I’m not interested in what you deduce, besides the pathetic example with Delih that you published, the 18 examples are from the Wololo classification recently and could have shown more examples of recent tournaments, when this tournament ends I will share more
What made you think I’m a new player from that post?
I will wait then, I’m curious to see how many matches are going like you said and how many not
Lucifron managed the army much better in this game, Magic had a peak of 150, Lucifron had a peak of 134 villagers.
There was the best moment for Magic when they both had 200 in population but Lucifron managed the army better and he effectively raided the rival’s villagers and turned the game around, but as you can see the villager boom had Magic in the game 45 minutes being less skilled than his rival
Marinelord played better this game he had more army regularly than his rival, when the game got closer to 30 minutes Marinelord had a peak of 136 villagers but Beastyqt reached 153 villagers, they exceeded 120 villagers because they know to fall behind in economy in the Goal of the game is very risky.
On the other hand, you cannot seek to win by distinctive buildings, that is why I propose that the distinctive buildings be repaired with stone, Beastyqt made 153 villagers, so winning by raiding villagers lengthened the game a lot
I prefer 120 knights and horsemens,40 siege weapons and the rest all vills (40 vills)…too many vills i feel too much to macromanagement…
One thing is for sure, having more army than villagers is simple more fun to play and more fun to watch.
Fun is relative. For a lot of global population is fun to watch 22 players hitting a ball for 90 minutes, for me is not. Why not just ban football? Is not fun for me.
The situation you describe would make rearmy taking too long. If you watch any RB wololo match, you will notice despite them having 120-150 villagers, they haven’t too much resources in the pocket, because they are constantly fighting and investing every resource.
Put a limit to villagers just would make the game to be slower than now or players to play more defensive, since losing the army means you need more time to rebuild.
By the way if you want to see big army wars you can play total war saga.
And the examples @HasanIchess is quoting are ridiculous, he thinks the player with more villagers win and that’s all, and the examples he is quoting are manipulated, because if you see any game you will notice one of the players is always ahead of the others because the continuous raiding to his economy, or a good late fight that, or a better map control.
Removing micromanagement from the equation, in this game you win if got better map control, better macro and eco, and better unit composition, that leads you to win more fights and gain more map control, and if you don’t see that and think that villager population is just the thing, then you are totally blind.
I am going to focus on the thread of walls and Keeps, I will pause this thread, what interests me is not having games of more than 40 minutes, as I have shown them that games with 150 villagers have lengthened, I do not have something personal with the villagers
Villagers getting to near 150 is a consequence of game lasting more than 40 minutes, not the inverse.
Game’s doesn’t last more than 40 minutes because the villagers.
Also walls are not the “problem”. I have seen some of the matches between beasty and marinelord of the wololo and no one does a stone wall, they use pallisades.
Yes,too much vils become the game a city builder than a RTS xd…
Contrary to what you think, less villagers means that players will play carefully with army and not just send them to die with 0 value, even deleting army to make more room for powerful units lol.
What you said is what I said, rebuild will be harder and people will play more defensive.
If lost my army can cost me a lot, then I will take less risk, and will try to build more walls and more keeps to secure my base.
To be honest it was fun to watch XD
Win is a win I guess no matter what the cost