You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.106 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » ES, tell us something about: Amount of units?
Bottom
Topic Subject:ES, tell us something about: Amount of units?
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4 5  Next Page »
Joker II
Skirmisher
posted 02-14-05 06:30 AM EDT (US)         
Well, since ES members are frequently roaming around these boards and so many questions have allready been answered about other cool features of AOEIII, I was wondering if ES could lift up the vail abit and tell us aproximatly the amount of units that will be available during gameplay?

We heard a while ago in an interview that this would be lifted up, but haven't really heard anything substantial at all about it!

Think many of us would appreciate it if ES could tell something more about it


Life is short, live it to the fullest of it's potential!
AuthorReplies:
Joker II
Skirmisher
posted 02-18-05 06:34 AM EDT (US)     51 / 106       

Quote:

Or you could go play Sim City 2000.

NOt really a RTS game with battles now is it


Quote:

Such as a 300 unit pop limit perhaps?

Hmmm, not for me no LOL

Quote:

Everyone who has advocated huge pop limits so far has had to recommend all these checks and balances to make the game work. It strikes me as a lot simpler to reduce the pop limit.

Indeed, that is the EASIER SOLUTION, but, does it allways have to be the easy way?


Quote:

Yes, and one way they do that by imposing a reasonable pop limit.

Therefore, we could say, 1000 is a limited population


Quote:

And I’ll still have the same computer I got to play AoM on. Not everyone buys a new computer every year.

Agreed, neither do I, but every three years, do believe that's a good average don't you think? Say, how old is your computer, wich specs do you have and do you really believe after ES has perfected there code for a thousand units you really couldn't play it, even with low setting


Don't think we'll get to an agreement over this, so, maybe it's best that we agree to disagree, whatta ya think


Life is short, live it to the fullest of it's potential!

[This message has been edited by Joker II (edited 02-18-2005 @ 06:35 AM).]

Sweeping Pigeon
Skirmisher
posted 02-18-05 06:51 AM EDT (US)     52 / 106       
American conquest had no population limit you could literally control over 16,000 units at once and it wasn't too bad the only problem was they would spread out and get lost but it was still fun.(i'm remaining neutral and think that around 300 would be the best amount although i don't care if it is more but not less than 200)
w00tdaddy109
Skirmisher
posted 02-18-05 07:10 AM EDT (US)     53 / 106       
Has anyone here realised that in several RTS' people could actually change the POP limit to suit them?

e.g., Empire Earth, EmpiresMW.


A lot older, though no wiser.
Pwned
Skirmisher
(id: You_Are_Pwned)
posted 02-18-05 08:27 AM EDT (US)     54 / 106       
TBH Joker, I think you want Rome: Total War or one of those city building games. There isn't the need for big pop limits to make the game more fun, actually the game would probably be less fun as it would completely mess up the game's balance.

ada
ES_DeathShrimp
VIP
posted 02-19-05 05:09 PM EDT (US)     55 / 106       
Why have a population limit at all?

1) Performance. All of those little units have to be drawn on the screen, their stats kept track of, their position on the map kept track of, and they have to path over a complex environment. In multiplayer all this info has to be shared over the Internet.

2) Human bandwidth. Believe it or not, some players just don't have managing 1000s of units. They lose track of them, can't task them all, or can't tell what's going on. At some point your whole army won't fit on a screen, which makes understanding who is winning a battle that takes up multiple screens really hard to understand.

3) Balance. We have to pick a number to balance the game. It might seem like an infinite pop cap would be self-correcting, but when someone has an economy of 600 villagers, economic decisions basically don't exist -- you never make a choice between quanity and quality for instance, because you can afford anything.

4) Connection. What I mean by that is that we want every soldier to feel special. We want it to suck (a little) when a soldier dies. It's easier to care about each member of an army of 50 soldiers, each one symbolic of hard-earned resources, than an army of 50,000 soldiers. We want it to be a little sad when that cavalry you had since the beginning of the game finally dies. It makes combat feel like the stakes are higher and gives you an emotional connection to what's happening on screen.

Now, what are we doing with the pop cap of AOE3?

1) It will be higher than AOK, but not Rome: Total War high. That's just a different kind of game.

2) It won't use an AOM system, where you have to steal pop from the enemy in order to have a larger army. (Though there are some fun ways to "cheat" above the pop cap that we can't talk about yet.)

