Age of Strategy Forums

Since I think that the population limit proposal have been ignored I'd like to suggest just one change on how population limit should work

In most of games using that kind of device the population room taken by a unit isn't always the same

If a rifleman take one point a tank might take 3 or 4

Since, especially with low limits, it is clearly better to own 200 8 turns units than 200 2 turns units I think that their weight should be considered in the space taken by those units

I suggest pop limit to be based on units' cost rather than just a limit of 1 per unit

For that reason, since base units cost is generally 2, i suggest to double the pop limit options (200 will become 400 and 800 will become 1600) but base that on cost so with 400 limit you can still have 200 swordsmen or 100 knights or 50 swordsmen, 50 archers and 50 knights and so on.

What do you think @Stratego (dev) @Endru1241 ?

I only think that unit must take room as 50% of its original cost. So for example catapult with cost 8 will use 4 population while longbowman will use 1 (rounded down).

That would be basically the same I'm suggesting (instead of doubling the pop limit as I suggested the cost required would be halved) but the only problem would be that unit's cost should necessarily be rounded up (as militia units would cost 0 pop otherwise, breaking the game).

I would still prefer doubling the pop amount but base that on the full unit's cost because I think it would be too much of a downside for units with cost 3 to occupy 2 populations (all odd cost units would be affected but those with cost 3 are meant to be used in big numbers) and among these there are many widely used units like shielders, fast archers, healers and so on.

i actually want both doubling pop limit + half from turn cost pop cost for unit. it is fine if pop cost will be rounded up.

In that case I would prefer it rounded down with minimum pop cost 1 (to avoid 0 cost militia)

Agreed.

I still think unit cost (how much of limit it takes) should be balanced unit by unit.
Especially for AoS.
Units with longer training time would be at disadvantage if they took that much of limit.

With doubled base units limit 4 "food" is fine cost as for me for catapults.

For catapults - surely, but I think trebuchet should have at least the same requirement - even with current limits.
And what about e.g. mouted templars, legionaries, hoplites? I think they should have lower costs probably.
Generaly - units that are longer to train, because of initial higher stats or additional abilities, but having close counterparts, which are upgradable and on end game comes as equivalents.
Varied "food cost" (how much of unit limit it takes) can also be used to further balance mercenaries role - they could easily be 0, as they have another limiting factor.

Unit limit purpose was probably introduced to decrease cluttering maps, so doubling it suddenly on a global scale kinda defeats that purpose.
Some option to have higher limit is ok (like additional infrastructure requirement), but default?

That default will also come with higher consumption of "food" resources.
If you will have for example 20 trebushets in current state you will need only 20 "food". In new state you will need 60 "food" (20x6/2) thus consumption of "food" will be increased greatly.

Endru1241 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:45 pm I still think unit cost (how much of limit it takes) should be balanced unit by unit.
Especially for AoS.
Units with longer training time would be at disadvantage if they took that much of limit.

I agree on that, what about giving them turn cost as a default value unless their value is set inside the unit json?
So a unit that cost 2 takes 2 food unless it is set to take, for example, 4 food.

This way units would have, at base, a certain amount of space taken unless you decide otherwise.

Putting some logic that goes aside the unit cost:

A normal humanoid/soldier might just take up 1 food
A cavalry unit might take up from 2 to 4 (based on the mount type cause a elephant surely eat more than a horse)
Special units that are elites might take up more as they might be treated better for being nobles or something like that... and so on.

Anyway the idea is that once there is a limited amount of units we can recruit we should also give them different weights.

Also I liked your idea of mercs having no food cost (as they are getting paid otherwise).

In general that works also logically for races which don't rely on food (ents requires free land, sun and water, undeads require unholy power to stay in the world of the living, mechanical units require manteinance or a crew of people, and so on).

@Stratego (dev) would that be fine for you?

we can just have a new stat called "popAmountRequires" or something similar and if the stat is not set it is, by default, equal to the unit's cost

possible modifications of population.
Infantry will occupy 1 space of the population
While cavalry except elephants will have 2
Ships and siege machines will have 3
Elephants and ufo will have possibly 4.
So population will have more uses and restrictions.

And when population only has 1 space it will disable all trainable units except infantry until someone dies.

Merged - it's really similar and frankly - presented here ideas was already considering much more issues.