Blarg: Like I already said, once you got 500 or 1000 3D units moving around, yes, there were problems even with the best video cards and CPU's in rigs without a lot of memory, and preferably 2 gigs. You even saw this with games that still used sprites instead of 3D units, like AOE 2. This is because that many units doing that many things required a lot of hard disk reads if you didn't have enough memory.

Navagon: Why don't you just give the bullshit a rest? I mean honestly, whose intelligence are you trying to insult here? Or are you just thinking of a completely different game or something? Either way, admitting your mistake would save more face than bullshitting.
The RAM requirements are stated on the maps, and yes that includes the number of units that could be battling it out. From what I can remember, the core game never demanded more than 64MB for any one map. The 64MB maps were huge.
2GB would not have been found outside of servers. Even Silicon Graphics rigs didn't have anything like that and those were for heavy duty rendering. No game would have demanded that. Not one.

Blarg: Congratulations on not calling me Hitler. Well done!

El_Caz: I bought TA:K retail and didn't like it. Just played a couple of missions. I didn't like playing different races back and forth and the sound effect of the crow... man, that was annoying. It sounded like a guy trying real hard to sound like a crow and every time you clicked on the stupid birds, they would make it.
Also, the whole build a unit and once you build the next unit, it so tops the previous one it makes it useless. I'm very stuck on that Starcraft principle where units should have their niches or roles and not be made completely obsolete by other units.

captainvideo111: I'm the sort of gamer who prefers the S over the RT, and the big problem I have with a lot of RTS designs is they quicky devolve into speed-demon clickfests (read: Starcraft) once the players understand the basic game mechanics. That's not for me.

Navagon: He could probably have managed on 64MB, to be honest. TA was of an age where developers actually overestimated the system requirements.

DanielMF: I think Starcraft and TA/SC are quite different approaches to the RTS-Genre. TA: Kingdoms I found much worse than TA - give TA a try, its excellent!
I dont agree on that one: Starcraft is one of the most strategical Strategygame Ive every played; and im saying this being actually mainly a fan of Turnbased S-Games!

jimbob0i0: My system had 128MB and he complained when he lost on the largest maps that his was playing more slowly than mine and he couldn't react properly....

Navagon: I take it that was before he had 128MB also? But yes, some of those 64MB maps were huge. It wouldn't surprise me if one or two of them demanded more than they stated.

jimbob0i0: Lot of good LAN times back then... C&C, Dark Reign, Doom, ROTT... ah those were the days....

Navagon: Great games. I don't think that LAN gaming will quite be the same again now. I never actually played Dark Reign though, despite the fact that it's supposed to be very good. It should show up here eventually though. I'm pretty sure the rights holder is already here.

H2IWclassic: Yes, Activision published it.

Navagon: And they've still got the rights? Good. Only Activision doesn't hold onto old IPs with such a vice-like grip as EA does.