3) We'll almost certainly make you pay multiple pop slots for some soldiers. We learned on AOK with Elephants and Cataphracts that it just isn't fair to require you to field 10 soldiers of one type to beat 1 soldier of another type. If the pop cap is 100, and I have 100 Elephants and you need 1000 Pike to counter that, I guess it's just gg. The other solution is to make Elephants about as strong as Pike, but where's the fun in that?

4) We don't know what the pop cap is yet. We keep adjusting it all the time. I will tell you some of our guys think the armies are too large already.

w00tdaddy109
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 05:12 PM EDT (US)     56 / 106       
Thanks Shrimp

LOL, can you tell us more about ships and forts now, pwease...


A lot older, though no wiser.
Billman
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 05:20 PM EDT (US)     57 / 106       
Thanks Deathshrimp.

Just a quick pop. question.

Will ships in general take up a lot of population space - thinking about crews and such?


Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
Lord_Morningstar
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 05:33 PM EDT (US)     58 / 106       
Thanks DS, point 4 (connection) is a good one that we haven’t bought up. Now, if you would kindly tell us what the civs are we could let all of these ‘Japan’ and ‘USA’ threads die a natural death…

Unless, of course, Japan and the USA are civs

Titanus
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 05:34 PM EDT (US)     59 / 106       
Thanks Shrimp everything sounds good(the bigger than AoK but not R:TW).

If you read this I am sorry to say that you just lost five seconds of your life that you wont be getting back.*

*Actual time may vary.

Elpea
Hal
(id: lp_usa)
posted 02-19-05 05:36 PM EDT (US)     60 / 106       
I'm still recovering from my coffee spill, thanks DS

madpcsupreme
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 07:08 PM EDT (US)     61 / 106       
LOL
lachlan
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 07:18 PM EDT (US)     62 / 106       
Still say I thought AoK pop limits were fine, with the caveat that each unit counts as one. If very many units cost more than one they obviously need to increase it. Never have liked single units costing more pop slots, though I follow his reasoning.

Were the Persians overpowered in AoK/AoC? I basically got the impression that most found elephants unusable because of their weakness against pike and expense. Using his analogy about 100/1000 elephants against pike, doesn't a person that allows an opponent to build that many elephants deserve to lose? Which would make it a strategic element rather than unbalanced?

pheasanthunter
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 08:09 PM EDT (US)     63 / 106       
Sounds pretty sweet, but there's just one thing. I'm not sure how well this would work against a human, but I know it works pretty well against a computer. If the guy I was fighting had a bunch of elephants, I'd build a square of halberidiers, place archers inside, with some monks inside that. I'd put the whole group on stand ground and let them sit. I've tested this a bunch of times, and the cavs always lose. This way you only need 40-80 units for twice as many enemy units. It's also a whole lot cheaper than the what the enemy pays.
ultimate_grumpus
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 08:57 PM EDT (US)     64 / 106       

Quote:

Using his analogy about 100/1000 elephants against pike, doesn't a person that allows an opponent to build that many elephants deserve to lose? Which would make it a strategic element rather than unbalanced?

great point lachlan. I think this is to true and should be seriously considered by ES


"Forcast for tomorrow, a few sprinkles of genius WITH A CHANCE OF DOOM!" - Stewie

-Insert compulsory stupid George Bush quote Here-

ZAKtheGeek
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 09:37 PM EDT (US)     65 / 106       
You have to consider the cost and training time of making yourself those "more powerful," high-pop deserving units. Paying more for an action that will take more time is a pretty good balance IMO. However, it wouldn't be TOTALLY sufficient, so some pop value increases would ahve to be made, but not like in AOM; more like when 3 pop is something that your heaviest artillery would cost.

I am herpes.

Pyro Icon
11337
Lenardius VII
Skirmisher
posted 02-19-05 09:53 PM EDT (US)     66 / 106       
I think we would be able to set the amount of the pop cap

200 as default (good for those PC's that aren't up to date with the hardware)

and 500+ or 1000+ pop cap for those godwares (like mine) lol

But i think the max would be at least 500

Defiler_of_INRI
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 00:09 AM EDT (US)     67 / 106       

Quoted from Elpea from frontpage:

Ensemble Studios' Greg "DeathShrimp" Street went on the forums and replied to a topic by Joker II on population limit.. and oh boy, I read it 12.7 (first time caused me to spit out my coffee, so I had to start over) times just to make sure I wasn't dreaming!


