120 villagers is enough

Restricting bs would only make it less fun
And you act like this happens all the time when it don’t
I never had maches like this😂

count this, there’s so much more I could have shown

you are an aoe3 and aom player who just wants your whim of more population

1 Like

Bro whatever😂
You go play the game how you want it and me and others like we want, no need fot stupid limits
This is only turning in a yes, no thing

1 Like

I think people did the math and proved that the Improved eco tech just aren’t worth it. Even normal techs takes long time to make them worth the investment, you can easily imagine when the improved techs cost the same amount of resources in stone and only provide half the bonus aren’t appealing to people at all.

I don’t think the same, if you can demonstrate those supposed calculations, surely they don’t do them, that’s why they don’t take advantage of technology

with 120 villagers Kasva calmly won the game he made an army of 59 and 21 in siege
Kasva- 120 villagers

Guess who won? if who made more villagers, and you can see on the minimap that he made a double wall, like a rat, … more evidence of this disgusting Meta

In 4v4 team games i keep seeing 1 player makes 200 villagers and builds a wonder and tons of defensive structures…lame awfulness.

I say we severely reduce the number of resources close to players landmark towncenter…allowing map control in midfield to be more effective, and reducing the effectiveness of having so many villagers!

Less resources on the map = high villager count not gonna help as much.

1 Like

They promised a long time ago that the cost of the wonder will depend on the number of players, that is something they owe them, in 1v1 it must cost less than 6 thousand and 4v4 more than 6 thousand

Wonders aside, less resources near base means high villager pop is less effective

I would prefer a 70-90 villager meta, so we can have really really big army wars!

Currently the game drags on because its small army wars with nearly instant reinforcement armies because theres so many villagers gathering so many resources!


Guess who win this match up? 3tc abba vs 1tc delhi

Viper wins.
So the villagers difference and tc numbers mean nothing. Only the style of play matters


To be honest it depends, but is just another variable of the equation.

More villagers mean more eco, but there are other things to take into account.

Obviously one just doesn’t win just because having more villagers. There is other things.

I have 18 examples and you only 1!

And if I wanted, I could publish more examples of recently broadcast games

1 Like

defensive structures are also part of this Meta, the colleague explains it

How is that still a problem? I have played on Season 2 and I haven’t seen people go more than 120 vills. I didn’t go either.

With keeps being repaired with stone, it’s much less viable than in seson 1.


I can link all my replay that I play in season 2, i almost end with 80-90 vills when I won. Often I remain in feudal. And when I lost is for my bad micro not for my enemy goes 150 vills or million TCS…
If your enemy is going to boom you need to harass him asap. If you stay in base and try to boom yourself against a civ is far better in eco… Well it’s gg

are you serious!! your Elo does not define the Meta, do not make me laugh

…and the example you showed, only Delih can capture holy places in feudal, no one else

New player wants to define the Meta, “good luck”!

Are you watching redbull wololo tournament? I don’t see the meta are you describing

1 Like