(SUGGESTION) Subsistence Town Center (Without-Settlement)


Finality: having one extra (subsistence) Town Center ONLY in emergency situations when you haven´t any settelement under control, (so you would have the posibility to recover of these situations)

  1. You can only build this TC (without settlement) if you haven´t more TCs.

  2. This TC only works while you don´t have more TCs.

  3. (Maybe ) An option to recycle the building (only avaliable when you obtain real settlements) that could return you 50-75% of the cost.

  4. Weaker and more penalties if balance require them (slower or more expensive creation of villagers, etc…).

Explanation. In those situations where you need a TC but you don´t have access to any settlement (or need to remain hidden), you can build one TC without settelement (In such a way that, when you temporarily run out of settlements in a game, you can subsist and are not automatically out of the game.).
This TC only works until you reach to reclaim ONE settlement and THEN, this TC won´t work (at least, until you will lose all other settements again). So, you have the posibility to recover from extreme situations (one of the more epic things that we can see in Age games).

*An idea of how this TC could look to differentiate it. Several people have told me that it could be composed of tents, but this way is easier.



I have read a lot of complaints about the settlement system. I have tried to make different proposals to try to please as many settlement fans as I can, and I have been evaluating the level of acceptance of each one. I know that the settlement system is controversial, but I think that with this suggestion, we can respect the majority of settlement system fans while also pleasing those players who want more freedom with TCs by giving them a little more decision.

The possibility of making a comeback in nearly lost games gives us some of the most exciting matches in the Age saga. The settlement system significantly limits this possibility by giving the enemy knowledge of where you will have to settle (the settlements). On a different note, this proposal does not intend to deny the settlement mechanics but rather to provide a small window of opportunity by allowing you to buy time by building a temporary subsistence TC in a non-predetermined (and unknow) location.


I don’t like it honestly, it makes egyptians even more toxic to fight against, they can already defend with 0 pop courtesy of mercenaries’ spam, allowing them to place a rather free settlement right next to a goldmine or simply anywhere and then spawning mercs almost instantly is not a good idea, no matter what.
It also makes 0 TCs Loki even stronger in team games.


I have a question for you. Have you read that this settlement only could be built when you haven´t more TCs? (I mean, when all your TCs have been destroyed)

(EDIT): I also say, if the entire mechanic is flawed because of a bonus from a particular civilization, it could be modified. Egyptian mercenaries could not be created in this special TC, or they could be slower to create. I think that would be enough considering that this TC would be weaker than a regular one

As I have already pointed out to you in my previous post, it would make 0 TCs Loki even more annoying to deal with in team games, and would make egyptians even more difficult to finish off in situations of 0 TCs aswell, it’s a rather bad suggestion in my opinion.

1 Like

So, if for example we make it so that mercenaries cannot be created in this TC or their creation rate is halved… you wouldn’t have the problem with the Egyptians, right?

I don’t know what in particular would bother you about this with Loki. But honestly, it sounds more like a problem with the Loki faction in particular rather than with the mechanic itself.

Mate I have to agree with the naysayers here, it’s not a great idea. It’s fundamentally changing a core mechanic of the game. Perhaps in an AOM2 this could be a feature but the vast majority want AOMR to be an upgraded AOM with a few QOL changes. People want the old game. Changing the fundamentals creates an entirely different game.

The whole point of the current settlement system is map control. Throwing up other TC’s Willy-nilly negates that factor. A TC in AOM is vital, battling for them is a fundamental aspect of the game as you’re limited by how many are on the map. Allowing anyone to build them, anywhere even if they are weaker, negates a fundamental of the original that people won’t want


The game would remain being the same. This subsistence TC never would replace Settlement System. Its only a temporary emergency measure in case you lose all TCs and temporary can´t recover anyone.

This TC itself forces you to recover settlements when This “subsistence TC” only allows you to have one TC (nerfed) at the same time and stop working when you archieve to recover a REAL settlement.


(EDIT 1):

We never going to have an AoM2, NEVER. If one feature can be improved, this is the moment. I repeat, we never going to have AoM2 from here to 20 years.

AoM Retold has already improved:

  1. A new age (5 age)
  2. Reusable powers
  3. New units and buildings.
  4. More population (this point already makes AoMr a new game by itself)
  5. More things? I don´t know

The fact that your enemy can no longer capture settlements means that you control at least 80% of the map. So I see no problem with a backup TC being built.

If the enemy can recover in some way, it is still a very remote possibility, since generally, whoever destroys an enemy base and controls the map already has the game practically won.

My suggestion for this is:

Only being able to build an alternative TC in the age of wonders (imperial era), so that it does not lose its tactical value at earlier ages. This will have fewer resistance points than the default TCs.

Also personally I would like the settlements to have a more special purpose, such as serving as a place where you can get bonuses and unique units, similar to how the native trading posts are in AOE-3, but that’s just what I I think. The TCs would have no restriction on where they could be built, but no TC could be built next to another TC, so they will always be separated from each other, and you will also be forced to control the map, just as in the old game.

We have reusable powers, so I don’t see a problem with some additional changes.

1 Like

Hmmm… I don’t know chief, the others bring up great points regarding balance issues and game identity. Originally I was gonna agree with ya. A modified settlement could work but then we’d have to put so many restrictions on it that it wouldn’t even be worth adding in the first place. I got my metaphorical shit kicked in by facts and logic when I recommended something similar once upon a time to others.

