Unit Cap-Offical option or Mod

Hi Uber and PA fans.
Im suggesting unit cap's of 500-750-1000-1500-2000 units per team/player, as an optional feature. In my opinion this would add alot more tactical play to PA. Thoughts people?

Not sure how it adds much in the respects of tactics, but okay.

would lead to stalemate imo, units are the main defensive force in PA, not ground bases. If both sides have an equal number of units, the defender will always win.

Buildings count as units in most games (if not all) that I know of. =o

Well that's not entirely true, as unit composition and tactics can drastically affect the outcome.

And even then, being put on the backfoot usually leads to defeat, even with a stronger defensive location, unless the defender go's for a mass counter attack, which isn't usual of players with a defensive posture, as they usually try to consolidate their position.

Without superweapons or nukes, I'd say the defender has a significant advantage - he gets to use defensive structures AND he has an equal number of units. Defense is a lot harder without limited production, in that case the more aggressive player will usually win.

Buildings would probably count as units, they do in every other RTS with a unit cap. =P

But again, a static position is very vulnerable to enemy mobile artillery, in the case where turrets are superior to normal combat forces, but that's a very good way to get your forces shredded.

the defenders advantage almost doesn't exist in a world of mobile artillery, as being static is a inherent disadvantage in such a situation.

In which case, you could probably take up half the unit cap in just buildings.

But why? Whats the advantage?

well, static artillery is a good counter to that. I'm just saying that a unit cap shifts the balance of power more in favor of the defender.

Yep, at least it means no home field advantage, eh?

there isn't, but given the scale of PA, I wouldn't be surprised if you could build 500 or so buildings.

And I'll have to disagree on that by virtue of experience.

Hundreds of hours of blood sweat and tears in supcom 2, the only advantage to a static position was static artillery that could cross the map.

But there is no advantage to doing so over mobile forces.

No pls. 10000 units is fun.

I know. I'm just saying that if you impose a 1000 unit cap, one may be surprised when half of that is taken up in just buildings.

Yeah I do know what you mean.

I can't play AOE2 with the default 75 unit cap, it's 500 or bust otherwise I can't have enough villagers to keep my economy going.

If a player is a turtle there are units that can avoid most if not all defences completely and create openings for attacks-in no way would defensive play be better, all you would have to do is use the right units for the job, create openings, flank, exploit their weakness. Make the most of all you have.
Was thinking about buildings, no cap on metal and energy, maybe separate cap from units but lower, you'd have to think about how and what your building, reclaim etc.

As of right now, you can cover a small moon in antinukes, flak, anchors, and umbrellas, and it'd be very difficult to get through without superweapons. But then, a defensive position on a whole uncontested moon is a lot different from just having one defensive position on a contested planet. My point is simply that there are certain scenarios where it would be better to play defensively, and if a unit cap was imposed, there would be just more scenarios where it would be better to play defensively. If the attacker doesn't have an unlimited amount of units, he can't exploit his resource advantage easily.

Yeah there is still problem solving to be figured out for that situation.