120 villagers is enough

With the new meta of Tc, I don’t like to see games with more than 140 villagers and a small army that dies when going through walls and keeps

All that can be done with 120 villagers, constant production of each unit









Advantages of limiting to 120 villagers

  1. Games lasting no more than 40 minutes
  2. Forces you to play less defensively
  3. We will not see 70 farms and a spam of horsemen and spearmen that cost little wood
  4. There will be fewer villagers working on stone so it indirectly decreases walls and keeps in the game.
  5. Less likely to sacrifice villagers to put keep on the opponent’s face
  6. The game better rewards the player who better manages their resources

Disadvantage of limiting to 120 villagers

  1. it can take a long time to transition to farms if there are few villagers in wood (especially in maps without water) so you can compensate for that by increasing the rate of wood harvesting since the castle age
    2)in late game it is necessary to produce more units per minute so you need more barracks, stables and archery, you can compensate for that by reducing a little the production time of these buildings from the age of castles
3 Likes

With AoE4, I don’t like to see games with less than 200 villagers and a giant army that travels across a gigantic map to attack a foe, while still having enough pop cap room to put more units at various random places across the map, including naval vessels on the open seas.

Advantages of allowing huge populations

  1. It’s one step closer to me buying the game
  2. Forces you to play however you want and however long you want without bumping your head into an artificially low ceiling every second once you reach a certain point in every single match
  3. We will see tons of beautiful farms and gloriously large armies
  4. All resources on the map can be picked clean in due time
  5. More likely to see some turtlers, a wider variety of tactics employed, and players having great fun playing how ‘they’ want to play the game instead of how developers want them to play
  6. The game better rewards the player who excels at AoE2

Disadvantage of limiting to 120 villagers

  • Way too many to list
2 Likes

In other threads I commented that I would like 220 population because I wanted slightly larger armies, but with this Meta I bet that those additional twenty will occupy more villagers, that is, 160 villagers and the size of the army will be the same

5 Likes

If someone has more than 120 villagers it means they have less military units on the battlefield.

Limiting the amount of units you can have destroyes the free choice that a age of empires gives to the player.

6 Likes

On my team, I don’t usually see people who reach more than 120 villagers.

For example me, I usually reach between 90-110, and some trade, that would fit around 110-130 economic units.

As we discussed in other threads I don’t see the benefits of limiting villagers, games lasting more than 40 minutes are not because the number of villagers, and if you think so you must prove it…

Also, showing games that lasted more than 40 minutes, and people has more than 120 villagers is not a proof, because obviously the meta favors the eco and it’s easy that if the game lasts 40 minutes or more, you will have more than 120 villagers.

But I can say that I played games that lasted an hour or even more, and after check no one of the players got more than 100 villagers (talking about team games right now).

But limiting villagers would be the same argument as limiting number of castles, or limiting number of siege. You are artificially limiting the game and limiting the number of options to be played.

For this reason, the first thing I did in another thread was to propose an unconventional idea, but the first thing they wrote to me was that the proposal “could confuse them”

With this argument there should be no population limit, if there is it is for a good reason

Main of the reasons it’s hardware limitations.

While a player can afford play 400 pop games in 4v4 games, others can’t, and as a developer of the game you must aim to certain hardware.

Steam does surveys every year to know the hardware of their users, and it’s obvious that if you are developing a game, you must aim to be runnable (does this word exist?) In almost 70% of the hardware, or you will be limiting your income.

Also, think that infinity pop would be hard to balance.

4 Likes

No, if someone wants to make a army of Villagers then thats their choice

1 Like

if I feel like doing 200 siege units, but the game won’t let me, oh I know why, because the game has limits!

It’s a different limit, siege costing 3 pop is to balance cost with effectivity.

No thanks, more and more stupid restrictions are making game less and less creative. You don’t like X meta and you want Y to be meta. Such a stupid argument. Why you want to restrict other people’s game-play?

4 Likes

The meta forces you to make 140+ villagers with 70 farms and play defensively, that’s monotonous, not creative at all. As I mentioned before, this meta is such that if they increased the population they would occupy it in villagers and the size of the army would be the same

Ofc he is going to lose if he attacks and opponent has shorter reinforcing distance especially if they got far superior production to opponents. All comes to simple formula production rate + reinforcing distance.

Its much more effective to have 30 production building constantly pumping 50 army supply worth of army than 15 production building with 100 army supply and not able to finish the game especially if distance to reinforce is shorter for defender.

There is multiple reasons why we’ve current type of meta and one of them is actually the massive over nerf to siege. Its much harder to make any form of death ball when siege is slower than child of turtle and snail paired with the effectiveness of siege in the end its just spam outposts keeps and creep forward little bit which is one of the most dullest and boring things to watch.

I personally try to keep my villagers amount around 100-125. Depending on how many relics and traders I got but this is in 2v2 so quite different from 1v1 where trading is somewhat harder and less relics

1 Like
  1. in late game it is necessary to produce more units per minute so you need more barracks, stables and archery, you can compensate for that by reducing a little the production time of these buildings from the age of castles

just do not play 140 vils. LOL.
play 120 vils, get top1 and show everyone, why 120 is better.

I love to boom into 200 vils (in TGs), get upgrades and delete 120 vils.
I have no brains to decide which upgrades I should do first, I want both.
Just attack and win, why it’s so hard?

I hate more than 1 mangonel, why we would not fix number of siege. 2 siege per game.
I think prelates should be limited in army.
I do not like to play vs some players… let’s ban them…
Oh… it was edgy.

1 Like

I think they could further adjust the cost of later age eco techs instead of limiting villager number. The new cost for Feudal age tech is fine now, but Castle and Imperial are still too expensive imo, for the little effect they provide. With villagers being more efficient, we will the need for higher amount of villager reduce.

1 Like

I would like it to be like that, but they don’t even use the ovoo bonuses, they prefer to produce another unit with 250 stone than to invest in a bonus that will give you more resources to produce more units in the long term, the math is simple and they don’t take advantage of it! amazing!

[quote=“HasanIchess, post:18, topic:214920”]

Timing attack, while opponent “upgrading” or producing vils → you win.
A lot of games, there players reach pop 200 in feudal.

140vils vs120 means 20more units on the field. If it raw knights, it would be overwhelming victory for 80 kts vs 60.

You over simplifying game.

1 Like