strategy game can do actual battles real justice. I'd rather RPGs like TES prevent the PC ever being in the middle of a pitched battle with careful plotting and scenario design; I'd rather the PC and a few companion heroes fight past elite skirmishers behind enemy lines to achieve an objective, than run head on at the foe with the rest of the rabble.

I voted for the OB option. Honestly though I think it depends on the enenmy, for example wolves shoudl travel in groups of 5-10 but ogres and minotaurs would travel alone or in pairs, all this would obviously affect the time of battle.