Ideas for Adjusting the Mangonel

I think at this point, it seems pretty clear that Mangonels were overnerfed. They’re basically no longer built at the pro level, and this has cause massed ranged (crossbows and handcannons, and archers to a lesser extent) to take over the meta at the higher levels, breaking the counter system. Horsemen and knights simply don’t do enough to counter mass ranged, due to the nature of melee vs ranged units. With the devs stating that they’re looking into further adjustments to the mangonel, I thought I would be a good time for the community (and me) to say how they feel the mangonel should be adjusted. Here are the ideas I’ve had:

Mangonel attack radius buffed from 0.75 to 1.0 (old Mangonel was 1.25)

This is the most basic buff, and the most likely in my opinion. The 0.75 nerf was a 65% decrease in mangonel damage output, while the 1.0 radius is more like a 30% decrease from the old mangonel. 1.0 would be a much better middle ground.

However, I don’t think this is the best way of adjusting the mangonel. It still renders the mangonel worse than before at killing mass infantry. And the mangonel, in the counter system, is supposed to counter mass infantry. The issue with mangonels IMO wasn’t that they did too much damage, but rather that they, in mass, and with supporting springalds and defending keeps, were too hard to counter themselves. Therefore, I propose this as a better redesign:

Mangonel attack radius rebuffed to 1.25
Mangonel HP reduced from 240 to 200 (importantly, now two-shottable by springalds)
Mangonel attack adjusted from 12x3 to 6(+6 vs infantry) x3.

These changes restore the mangonel’s place as a counter of mass infantry, especially mass ranged infantry, while making both of the mangonel’s counters - springalds and cavalry - much more effective. A further change to keeps/springald outposts might also be good to accompany with this, to prevent mass mangonel camping with static defense

1 Like

I am very concerned that rebuffing mangonels is going to push us back towards the Age of Siege meta, most particularly because the real problem isn’t being addressed. So long as the springald is the best counter to itself, and the best counter to the entire class of siege units, people are going to be forced into massing more and more siege units late game.

If I believe my enemy is massing siege units my first thought must be to build cavalry. If it is to build springalds then all that is going to happen is my opponent and I will end up in an arms race to build more springalds than the other.

The initial choice that Relic made to nerf springalds by making them so extremely good at their intended use was an error, from which a lot of other problems stem. IMO Relic need to take a more holistic approach to siege balance than playing with one unit at a time.

Having a small bonus against ranged units is more than enough.