I just hope they stay true to 1 unit 1 pop. And maybe some UU for 1(2 pop.
1 Like
explore COSSACK3 IT CAN make infinite units
1 Like
I would not understand why someone would complain about a having the option of 500 pop cap
The people that don’t want play on 200 the people who want to have big battles with large armies can play on pop cap of 500
Simple as that right
2 Likes
Then play on 200 right
And people who want and can or maybe can’t😂 play on 500
2 Likes
I don’t remember which game, but there is a RTS game out there which does not have max population per player but max population per map. What I mean.
Lets say there are max 8 players. 200 population each player = 1600 units max in the map.
If one player loose, the new max for each player is now: 1600/7. Etc…
I know that there is a concern having for example a map with 2 players and 800 population each one. But probable this could be a game option. To specify the max population in the map, never above 1600 that would be divided to the number of players. But this would be a game option and not the fixed game setting. 200 population in my opinion is good to be the main game setting and maybe the only gameplay for a ranked pvp game.
There might be an option for both max population per player and max population per map (not allowed above 1600).
PS: There might be performance issues allowing for example 500 population with 8 opponents (max 4000 units in map). For that I mentioned the above mechanism which I have sawn in another RTS. I did not invest the fire.
Also the logic above this is: In a giant map with 8 players having 200 population is usually small. In a tiny map with 2 players, the 200 population is a big number. Lets say you start a game with 4 players. You say that max units in map = 600. Each player so at start has 150 max units. Logically soon someone will loose the game, so there are 3 players with 200 max population each. If someone else resign, the last 2 players will play against each other with 300 max allowed population.
I don’t get what the big deal is with having options of 200, 250, 300, 400 and 500. If you don’t want to play with big numbers JUST DON’T PLAY WITH THE BIG NUMBERS. Also, 1k pop would be nice as well, for giant siege battles
4 Likes
Amen!!
Would love to have massive battles/Sieges with a lot of units
4 Likes
I think 200 is just fine, they are already saying that you don’t need 100 vills like in AoE2.
2 Likes
My unique concerns are about gameplay, the same of the previous aoe, just a rock paper scissor
And what would be the problem to have the option of more?
1 Like
I think standard Multiplayer Ranked setting should be 200, unless the a majority of the community favors higher numbers AFTER playing the game for some months.
Custom games should have the option to change it, just like in AOE2.
Yet I favor 200 in general because:
- managing 200 is already a good challenge, especially with the planned lower settler numbers in AOE4
- its easier for everyone from different AOE games to transition
- more units would essentially degrade the micro reality/micro capability of 70-80% of players in games (more unit spam, less skill for most people)
- games would become more messy for most people, spamming over tactic, less satisfying victories
- the readability would also suffer
- …
These points kinda touch upon each other, but you get the gist.
Most people are already challenged enough by the game as it is with 200. If you want an inviting multiplayer experience, then you’d keep the standard setting at 200 for rankeds etc.
Custom games will probably be able to change it sooner or later, so there is absolutely no real reason to be concerned.
5 Likes
Most likely game will become laggy and slow. We can already see it in AoE2 if there are 8 people with lot of pop alive.
1 Like
For rank games, the population limit be always = 200 is ok. But allowing in single game more population (if the user select it ) with map population limit = 1600 (200x8) is something that does not lead to lag and does not makes conflict with rank games. In my opinion it is something that is good to exist as option for these that they like to have more units on the map.
In my opinion, in small maps 200 population is usually more than enough, but in big maps, I would like to be able to have more population.
I hope in vs AI matches… we can have the option to play games with higher population. Mods can save us here, but I hope it’s just a simple integration into the game.
Maybe not for competitive standard-matchmaking but for optional private matches and/or ai & other modes it would be awesome to just break the game with like a 500 population limit. Options never hurt.
3 Likes
Do you thought the graphic quality or physical engine are the same as the AoE2?
Today’s computers may be able to run AoE2 even AoE3, but it isn’t mean that AoE4 is the same situation.
I doubt they will use age 3s system, i assume age 2s is more popular and easier for Balance
Civs will be balance of course. If you mean about balance because of increase population limit ( I can see your point that they will be some balance changes, but tiny in my opinion ). But we are speaking about non rank games.
Balance has nothing to do in no rank games. 
im talking civ balance, and all civs should be balanced, otherwise the game would fail 
But I think its easier to balance around stats rather than unit space
Balance is still important in unranked games. But less so.
Even when there isn’t ranking, people still want a reasonably balanced experience.
3 Likes
Fantastically put.
So many people in the “BuT iTs 2o21, and I want MORE” camp, and not realising that computers still have perfectly reasonably limitations and that who would of thought that an entire team of professional programmers with years of experience making RTS games actually do know what they’re doing.
Anyway, bravo to you Geparden.
2 Likes