What I just wanted to point, is that not everytimes the guy with more villagers just win because he had more villagers, this is an oversimplification of the game.
Yes, this is no secret. The franchise has been kept alive due to the success of AoE2. AoE 4 was therefore modeled as an iteration of it. This should not surprise anyone.
Yep, we agree.
My entire post was line-by-line counterpoints to the OP.
Yes, but not to trace it in detail…Luckily with the new civs they vary a little and are influenced more in AoE 3…
If the Meta benefits a lot from the economic boom, maybe the resuming of the holy places and the reset only when all the holy places are lost will make the game more offensive
In the tournament without stone walls, having more economic units was not beneficial, so the solution, to discourage the production of many economic units, is to make the game less defensive.
They were able to see the games played, in general I have not seen anyone who has exceeded 130 economic units
I always try to do 100 so I can have 100 army
Very high production of villagers did not help to win when the game mode favors the aggressive over the defensive, that is the solution, Beasty lost
I think there’s more nuance to high villager count that we give it credit to.It’s VERY army focused in a sense. These insanely high villager counts are only viable before the enemy manages to stabilize and max out on their potential army pop advantage. The higher villager count you have, the more frequently you have to be fighting, because the moment the opponent significantly outpops your army, they begin to trade with a higher efficiency than your eco advantage. In all the examples given, this fine thread is walked expertly, and you can see the lower villager pop player not being able to stabilize due to a constant lack of food. This way of playing is much much harder than a default 120 armypop swiss knife solution as it can have you throw the game the second you incorrectly gauge the opponent’s strength. Losing 80 armypop quicker than 120 villagers can replenish them is easy. Losing 40 armypop quicker than 160 villagers can replenish them, that’s difficult.
many players, even lower on rankings, based on simple observation put all attention on mass hoarding the resources and very little on actually spending them, smt this game’s incredibly slow training and research time greatly contributes towards by making it basically impossible to spend all the resources collected in timely manner, not helped by meta encouraging 140+ villagers that only worsens the situation, so as such, not even remotely suprised when someone casually masses 10k resources (good luck doing that in other age games, spoilers: you can’t because people there won’t give you such opportunity)
It is not my intention to modify or limit the economy of the game, when they played with the no stone walls mod, having more villagers was not beneficial
wasn’t actually suggesting limiting the economy, rather speeding up the unit training and tech research to be actually able to spend resources that just stockpile otherwise, smt this game is currently still very poor at handling
In AoE 3 you could do it, but only in a 60-minute treaty match…
I saw this game, and marinelord had way more villagers for a longer time+water, what won beasty the game was more him getting relics which allowed him to easily go to imperial right after marinelord just hit castle age and from there his economy just scaled out of control even though marinelord had 2tc+water the whole game.
Fix here would be to change the cheaper cost from swabia to the other age 4 landmark from the hre. Swabia shouldnt have that kind of discount.
which is exactly what i’m trying to point out, in a 30-40 minute game in games other than aoe4, you would never reach this in a realistic scenario, also aoe4 doesn’t have official treaty so its even more problematic, as players could probably punish boomers if they wanted to but don’t for whatever reason
Yes, it’s a whole topic as you see…