At any time you can clear the map with a tactical nuke (!!) to end the battle. The units charge at each other and attack.
You set up a map, plop units down, and hit Go. It's rough around the edges and takes some getting used to. What UEBS excels at is the sheer ridiculousness of what you can setup. There isn't much "game play" per se, even though you can control a unit on your own and do basic punch/kick/spell stuff FPS style. TABS is fun and can be challenging, and has a sandbox mode where you can setup units to battle each other, but the total army sizes are usually less than 50v50. You are given a pile of resources in TABS and have to spend them buying units to defeat the other units, rock-paper-scissors style. TABS's "game play" mode is like a puzzle game. Potato preset 100 FPS with 2000 medieval vs 250 WWII (GPU limited) (also both sides killed 250 of the other and medieval won, WTF WW2 could only kill 250 knights WITH GUNS?!?)ĭon't know whats up with all the hate for this game in this post. (CPU limited) WWII won with 100 casualties. Potato preset ran at 70 FPS with 2,000 medieval vs 2,000 WWII. Potato preset ran at 35 FPS with 10,000 medieval vs 250 WWII. High preset ran at 30 FPS with 10,000 medieval vs 250 WWII. Potato preset begged for mercy ran at 17 FPS with 10,000 medieval archers vs 10,000 WWII. The following are top-down full battle stationary viewing. So, of course I can handle 10,000 vs 10,000 fights (though it is holding around 30 fps during these engagements)ġ1,100 to 11,250 stated above sounds ok then.
The graphics and everything run fine for me, but I built this PC to run The Witcher 3, Star Citizen, and No Man's Sky in ultra without any problems. Wonder how true this is, those trailers look awfully laggy. Want to see a company of WW2 U.S soldiers fight 11,000 Medieval soldiers? There are simply no limits to the carnage you can achieve in UEBS.
0 kommentar(er)
