Buff the projectile speed for siege, archers shouldn’t be able to dodge mangonel shots at all while they’re shooting (so they’re standing still).
This would also fix a bit the insane AI archers’ dodging capability.
2 Likes
Ok so you can’t really give an objective view on nerfing then. Because it seems like you’re quite happy with the same old knights xbow meta
Buff the siege and Monk to diversify the unit. Buff the projectile speed of Mangonel. Scorpion need to be buffed more than that (Especially Elite Scorpion upgrade is too expensive).
Monks should be more viable as Knight counter and more use of monks can increase the use of Light cav in Castle age. Buff the conversion speed of Knight line.
1 Like
This is a great idea but need to reduce the damage of each shot slightly to compensate. Otherwise there is the danger that siege will become ridonculous OP and it might turn the game into aoe4 meta.
1 Like
I myself also thought a bit.
One major issue in general is, that flank civs are basically forced to play ranged units in the beginning. It’s just not possible to defend with melee against 2 opponents at once. This on the other hand leads to Infantry units (at this stage) being basically useless (once archers are out).
One Idea could be to just accept that in the early and midgame we can’t expect any infantry to be viable, as archers are just way too strong against them. But we probably could implement a heavy infantry unit to the lategame (like Landsknechts or Gewalthaufen) that has a pop efficiency comparable to the knight line. How this unit can be designed (if it shall tank more shots or have higher attack vs cavalry, possibly receive bonus damage from the militia line… all things we probably/most likely can’t finitely tell yet).
But it could lead to more diversified lategame gameplay. And as team games tend to go way later than 1v1s it’s actually the lategame we should care about the most.
If there were more viable lategame infantry units, possibly other unit types become more viable: Cav archers (already viable, but not to the same extend as archers), HC, Scorps. Other anti-infantry units.
But it would most likely also need an adjustment of some of the siege units. Siege Onagers (and also skorps to some extend) are too strong against infantry as they are designed now. And especially if we discuss about the projectile speed of siege, that doesn’t makes it easier to avoid siege shots with infantry. One possible solution would be to give the siege units less base damage but bonus damage vs other unit types, like onagers bonus vs archers and scorps bonus vs cavalry.
I think this could at least diversify the lategame unit comps in TGs even if it doesn’t touches early and midgame. But currently I also don’t really think there is a way to diversify this, as this is just the natural strategic development if the flanks are basically forced to play archers as the only viable opener to have a chance defending against 2 opponents.
Buffing infantry speed would definitely make them more viable. Obviously we already have the barracks upgrade for speed but having more base speed would be good. Celts speed for all civs for example.
1 Like
It’d probably help, but if you watch Celts in a 2v2 they still don’t go infantry. I think it’s kind of telling that Slavs, Celts, Burmese, etc end up going xbox or knight in team games on Arabia. The current meta is just so strong.
and low speed is actually one of the “features” of infantry.
I would support to make spearmen a bit faster cause they currently have huge probs running behind cav, but I don’t think it’s good in general for infantry.
Maybe we should look for some different “specialisation” of infantry to make it more revarding microing them.
I think that it would be a fascinating proposition to gift the spear line an extra 1 range. I am not sure that it would be balanced.
1 Like
Perhaps more HP instead of more speed then. Or free arson for all civs.
Would be nice to have an anti-cavalry siege unit too. Although I don’t know if such a thing existed historically.