I heard it takes around 1 minute or so for one in game second to pass in the new Iraq War scenario. Things like this are my primary concern at this moment in time.
Unfortunately it´s not that simple.
Performance depends on a lot of variables, and AU count is only one of these (but a pretty important one).
I run command on an AMD FX-8350 octo core CPU @ 4GHz, and this is a three years old computer, and I can usually run a 3-4000 AU count scen pretty smooth at 15:1 time compression and at 5:1 with no problems.
Disabling range rings and other things can help alot.
You can tweek your setup quite a bit in the games menu, to be able to run quite big scens on slower computers, and the devs are continually improving the game, so performance should improve with each new build.
I haven´t run the 12500 AU monster yet, but this scen will max out most computers.
Depending on your computers specs, you shouldn´t be afraid to try scens running at 2500+ AU count.
If your computer is too slow to run it, you will know in the first few seconds, but I doubt that it will take a real world minute to run one game second.
Hope this helped.
@SeaQueen , @Dysta , I currently don't have any plans on making a scenario that large for public consumption, or for myself- I have done something like that with small fictional nations before and it is pretty boring in my opinion.
I will say one thing though- logic wise, if we are already playing as high ranking officers on the one hand, and soldiers (pilots, captains) on the other hand, within one scenario, I don't see how expanding the scope is bad.
Fun wise though, I don't think it is a good idea, at least not for one player alone.
Having a multiplayer version, with say, 12 people on each team, with 1 person as the "leader", and the other eleven controlling theaters/fronts/divisions/whatever, could be pretty interesting. Definitely not possible with current technology, but it could be interesting in the future, for those willing to do it.
Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin