Springald does 60 dmg each shot, and fires each 4 seconds, that means it has a DPS of 15 dmg.
A knight (age III) deals 24 dmg each attack, and attacks each 1.38 seconds, that means it has a DPS of 17.39 dmg, 2.39 more than a springald.
Now springald costs 2x more gold than a knight, and 200 wood, so basically knight does more damage over time while it’s much cheaper.
I get that springalds have the range, but knights have the speed and the flanking opportunity.
Can anyone explain to me that weird meta of producing tons of springalds!?
I never do that myself, because I don’t understand why I need them except of taking out mangonels, I don’t understand this meta at all, explain it to me with math.
Because it also counters any siege that the enemy brings, that together with Knights having to attack you close not shooting is what makes the springalds so good. They are against everything right know, knights lose against spears, MAA of HRE and probable chinese MAA as well, against xbows, while the springalds you need to either get close and burn it or have your own springalds.
PS: not everything is math.
Btw, you forgot to mention that knights cost food instead of wood so they are not really a lot cheaper as you imply here
I’ll answer to you all, if you only create springalds and your opponent only knights, the knights will easily beat thee springs cause the range won’t matter anymore.
And still there are more ranged units that are cheaper, why only springalds?
Math is cool and all but to help you a bit:
Springalds can shoot through wood walls… through the forest… over rivers.
Knights can’t do this (yet).
No, the main issue is imo that they are good against everything except buildings maybe.
If they were only anti-siege, fine. But one shot villagers, or 2 shot Knights out of nowhere hurts and forcing players to invent cheesy stuff like 100 Scouts / Horsemen. And with those 100 horses they find out they can kill landmakrs quick and boom, we have a patch nerfing Horsemens instead of springalds
All that together with that in order to flank with Knights focussing only in the springalds they will get destroyed by the other units your opponent brings, because you are ignoring them, and If you don’t go for the springalds they will destroy you from distance without taking damage, because springalds also win against ranged infantry
There’s a range of factors but its mainly use in game rather than a pure theory scenario where armies attack move into each other.
The Springald has incredible range, so can throw in damage before anything else. If you decide to attack them, you take damage going in. If you don’t commit to a battle of annihilation you will also take damage pulling your units back. They are also reasonably fast (especially with certain faction buffs) so can just run away from infantry trying to chase them down - and cavalry can be run through any screening units (and take quite a lot of hits to kill them as well).
The long story short is that its like English Longbows. They don’t necessarily win with a single-attack move, but its very easy to have a succession of skirmishes where the Springald player is killing units and your not really achieving anything. You go in and maybe kill some of their screening knights/MAA/Spears etc - but don’t get to many of their Springalds. Or you ignore that screen to try and run past and it proceeds to just chop all your guys to bits. Basically you lose comparatively more stuff in the process. Next fight you are behind and that Springald mass (since it doesn’t have to be rebuilt) is even bigger. So again, you go into the screen but this time the fight goes even worse. By the third go you are too weak to resist and the Springald mass can just run you over.
The thing is this is sort of necessary because 3 Mangonels shred even grouped up knights, never mind anything else.
Yeah, Springalds have very long range, relatively cheap and they are faster than infantry. They counter other siege and their high base damage means they can just poke your army to death while you can’t fight back. You’ll have to commit diving into them which would probably mean your whole army dying to the mangonels and M@A with them.
To mach it up 400 / 120 = 3.3, it means that springald equals to 3.3 crossbowmen
Now lets calculate damage outcome:
Springald = 15 DPS
3.3x crossbows = 6 * 3.3 = 19.8 (almost 5 DPS more than a springald with same costs)
if you do the same vs a knight = 10.5 (bonus vs heavy) * 3.3 = 34.65 DPS (almost 20 DPS more than a springald vs a knight)
and if you take elite crossbow, wait… You already got my point.
Springalds are very fast for siege.
Chasing them down and torching them as they flee takes too long because troops stop to torch and get in the way of other troops that haven’t gotten in range. Pretty clunky.
But this whole comparison doesn’t make sense because crossbowmen do not have a large range. So what’s the point of this brainless math if you don’t see the obvious things.
I think people too overreacting about springalds and that they are OP, even if they have more range than crossbows still, against knights with the same costs they can do twice as much damage.
So they are not the best investment at all costs, and you must have a diverse army to make a good use of them, and not an army full of springalds.
That’s what I’m basically trying to say, people crying about dealing with armies which have only springalds, I don’t think it’s a good army at all…
No army has only springald, that’s not the issue at all,. The issue is all armies having springalds, a lot of them and using them as a force against everything, when they should be antisiege, and if you don’t have your own springalds you’re going to have a really bad time.
You are looking at the issue very narrow minded, you need to see it as a whole
