Originally Posted by swedishviking
many of those are graphics intensive, this game does not look that way
More units = more ram. more textures & meshes = more ram.
The more you load the more memory used. It wouldn't make sense to keep the information in a flatfile. I can use a gig of ram loading into a city on just about any RTS. Even old ones like medieval: total war can use more then 6/10th of a gig.
On another note as far as RTS games go these days i'd have to say DoF looks pretty appealing graphically. I'd put money on minimum ram requirements not being less then 1gb and realistically looking towards 2 GB unless they wanna severely cut down the maximum number of field-able units or halve their texture quality.
For arguments sake though lets look at the RTS games in that list. R.U.S.E. and Starcraft II, sure i'll give blizzard credit. they've always had aesthetically pleasing art in their games... They've set a pace on a few genres over the years. The big thing they're proud of in SC2 is their new physics system. The CPU is a 2.6Ghz or equivalent MINIMUM requirement. Now, let's take a peek at R.U.S.E. which is nowhere near SC2 in reqs but isnt where DoF is as far as complexity, cities etc. DoF puts more units into play on top of extra complexities not seen in R.U.S.E.. There's just no way your gonna see this play on a system with a 1Ghz CPU and 512mb ram even on the low settings.