Overrated Is the Efficiency of the Population.
- This topic has 12 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
One argument for using expensive, powerful units is that if you have plenty of resources, they are a more efficient use of the required army population (at least 100). However, cheaper “trash” units require fewer villagers to keep them going, so it’s possible to sustain a lower population below 100. In one game, I was making halberdiers from nine barracks with conscription and found that I had too many lumberjacks and farmers (40) to sustain them. It could be argued that I could have dropped to 70 or even 60 population and still maintained production. I had all upgrades and only used gold for the occasional siege unit that I exchanged at the market.
tell me you dont know anything about the game without telling me u dont know anything about the game.
If “resources are abundant,” fighting a slightly higher army pop trash war against someone using elite gold units is not gonna work.
I’ve wanted to test the idea of late game dropping like 25 stables or barracks , letting go 60 vils and spiking my army count for a push… then add back vils
9 barracks halb production with conscription costs 50 farmers and 25 lumberjacks to sustain. You also need a few more lumberjacks to sustain the farmers.
If you’re playing a game where you can win by only ever making halbs, then yes, population efficiency probably isn’t that important. However, maintaining production isn’t the only issue. You want to be at 200 pop. With 9 barracks, if you ever lose your 120 halbs or w/e, it will take you almost four minutes to get back to full population.
if you can “maintain production” with 70 vils, that doesnt necessarily mean that pop efficiency is not important. it can also mean youre using your army too conservatively and your produced/died ratio is too high.
This guy hasn’t played against bengali elephant archers in Arena. You can hardly lose if you have like 40 elephant archers even though Skirms technically counter them.
ah yes thats why all pro games are skirm/halb combos. knights and xbow are shit confirmed
dunning kruger effect lmao
I agree for sure that pop efficiency is overrated, however 60 vills isnt going to cut it. Need at least 100 ish vills going full trash.
Agree. I generally play celts and raid bases with woads. In a team game this results in needing about 45 farmers, 13 lumberjack, and 20 trade carts. I generally peak at 80vills then kill them off as trade carts are made.
> trash counters need less villagers to sustain
Why is your opponent trading poorly resource wise? That’s a lack of skill on their part, really.
If your opponent is trading evenly resource-wise, then you both need an equal amount of vills to sustain 200 pop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