Now don't get uself all excited Elpea, it's not the amount of units, but the mere popcap. Rember just the basic soldier would start at pop 2, and more advanced units takes up more pop ofcause.
I'll guess we'll end up having 50 villagers and 80-90 soldiers max to control, ofcause fewer soliders with stronger units.
Elpea
Hal
(id: lp_usa)
posted 02-20-05 00:28 AM EDT (US)     68 / 106       
Sorry but you're wrong, it's the size of armies that will be larger, as DeathShrimp said:

Quote:

I will tell you some of our guys think the armies are too large already.

This obviously mean that the popcap increase is not just artificial, it's actually more units.


[This message has been edited by Elpea (edited 02-20-2005 @ 00:29 AM).]

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 02:35 AM EDT (US)     69 / 106       
I personally believe that units can simply be balanced through Resource Cost, Stats, and Train Time. Multiple pop slots are not necessary, IMHO. Elephants were balanced because they cost 300% more resources, took longer to build, plus had some weaknesses. The 100/1000 analagy only tells part of the story, since it takes much more resources, time, and effort to create those 100 elephants. The pikes got slaughtered by the 100s, but it was infinitely easier and cheaper to replace them.
Joker II
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 05:02 AM EDT (US)     70 / 106       
First of all, thank you for replying to my request DeathShrimp

I understand your motives on trying to keep a good balance in respect towards population, as others have explained it in the same way you did.

However, and this is personnal of course, I feel, with the beauty that AOEIII is portraying at the moment, it would be a pitty if you wouldn't be able to have an actual BATTLE instead of just some skirmishes.

So, why do I think 1000 would be exceptable:

- You speak about internet, I think you'll agree that the majority of people play SP games not MP games, so the connection speed isn't a problem for most of us.

- By giving the possibility of putting in a maximum amount of units during a game, from let's say 200 untill 1000 you could easily give those people with slow internet connection, the opportunity to still play online.

- The determination of playing online with a certain amount of units between 200 - 1000, could be done by using the HC as a reverence on the internet, so, by clicking someones Home City and seeing wich amount of units is his maximum you could determine wich persons are suited for you to play with

As said before, I understand the reasons why you want a limited pop cap, but please consider to include the possibility for those who wish to play with larger amount of units to change this amount up untill 1000

Thanks again for your reply and AOEIII is really looking great. LOVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOME CITY MAN, that's really cool


Life is short, live it to the fullest of it's potential!

[This message has been edited by Joker II (edited 02-20-2005 @ 05:09 AM).]

Billman
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 10:10 AM EDT (US)     71 / 106       

Quote:

4) Connection. What I mean by that is that we want every soldier to feel special. We want it to suck (a little) when a soldier dies. It's easier to care about each member of an army of 50 soldiers, each one symbolic of hard-earned resources, than an army of 50,000 soldiers. We want it to be a little sad when that cavalry you had since the beginning of the game finally dies. It makes combat feel like the stakes are higher and gives you an emotional connection to what's happening on screen.

Along the lines of having a connection for your soldiers, will we some some form of experience? IMO, I would feel more for my troops if they got some kind of battle experience bonuses from previous fights. There would also be more emphasis on keeping battle worn veterans, rather than sending them off for some suicidal attack.


Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
LionFromAoC
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 11:27 AM EDT (US)     72 / 106       
<QUOTE>Using, officers like sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc... so you can control small formations who each have there own sergeant, two formations with sergeant have one lieutenant, four formations have four sergeants, two lieutenants and one captain, this way you could go on and on and control your formations very easily.


i think this is a excelent idea......ES should think about that

Pwned
Skirmisher
(id: You_Are_Pwned)
posted 02-20-05 11:37 AM EDT (US)     73 / 106       

Quote:

- You speak about internet, I think you'll agree that the majority of people play SP games not MP games, so the connection speed isn't a problem for most of us.

Completely mess up the balance of the game for some SP gamers? I think not. This is a strategy gmae, not some mindless mass 1,000 units and attack game.

Think about it practically, imagine 1000 units per player on screen in AoM or AoK, it wouldn't work unless you're planning to make the maps enourmous.


ada
vikesrule1234
Skirmisher
posted 02-20-05 11:43 AM EDT (US)     74 / 106       
yea that would just be no fun aat all to have 1000 units
but its also not very fun to have a pop cap of like 100
so i hope they put it at like 300
that would be perfect

CHEAP TRICK
WAT A BAND
Pwned
Skirmisher
(id: You_Are_Pwned)
posted 02-20-05 11:48 AM EDT (US)     75 / 106       

Quote:

This obviously mean that the popcap increase is not just artificial, it's actually more units.

But they could well be the same people that thought the AoM pop limit was perfect?


ada
« Previous Page  1 2 3 4 5  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames