Should villiger limit be removed?

As the title says.
I always hated arbitrary limits that take away your freedom of choice, like how to manage the population with vills vs military.
And with the upcoming increase in population cap 80 vills will take even less population relatively, making it the ideal number of vills even more.

What do you think?

Honestly, the villager limit seems more like a help than a limit to me. I don’t think any economy needs more than 99 villagers. So with the limit, you don’t have to limit yourself

One thing I’m actually going to propose for the final game is that trade caravans have their own limit but don’t cost population (this is because they take a big portion of the population in late)

1 Like

No limits on anything would only exist in a perfect world with players having the best computer rigs ever.
However, I imagine folks who have more powerful rigs would take advantage of that and literally unit swarm their enemies and bluescreen the opponents’ potato computers.

No. The game would be bad with no limits at all.
It would likely end in a camping fest where both sides have super massive armies.

This only works in games with “super weapons” or similar things that can brake though a stalemate. In some games they are literally called “game enders” like nukes and such.
AoM has Titans but they are not that strong, nor should they be that strong.

With infinit farms and infinit trade money AoM would lead to way to long late game battles.

The best solution in my opinion is soft caps. Don’t just have a hard wall that you can’t overcome. Instead you get some punishment (like lower resource collection rate, weaker units and so on) for going over the limit.

For example what if adding 1 more tower then the tower limit would make every tower a little weaker. That would not be worth it in most situations but maybe you just really need that map coverage and getting another one is worth making all weaker.
That would be an interesting gameplay decision.

If you can just do anything it doesn’t create interesting choices.
Limitations generate choices but they can also kill choices. It’s a balancing act.

Not being able to build TCs everywhere limits you to choose between settlements. But that choice is often more interesting then just being able to plop down the TC at the optimal spot. The optimal spot is easy to find.
Like you can choose between a limited set of units instead of being able to just type on what ever stats you want. The second thing would give you more freedom in theory but in reality it would likely be very obvious what numbers are the best and therefor not really give you a choice.

1 Like

I hope they maintain the limit as it currently is 80 villagers (non-Nordic), in AOM at minute 15 you will generally have full villagers and the lategame starts, it is very boring to see games for example AOE2 and AOE4 where more than 20 minutes pass booming reaching 120+ villagers, again I say this thinking about the competitive, in personalized/single player games that leave everything to the freedom of the player


Never limit unless it is a special building, a very important unit (Titan style) or the population limit for competitive games. It is preferable to raise the cost (for example) when they reach a certain amount than to limit the construction or production.

I hope the devs don’t make the same mistakes as in the past, please.

It could be increased since maximum pop is going up.

But economy is kinda unlimited already, since there are no cap on trade carts. I don’t really see this making any positive impact. Only thing what will happen is noobs will have 160 vils and 0 military because they forgot to turn autoQ off.


Increase the limit but let traders and fishing ships count towards the same limit like in AoE3DE.


The positive impact is that you stop making economic production when you want to and not when the game limits you (it already limits you by population).

I think we should not be too purist in keeping almost all the mechanics intact if we want the game to reach enough new players and they will keep playing.

There are supposed to be more changes in a “Retold” than in a “Definitive Edition”, so I think we have to open the doors to the freedom of strategic variety and to not be the niche of the niche once again.

Yes, I think they will see it when the game is released…now there must be closed betas of the game, and they will patch it when they add new mythologies to the game over the years…


Custom maps already provide you that freedom. I am very happy with current villager cap and you can already play Norse if you want to go 120 vils. Of course your towers and walls will be weaker, but surely you werent thinking of just having villagers and spamming more towers than enemy can handle? … Remember opposition are people too.

AoE2 players don’t understand that removing limits doesn’t result in more freedom or more choices (unless we are talking about population limit since that exists in AoE2 and everything that exists in AoE2 is automatically good).

If there is no villager limit or no settlement system you can have as much villagers as you want and train them wherever you want?
Not really, because if you want to win you need to do certain meta things.
It doesn’t give you the freedom to do what you want, because your enemy will punish you for doing something wrong.

Removing a limitation can lead to less choices. If you can always do the best thing then why shouldn’t you always do the best thing?
Having limitations force you to do trade offs.
You can’t have the perfect amount of villagers on each resource so you have to choose.

The same is with the Tower or Fortress limit. You have to choose where you want to build them instead of just being able to spam them everywhere you want to.
Also AoM doesn’t have Stone so it has to limit fortifications somehow to not allow people to just fill up the entire map with towers.

1 Like

Not only in AoE2, but also in SC2, the 2 most popular RTS.

The limitation should be something natural (population limit or number of villagers gathering a specific resource) and very specific (special buildings or some special unit).

I repeat, they can punish by increasing the cost or lowering the production or building speed from a certain number, but let the players do what they want.

Some have already complained on this forum, although most here are veteran AoM players. If those limitations are kept the game will be criticized for it.

Starcraft 2 has very big hidden limits build im.

The economy is everything but “free”.
You have predetermined spots where to place your TC equivalent building. Placing it anywhere else is not economically viable, besides some wacky tactics.
The predetermined spots are also all the same with a fixed number of minerals where only a fixed number of workers can work on.
2 workers per mineral is optimal, 3 workers is possible. Not much of a choice.

In AoE/AoM there are almost no restrictions in that way. You can get as many villagers work on a mine as can fit around it (AoE3 has a 20 settler limit per mine which likely most people never encounter) and you can just build as many farms as you want to.

Warcraft 3 is similar to SC2, the number if workers per mine is hard limited, but at last you can scale up wood production as much as you want to.

One of the issues I have with AoE1-4 (and AoM) is that in the late game the resources come in so quickly already that you just keep on sending waves of units into death.
Making it possible to have even more villagers means that it’s likely the best strategy to have like 120 (assuming 200 population) which means even more spamming of waves of trash units.
Not fun gameplay in my opinion, but you don’t really have a choice. Going for less villagers (like 80) means you can’t rebuild your waves as fast as the enemy meaning you do not have a choice.
You are forced to play the game in a certain way because of the meta.

Saying you have more freedom because you are allowed to play the game wrong is kinda stupid. You play to win.
If you don’t play a ranked game then you could get a mod or scenario that increases the villager limit anyway so you are not really limited.


In SC2 there is no random map generation, you know what the map is and what it has. Randomness is 0. In AoE/AoM there is randomness in that sense and if you don’t build a TC near some map resource, it’s not a good location either. If you mean the comparison with settlements, that’s the reason.

The best strategy doesn’t have to be to have 120 villagers if the villagers collect resources fast enough, so you could try to be more aggressive and make a better all in with 90-100 villagers and win militarily.

Regarding the maximum number of workers on a resource, well the same as the maximum number of villagers collecting food from an animal, it seems to me a natural limitation for how the resource is.

The more randomness there is in a map generation, the more strategic, production and construction freedom there should be (with its nuances) to compensate for it.

P.S: In addition, I said that if they exceeded the traditional limitation, they could be punished in some way…

The number of workers on a mineral is a big limitation in SC2 because you can very quickly get more workers then your mineral line supports.

In AoE/AoM the number of villagers per resource is never really a limit, you can just build another wood camp to get a longer wood line.
The only real limitation is how fast a given resource expires not how many villagers can work on them.
You can have 10 people work on a deer but it’ll be gone in no time.

In SC2 you have to go out of the safety of your main base and invest 400 Minerals to get a second Mineral Line, that then is also limited to the same number of workers.
SC2 is very restrictive in that way.

Yea, comparing different games with different mechanics is harder then it seems. SC2 handels the vill limit in a different way like you wrote- there is natural deminishing returns on building more villigers as they cant all work at the same time on the same resources making a 3rd vill on minirals less effective and 4th or 5th absolute.

My point was that in aoe, the vill limit seems arbitrary (at least to me). I know that especially with 160 pop you cant really use more than 80 vills so the limit is to protect from mistakes. But I dont like this approach. Should everything have a limit to protect the player from making mistakes? IMO limits should only be applied if something breaks the game, or to create special mechanics so the player have to figure how to play according to a set of rules (like settelments).

The game already does not limit how many caravans you can build and allows norse to get to 120 vills, and that option doesn’t break the game. Villigers and therefore the echonomy already have a limit- the pop cap that you need to manage between millitery and civilian units so the you get enogh resources but have enough army.

I wouldn’t mind the limitation if the number of vills was a choice the player takes like 60 to 80 vills for final echonomy instead of always 80 (maybe I’m wrong). It seems that the limit is too low for the original pop cap let alone the new one. If original was 120 pop you wouldn’t see people having 80 vills as much as now and I would have been fine with that.

True, it’s quite a topic… it would be interesting to see how the devs resolve the whole population issue…

I think I mentioned that before but I think the best solution would be to increase the villager limit to 100 but make Traders, Fishers and Dwarfs count towards it too (like in AoE3DE).

Not sure how to make it work best for Atlantians though. It would be confusing if 1 citizen counts as 3 villagers.