No vill limit; how many do you make?

[pecelot]

*245

[noissance]

*245

No, i'd make 244, because 2 + 4 + 4 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1, which makes me #1.

[Goodspeed]

Short answer probably about 130
Long answer it depends. Do you have a big bank? What's the match up? Do you have layers of walls up or is your eco relatively accessible?

[momuuu]

It depends on how cost effective 100 mil pop vs less is compared to how fast villagers gather, which also depends on military training times. And then theres the not fighting and just getting extra res and profit.

I'd guess it then also depends on your bank. No idea tbh, probably pretty close to 100.

[Jaeger]

Short answer probably about 130
Long answer it depends. Do you have a big bank? What's the match up? Do you have layers of walls up or is your eco relatively accessible?

Well even in treaty with a big bank they keep 99 vills, which leads me to believe that one possible answer "is slightly more than your opponent". If it was "slightly less", people would delete a few vills.

[Goodspeed]

That may apply if there was no vill limit, although it would still depend on the match up and safety of your eco. You definitely want more than 99 though, I think in all cases unless you have an unreasonably large bank.

[momuuu]

Germany in tr implies that its not much more than 100, if at all.

[mGravitus]

You guys are looking at it wrong. It's not about how much vills you should make, its about how many you can get away with making.

You should basically be at +10~20 more than your opponent. Because that 10 -20 pop is not enough to swing a fight. Thus, if your eco is ~10%-20% better than your opponents, his "drain" will be faster but he won't be able to significantly crush/overrun your military.

It's a pretty common vs civs like china or britian in NR. You start with your scores both in the thousands, and after 10 minutes, you notice yours is 200 points lower than your opponents.

[Kaiserklein]

10-20 extra pop is more than enough to swing a fight

[momuuu]

Its treaty though so thats not really a thing.

[Goodspeed]

Germany in tr implies that its not much more than 100, if at all.

In treaty fights you start with big banks, which obviously makes it a different story. If the treaty fight started with 0 resources I'm pretty sure they wouldn't delete vills, at least not 40.

[Goodspeed]

10-20 extra pop is more than enough to swing a fight

Not necessarily. It would depend on the scale of the fight, the unit compositions and how much space there is for units to properly spread out and not get stuck. If you have +20 pop in a prolonged fight you would be winning ground but probably not quickly enough to make it worth deleting vills for.

[Kaiserklein]

If you have a mirror fight, but one guy has +3 horse artillery (18 pop), I'm pretty sure he should just shit on his opponent. It's just a lot of extra dps. If you can't push your opponent with that advantage, I think there's a problem.

[momuuu]

Yet in andes treaty the training speed is so fast that fights dont' really end or something. Its extra dps so your opponent gets slightly more cost efficiency yes, but you also have like 20 extra vills right? That's basically the consideration.

[Kaiserklein]

But it's not only about the amount of resources you get from those 20 vils compared to the amount of extra units you kill, and see if it makes up for the lack of eco. It's also about getting pushed, if your opponent manages to push you (thanks to his military advantage) until he reaches your eco, then you lose regardless of his eco. So now the question is, how fast can you push towards your opponent's base with 20% more army or so ? If you can reach his eco before you run out of resources you basically win. If he can defend until that point, and then push you back because he still has resources banked (thanks to his superior eco), then you lose.

[Kaiserklein]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

[deleted_user0]

Jesus fucking christ. Can you finally let go your musk vs musk battles? There are other units in this game and your "simulations" in fucking scenarios have nothing to do with math....
The same way your russian musks vs normal musks epic scenario battles proved exactly how many % better normal muskets are.
Wtf are they doing at french schools? Definitely not learning english (you do ok, you are an exception kaiser), rational thinking or math.

[lordraphael]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

Youre not taking the defenders advantage into acc. We are talking about lategame here. So its likely that youll have a wall and constant unit production. That combined with the fact that your units spawn at your base while his have to walk should be enough to equal out the odds. YOu cant run a test with 12 musks vs 10 musks in an editor and apply the results onto a lategame situation. Thats like comparing apples with noggins. Neither can you simulate a full scale fight in an editor and draw conclusions on that matter. In the end the question wont be answered unless some1 would edit the gamefiles to allow unlimited settler training that question wont be answered.
THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

[Goodspeed]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

This is not a good representation, as Jerom said the fight doesn't end and in a 100 vs 120 musk battle not all of those units are shooting. You're never going to actually have 20% more dps than him, just 20% more units. And even if you did have 20% more dps than him, due to constant reinforcements it wouldn't steadily increase during the fight from 20% to 5900% (60 musks vs 1) like in your scenario so you would not be getting even near that kind of value.

[deleted_user0]

Amen, I was way too tired to write all this. Next time I put money to charity I make sure they go to the french schools.

[Jaeger]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

Youre not taking the defenders advantage into acc. We are talking about lategame here. So its likely that youll have a wall and constant unit production. That combined with the fact that your units spawn at your base while his have to walk should be enough to equal out the odds. YOu cant run a test with 12 musks vs 10 musks in an editor and apply the results onto a lategame situation. Thats like comparing apples with noggins. Neither can you simulate a full scale fight in an editor and draw conclusions on that matter. In the end the question wont be answered unless some1 would edit the gamefiles to allow unlimited settler training that question wont be answered.
THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

Well for one thing in treaty they do constantly fb so you don't have defenders advantage for too long

[lordraphael]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

Youre not taking the defenders advantage into acc. We are talking about lategame here. So its likely that youll have a wall and constant unit production. That combined with the fact that your units spawn at your base while his have to walk should be enough to equal out the odds. YOu cant run a test with 12 musks vs 10 musks in an editor and apply the results onto a lategame situation. Thats like comparing apples with noggins. Neither can you simulate a full scale fight in an editor and draw conclusions on that matter. In the end the question wont be answered unless some1 would edit the gamefiles to allow unlimited settler training that question wont be answered.
THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

Well for one thing in treaty they do constantly fb so you don't have defenders advantage for too long

so are we talking about treaty now or supremacy also even in treaty theres a defenders advantage

[benj89]

please don't associate kaiser with french schools (didn't read this whole debate), they are among the best in the world

[Jaeger]

Show hidden quotes

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

Youre not taking the defenders advantage into acc. We are talking about lategame here. So its likely that youll have a wall and constant unit production. That combined with the fact that your units spawn at your base while his have to walk should be enough to equal out the odds. YOu cant run a test with 12 musks vs 10 musks in an editor and apply the results onto a lategame situation. Thats like comparing apples with noggins. Neither can you simulate a full scale fight in an editor and draw conclusions on that matter. In the end the question wont be answered unless some1 would edit the gamefiles to allow unlimited settler training that question wont be answered.
THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

Well for one thing in treaty they do constantly fb so you don't have defenders advantage for too long

so are we talking about treaty now or supremacy also even in treaty theres a defenders advantage

Well you mentioned walls and constant military production. I think if you have enough res to maintain 200 pop you should start doing treaty stuff, like fbing all the time.

[Jaeger]

Lol so much hate on Kaiser... Yes 10 musk vs 12 musk in editor is obviously not very representative of such a complex game, but we can still learn some stuff from it: it's nice to have a rough and general upper bound in mind when discussing from now on. Obviously with different types of unit combos it could be much more/less than 40% just in editor alone, but I think for our purposes a general "somewhere between 0 and 50%" is pretty much as accurate as we can realistically hope for.