Yes it is necessary. You haven’t given one reason why you think it is not a good approach. Only reasons that support a “they shall have” because???
In aoe2 it kinda works. But that is because AOE2 economy is flawed, so people make the OP expensive gold units while they can but then it devolves into spamming basic units of wood and food. So in AOE2 that same balance is caused not from pop space but simply ability to get coin. I think AOE4 will have infinite sources of coin allowing for late game units to be used at all times. When you change the dynamic like that then you have to take other considerations to balance out over powered units.
You are neglecting other game modes other than 1v1, I am hoping AOE4 also continues with treaty modes and of course FFA that tend to go way late.
AOE3 cannons are well balanced because if protected and well managed win battles but if out of place or using counter units take them out easily. If cannons cost 1 pop there would be little balance late game. but again to reiterate, just like AOE 2 to buy them in game is still buying all those pop slots compared to other units with lower slots. How can one even say cannon in AOE3 are not balanced right when in AOE2 mangonels turn on a dime and insta fire and one shot can take out 20 troops.
I do not get your logic of balancing a game by not balancing it. Just let happen what happens… that is not a strategy game that is a lame fest.
Why should there never be limitations? games have rules and limitations. That seems really extreme. To just make as many pop as you want with no pop space or pop cap because that is the only way to balance things as that would be the only way to really compare economic to military strength. That way if over 30 minutes a Indian player could furnish 100 elephants, the other player could counter by making 400 pikemen
In AoE3 some limitations had to do and with how easily you could get some overpower things. I saw a game in YouTube between top 10 players, one lost all his army and his base. And even in the small maps AoE3 has, against one of the top players, he managed to win within 5 minutes after this. He make an army again, took a cannon card, attacked and won his opponent army.
The fact that you could build in AoE3 5 units at the time, ask for cards from your home city etc, could make things easily unbalanced if the game had not some limitations. AoE2 from the other hand works different. As we know, it is a balance game. We will see the balance between civs in AoE4, but we know that there are more than one approaches for balances. Some of these parameters, have to do and with the powers/weaknesses between civs. It is acceptable some civs to have bonusses to early and others to late game. The players will know the civ their opponent has, and can change their strategy approach.
I personally vote for 200 pop limit, mainly because of PvP games which can be chaotic as it is and juggling more than that is stressful… at least for me…
However, it would be cool if it could be added larger pop limit for some chill scenarios you can play with friends or just AI…that’s my opinion!
well if you do not justify your answer I just stop talking to you as it has no basis to me.
you did not say exactly to just let it happen, but that is the sentiment you carry when you say things like it would be good to have a 200 elephant army in a strategy game as a possibility. when 200 elephants on the field will have a power spike of 10x of whatever other type of unit you could make 200 of. That cheapens the whole experience. There is no accomplishment in just abusing a over scaled unit. an accomplishment comes when people are forced to make compromised and balanced army compositions to be able to hard counter whatever comes at them.
also to note… AOE2 uses pop in the game as a resource to buy houses and a unit still cost 1 pop, so really AOE2 is a 5 resource game as you put it.
AOE2 balance is different as the civs are all using the same units with slightly different buffs and deficits. To ask AOE4 to be like AOE2 is to ask for more sameness among units and civs. Because the more asymmetrical you have a civ, the stronger its bonus is going to be. So French cav I assume have some really good stats too, which is fine, like in AOE3 they made french cav really good but had to make it 3 pop… but this hardly effects their use in a normal 1v1 game other than the extra cost of making some extra houses. many games don’t really fight at full max population all the time so its nots like it really prevents you from making all the cav you want, because your assuredly fighting and losing men and reinforcing them. So at that point you have your houses and your just now paying for the cost of the unit… and its fine as within that lost pop you still have all the extra power gained from it as a civ bonus high tier unit. And to counter it you know its possible to make larger masses of counter units that some will die to absorb the awesome power but still numbers overcome. What it prevents is some scenario where a player could make them one for one with other units, at that point they would have such a power spike you could never kill them. So its really not that big of a deal. India may struggle with multiple large pop units but it has very power units to compensate.
Except you can easily outmass the persian player before they get enough elephants. And if you make your military all elephants, halbs will easily crush them, population efficient and cost efficient
[mod hat on] I locked the other thread. you all can hang out here all you would like to discuss everything there is to discuss about population limits. cheers
When you see competitive play they made around 120-140 villagers and only like 60 pop in military, that is boring, villager pop should have a limit of 130 and max pop should be like 220 so that way and army can be 3 different units types not only 2 this will give more variety to fights… 130 villagers is mehh there is no room for good fights and army composition.
in ao2 the production of villagers is slow so 1 villager is worth a lot. It’s not the same it’s aoe4, if the population exceeds 240 it doesn’t make sense they already have a mod for that, but for rankeds do a more serious survey
Exactly. Just give us a villager cap (100 is a good number) but no population cap.
My survey was made for casual play not ranked.
I think the population of 200 is fine for ranked. Most ranked matched will end before you can reach it anyway.
If someone is playing with friends and they are messing around what does it matter… it’s a video game, thinks don’t always have to make sense
And U are talking about ranked matches i think?
I agree, I don’t like 300-500 pop games because I am not used to that numbers, and I usually find me with 100 villagers fighting people with 200, that obviously obliterates me with more eco.
Don’t forget that english can get gold from farms, so making 140 on farms gives you infinite food and infinite gold.