Start with more villager than 6?

So you can imagine how many we were the first 2 month.

And i think the 12 vils start reopened the debate (i haven’t write since 4+ month and i wanted to give my point of view about this recent rule, like the OP i supose)

I also wouldn’t mind a x1.25 instead of more villagers for balance.

1 Like

think about the new players

Based on the amount of players in october 2021 and how this number have melt, i don’t think new players prefere slow pace game.


Let’s bet if they follow your nothing pragmatic suggestion

i wouldn’t mind smt in line with empire wars gamemode, as a gamemode, but i’m not too keen on 12 vil start
for context, i fully supported increasing starting villager count from 3 to 6, but i’m not sure the effects of going up to 12 would be as positive, i’d say up to 8 is more sensible, but any higher begins to hurt the early game pace (also aoe4 isn’t really paced as slowly as aoe2, its roughly like aoe3 in this regard, its by no means as fast as SCII, but ultimately you’re not going to attract SCII players unless you make a close copy of it, imo SCII is paced too fast, its too demanding on APM, but i understand devs there had to do that to ensure the difficulty remained high, but that won’t fly with aoe4, instead aoe4 should be reducing the training and research times, those are often absurdly long)

Well I think we can assume that not every SC2 player loves every aspect of the game. I like the micro and dynamics of the game but I do not like the lack of economic options, lack of random maps and sci-fi setting. Even the pace could be a little bit slower.

thing with SCII is its a fundamentaly different kind of RTS to its predecessor, i’d argue SCI gameloop has more in common with aoe than it does with its sequel
with SCI and aoe you can win by numbers, basically, if you macroed well enough you could win vs someone even if against counter units, ofc assuming overwhelming numbers
i could never do this in SCII, where the key lies in making the “right” stuff, right counters with no real exceptions
was likely the case with only having 2 resources and thus macro side suffering from modern interface features (MBS (multi building select), automine (workers moving to next resource on their own), shift queues etc.) result of this is: SCI and aoe games are macro RTSes and SCII belongs far more into micro RTS category, so its technically wrong to try to exclusively target SCII audience

The point is not really “12 vils vs 6 vils”, the point is “how can we make the game more interesting in the first 10 min”.
Because i have seen a lot of game with the “12 vils” rule, i know i already prefere it over 6 vils, maybe there are other way (they need to be tested), but this one work to me.
Also strongly disagree with Empire Wars because it remove the age 1 which is not the case in the 12 vils rules.

What the point of being rude with others peaple?

AoE3 is clearly faster than AoE4. AoE4 has similar average length than AoE2 (Maybe a little less thanks to this metagame).

Yes, AoE3 starts with 6 settlers/villagers…the only thing that the first age is more busy because your explorer can get treasures and build trading posts…also AoE 3 is faster from the base since the villagers don’t require depositing resources, then that speeds up everything plus the resource boxes that arrive from home city…

Aoe3 is faster mostly because of shipment plus your military units are train by batch (so you need less wood for your military building which mean more army).
The shipment mechanic is probably the biggest thing because it’s the reason why it’s almost impossible to win a game in aoe3 if you lose the first fight, you have a double snowball effect (if you win the fight, you have the army adventage on the field + more XP for more shipment so a better followup).


yes and no, depends strongly on how much xp you donate to the opponent while raiding, if you let plenty of expensive units die a quick death then ye it’ll probably bite you back when some powerful shipment gets sent, but then again, the opponent has to have that shipment in their deck, there are ways to just force such shipments out earlier than your opponent would want it
shipments do speed the game up, thats true, but its not unwinnable after losing first fight, after all you can always check their deck on player summary

The forum partner was playing at a high level in AoE3, something will know.

Maybe you mean lower levels.

1 Like

played since 2006, and it wasn’t strictly casual (casual =/= bad at the game, just not tryharding), what i said applies regardless of level of play

He comments on major battles by high level players, not losing a few units. I also think that the comeback ability is worse in that case.

to be fair, this applies to any RTS out there, so i don’t see it as smt worth mentioning

This is not really the place to talk about aoe3 but there was an huge consensus arround top players (i was top 20 in aoe3 during 10 years) that aoe3 is the most “first battle win the game” over all big RTS game because of XP mechanic.
If you win the first fight, you have more army + more shipment, so more more army (double snowball effect). That was critized / debated in EP (fan community working on balance batch after ESO closure), how reduce the snowball effect.

That’s why i think XP is not a great feature in RTS game.

what about them?
they can not manage 12 vils,while game has poplimit 200?
90% will be happy: send all vils to berries.

you just afraid of new build orders…that’s all.

but in reality build orders will be almost the same… i believe tournament showed it.

the most banned civilizations will give problems