Unitslimit drastic increase for all playercards

According to the latest announcements, the developer wants to build 200 units per singleplayer map in the game. That is far too little, even if you include the multiplayer cards. The unit limit should be raised to at least 500 to 1000, today’s players want to be able to carry out mass battles in single-player battles and not fight as if one were in a sandpit.

What always bothered me about the old Age of Empires 2 was that the unit limit was so low and here I am by far not the only player who thinks that way. If you leave this as you planned with only 200 units for one card per player, it will be very detrimental to the game.


First of all, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt if they have chosen this population limit then it’s designed for a single purpose to play great with their design philosophy.

I understand the wanting to have more population but we have to keep in mind that we have yet to play this game, we have no way to tell if having more than 200 is a bad/good idea. For all, we know villagers maybe don’t take any population or less than in previous installments?

If memory servers me right when AoE 2 first came out, it also launched with 200 limits, and only afterwards they increased that to 500 with the HD edition.

1 Like

He is kind of right, what is the point of unit limit in single-player if you have a decent PC?


Perhaps it’s a balancing issue and that they can’t bother change how SP & MP works so they work the same to save time & resources?

Again we have to assume that they balance the population around the whole game, the resources, the cost to build, to not make any civilization more OP because they can build more of their units etc. etc.

So many things we yet do not know the impact of a higher population.


But if a person does play the game in Skirmish vs AI, what does he care about a faction to be OP or unbalanced with higher population?

For Example Total War Warhammer has such option, where you can drastically change a lot of parameters. Prior to activate it games does give you a warning.

Any PC can attempt to use The Laboratory, but your performance will vary wildly so be warned that lower end PCs may massively struggle, or crash, when sliders are pushed to the max.

Why can’t we have it?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have it, just trying to look at it from their side and Relic might not be interested in adding an option for that, for launch. Maybe they add it in an expansion pack if it’s requested a lot by the players.

Em, change unit limit is a very, very, very default option in RTS games.

And what if people want the opposite like 50 or 100 max units?
That all should be achievable by an AAA RTS.

So if you can play 4vs4 with 200 max units, that’s 1600. Why should there be no option for 1vs1 with unit limit 400, that would be just 800 max units, half of what game can run at default.

1 Like

First of all, I’m pretty sure that you can change anything under the 200 population limit so if you want to play with 50/100/150 as well you could probably do that, and I think that’s a must to have in the game.

The way I understood it is that each player will have a 200 population limit if playing with the maximum players on the map. So if playing against fewer opponents, logically the population cap limit should increase per player on the battlefield just cannot exceed the 1600 which is the cap.


I think a good alternative would allow the person creating the game be able to limit the population, but by default (and in SP) it should be unlimited. There is no reason to cap units. The did it originally in AoE because no one’s computer could handle it. Now, the average PC could easily handly massive battles (look at the Total War series).

As for balance, let the resources and resource management be the balancing, not some arbitrary rule about population caps. If I can field a larger army than you can, you either have to be really cunning or you’re going to lose. This happens over and over in history. Now, fielding such a large army usually bankrupts the empire if they drag wars out too long (which is another way it balances itself). You field a huge army, but the defenders put up too much of a fight behind their walls and now you have no gold or iron or food to rebuild your army and your opponent comes in for a swift and deadly counter-attack.

1 Like

Completely agree with all you said!

1 Like

C&C series don’t have population limit so it’s possible anyway. That’s just design choice.

In which announcement it is said that 200 pop per player will be the max even when played with less people than the max of 8?

It was hinted that in ranked it would be 200 per player. They didn’t say anything about other modes. I’d expect the same options that aoe2 offers for lobby games. The popcap for ranked is obviously for balancing/performance reasons(allowing every player with a potatoe to play ranked).

Don’t know why people are so impatient to see what the game has to offer before complaining about something. We have 0 clue about unit limits in non-ranked mode and it’s fairly standard to allow changing unit limits in RTS games(especially in singleplayer/unranked). Maybe they even put various ranked ladders with different pop-cap limits (i doubt it but still a possibility). Can we atleast wait for clarification before making the 500th post complaining about popcap that uses pure speculation of something without any knowledge?


that has to do with the engine though, not potato PCs. RTX 3090 and i9 10900k are not enough to play a full 8 palyer match with max pop cap.
And thats with a 2d game.

While I would like it to be possible, I think more than 250 would stretch it already, unless it scales with the player counts.

I disagree with OP. I absolutely do not want to control 1000 units. 200 is definitely enough. At least in AoE2, you can’t actually select more than 60 units at once anyhow, and you end up with several different control groups (mind you, some of that will be buildings and perhaps eco), and be switching contexts a lot. I don’t even want to imagine what kind of nightmare unit control would be at 1000 pop.


Entire 200 controllable units is just ridiculous and that in the year 2021. You will still see it, if Relic does not change anything here, you will get the receipt from the sales figures, that the game is only average and not good. One of the main reasons will be, that the unit limit is far too low.

I wrote, that you should be able to control 500 to 1000 units. At 500 we would be reasonably reasonable for nowadays, but 200 is a joke.

I’m not talking about the CPU… I’m talking about humans. Outside of some absolute APM gods, there’s no way people will effectively control 1000 units.

1 Like

Hmmm, Starcraft II realesed in 2010 had a pop limit… 200. after the second expansion, Legacy of the Void (2015/2016, im not sure) … its still 200. There is no question of a code or computers capacity. Its about of humans capacity.

But SC II:LotV was a 5 years ago…

So lets take something more fresh

Spelforce III (so often gloryficated on this forum because of graphic) … its still 200! (but a lot of units cost more than 1 pop space)

1 Like

I’m going to say this again, they have yet to announce how the population limit will change if you play against fewer players on the map. The little information that they have mentioned is if there are maximum players on a given map, then the pop limit will be 200 for each player (max of 1600).

What they haven’t talked about is what happens if you choose to play only 2v2 or 1v1 etc, will the pop limit increase per player, so for example 1v1 will have an 800 pop limit per player. To me, this sounds logical.

Want to control bigger armies? Go play any of the total war games that does it really good.

1 Like

They just need to give the option from 200-500 population limit just like AOE2 DE. I personally, hate AOE3 population mechanics and is the worst. This would allow, competitive players, to play with 200pop, and people who prefer larger and decisive battles can enjoy their game with a higher population. As simple as this.

1 Like