1 Like

The settlement system is good for most AoM players because it promotes map control and the use of myth units for that end. As a result, increasing speed and pace of matches.
But at the same time, it also limits other aspects of the game like several tactic factors and game modes that are seen in aoe1, aoe2 and aoe3. For example, with the current settlement system, it’s impossible to have true game modes and maps like arena, fortress, michi, nomad, treaty, etc, without ruining or forcing map control and pace. Kinda ironic considering arena and treaty modes were planned for aom initially, but scraped because devs were running out of time and had to keep settlements in the end.

Aoe3 had a simple solution: building limit.
That’s all. You can build everywhere you want, but you are limited per number and age. That way, settlement lovers can still enjoy having fast paced matches with tons of map control; and no-settlement advocates can build wherever they please and have the full experience of new game modes like arena, nomad and treaty as in other games of the franchise.


The balance issues can be resolved, the matter of the Egyptian mercenaries can be balanced. The perfect solution for me would be to always allow the construction of Town Centers, but with penalties when not using settlements.

However, this particular proposal focuses on a specific situation where you have already lost all your settlements and are allowed to build a TEMPORARILY Town Center so as not to be out of the game, always having to return to the settlement system when you “rejoin the game”.

I know that many AoM players want their classic game without changes, but there are others who don’t, and above all, there are many new players who would join the series and would want more freedom.

Ultimately, this proposal of mine would only affect a very specific situation where you temporarily run out of settlements. Fans of the settlement system would still have their game almost the same, but in this specific situation, there would be the possibility to build a special TC of a temporary nature

That’s one of the reasons, why I think AoE3 handles it much better with native settlements being the map control points. Still provides bonuses, but without being tied to standard civilization kit and economy unit production. They are clearly evolution of AoM settlements. But for whatever reason old AoM players feel extremely attached to Settlements==Town Centers, which in reality makes game more agressive and snowbally. It also reduces options as it makes greedy strategies impossible and comebacks out of questions as you never get chance to catch up, once you are permanently behind villager count due to raids.

Changing them would be more beneficial for the competitive crowd, even if it was defining thing once for AoM, it doesn’t need to be forever. Games can evolve and embracing drastic changes can make them better. It would probably be even well received, if it was introduced first as experimental gamemode… because I think many hates just can’t imagine the change…


I think that the idea of having free TC placement (with limited number per age) is good.

It allows for more map variety (Nomad, etc), and also strategical depth.

With fixed TC placement, sometimes a player grabs the center (with a civ that is good early game), and then plays very passively, because eventually they will win due to the higher pop limit.

(In general, the pop limit per TC reduces the comeback potential, and the playability of the late game. I think it’s a bigger issue than the TC placement. If players had the opportunity to catch up in population in Mythical Age, the late game would be much more exciting :slight_smile: )

1 Like

It’s a good point. With this it is clear that it is an absurd limitation that people do not want to get rid of simply because of dogma.

Yes, I think it would be ideal, and I think that in addition to a limit, a rule could be put where a TC cannot be built within the range of influence of another (At least until the final era, and in the treated mode it could be removed said limit due to influence). This encourages map control in practically the traditional way, and at the same time is more flexible in other aspects.

That’s one of the reasons, why I think AoE3 handles it much better with native settlements being the map control points. Still provides bonuses, but without being tied to standard civilization kit and economy unit production. They are clearly evolution of AoM settlements. But for whatever reason old AoM players feel extremely attached to Settlements==Town Centers, which in reality makes game more agressive and snowbally. It also reduces options as it makes greedy strategies impossible and comebacks out of questions as you never get chance to catch up, once you are permanently behind villager count due to raids.

Exactly. The AOE-3 equivalent is Trading Posts, and you can win the game by controlling these key points on the map by declaring an economic monopoly. I think that the settlements could change their purpose as I explained above.

1 Like

Yo llegue a pensar en algo similar, que los centros urbanos no estén limitados a solo ser construidos en los asentamientos, si no que También, se puedan construir sin estos pero sin agregar limites de construcción de este, siendo mas débil y que no se puedan construir cerca del uno y del otro, como algo similar de las universidades de los Hausa en el AoE III.

I think most people are happy about the settlement system, even so much that they don’t understand why anyone would complain about it.

There might be vocal minority that complains about things like these, but they don’t really make any sense. Settlement system works to your advantage as long as you make good decisions… And blaming a system that promotes good decisions is guaranteed way to keep making bad decisions.

And this would be just bad game design. Next would we be giving losing player super dinosaur that oneshots everything for 5 minutes? Just move onto next game rather than adding “bandaid comeback mechanics for 4vs4 niche cases” in the game.

1 Like

I am going to explain to you the exact point of the complaint. It takes away your decision-making capacity and is arbitrary.

It reduces the options in the game, limiting the variety of matches. It is not a question of balance.

Of the classic AoM players, yes, there is a majority who think the current system is fine. But how many players are those? How many new players does AoMr plan to attract from the rest of the AoE games?

My ideal option would be for the settlement system to be optional; it would give you an advantage for using it but would not limit you. However, this proposal is more aimed at slightly pleasing those of us who would like more freedom with a slight modification, while keeping the settlement system practically intact for the classic lovers

“super dinosaur” xd. More like a tinny Dinosaur. If the opponent has the entire map and destroys your base, this subsistence TC doesn’t make sense. However, there’s a lot of variety in matches; there could be others where, despite losing your TC, you still have options.

Lastly, I believe this proposal would affect fewer than 5% of 1v1 games (team matches a bit more, but not excessively). You would still have your settlement system almost intact, and the game would benefit from greater match variety if the right conditions are met