Important! This is based on my own experience and might be completely diffrent from your point of view
So I’ve been playing some team games lately and Ive encountered a strat that is extremely unenjoyable to play against. Mass siege. Especially in 2v2 it seems to be a common tactic that one player takes a civ with very strong frontline units (Like OOTD, French knights for example) and the other player a civ with splash damage siege (Chinese or the new chinese, ottoman with great bombards) and then they utilize the entire army as meatshields that only serves the purpose of not letting anything through while the siege oneshots the entire army.
For this youre not even need two players, one player with a little bit of micro on siege can pull this off easy. Use 70% Siege and 30% units in a 1v1. Hope that your siege oneshots the enemy army before the enemy army kills your tanks and if you lose your frontline simply pull your siege back.
Or you just play ottomans build 8 great bombards and 40 janissarys and have neough crittical mass to be extrenely hard to deal with.
Some examples of armies I meet a lot
I’ve tried many tactics with limmited success. Mass knights with good micro can at least make the loss of your entire army acceptable, if the map allows it. On maps with narrow passages. Zero chance. Mass springals can have an effect but the TTK of springals on siege is so bad that against great bombard for example you might manage to kill one bombard with 8 springals but in the same time the great bombards kill at least 1 springal so you cant oneshot great bombards anymore.
The only way to effective counter this is by
a) Not letting it happen in the first place. This can be achievedo by rushing the living shit out of your opponent wich is the straight opposite of an “relaxing game after work”.
b) Do exactly the same thing. Wich is, at least for me, is not a fun way to play the game.
My suggestions to improve on the situation:
Since I dont want to make siege obsolete but rather more situational i think its important to not cut their pure strenght or cost but rather Nerf on the survivability of siege.
This can be done by the suggested changes of myself:
- Decrease the movementspeed. Siege should not be as fast as it is right now. Kiting with siege should absolutely not be a thing. You dont pull your siege back early enough? Enemy troops (yes also infantery) will easyly catch up with it.
-Increase the time it takes for siege to be able to fire and the time it takes for siege to be mobile again. Id prefer this change over the movementspeed change since it would allow for quicker traversal on the map and more commitment when a player decides to utilize siege in a battle. This would also completely neglect the usage of these 30% Frontline, 70% siege army comps as pulling back quickly after you lost your frontline wouldnt work as well as before
- Drastically decrease the HP of Siege. Im not talking about Siege that is meant to tank but siege that is meant to do dmg. It takes way to long to destroy. Microing a few spearman through the frontline of knights should be enough to cause havoc to the vulnerable siege. Im talking especially about you great Bombard.
These Changes would not take away from the destructive power of siege but would put them in a more specialized/situational role. Loosing an expensive mass siege army would be way easier and therefore needs to be considered more carefull as loosing 1000 Pop siege will be very expensive.
Honorable mention as a considerable change: Give Springal emplacements in buildings the anti Siege multiplier. A single ram should not be able to take down a castle with all upgrades. This would also add use to springal towers and would add a certain situational use to them to protect from mass ram attacks.
To answer your question before its asked : Yes I am not the best player in the world, yes I do have a life outside of video games.
I love to hear your takes on my thoughts and I hope I delivered a readable experience since english is not my first language.
It’s kind of a weird catch-22 in how do you tune siege to not be OP in team games without being turbo-useless in 1v1. 1v1 is the primary game mode so balance changes usually lean in that direction (which is why bombards were buffed multiple times recently, because they were basically unused in 1v1).
In general in 1v1, siege is currently considered a bit on the weak side compared to how strong walls/keeps are. The problem with team games is you have teammates to cover for your mass siege army weaknesses and it’s harder to punish siege players by destroying their villagers/base and because you generally have much more resources in team games.
Btw you only need 3-4 springalds to one-shot bombards, and most civs either have access to culverins or have extra strong springalds (with bonus range and such). Great bombards and chinese siege are the main exception.
Tbh siege isn’t your problem…
The siege is countered with cavalry (especially horsemen). If they have spearmen and siege you can produce MAA and if they also have crossbowmen you can produce springalds, that’s why they exist.
In the image I saw, with 15 springalds (or mass of several horsemen) with a minimum of micro you blow them up.
The best counter to 10 mangonels is 11 mangonels.
I’ve been saying this since forever, just like in coh2, strongest units are the ones u need the least skill for - artillery. Every arty unit needs to be toned down, literally every. But there will be of course some couch pros here telling u that its a skill issue while they themselves probably abuse this very thing.
It’s a team game issue. Siege is OP in team games, but generally underwhelming in 1v1. Since the game is largely balanced around 1v1, we usually see siege get buffed lately because they were almost unusable. Bombards had literally no place in the game a few patches ago. Granted they went a little overboard with the great bombard buffs since everyone was memeing on them for being trash.
At the current point, pretty much the only reason siege ever gets built is to deal with archers, and then 1-2 bombards or a few rams to deal with stone structures (and stone defenses are largely already on the strong end, any siege nerfs would destroy the balance and keep/stone wall gaming would be absurdly dominate).
My man, Im going to be honest with you. You’re(and your teammates) just weaker than the opponents you two fought.
If mass siege was a problem, then all tournaments 2v2+ would be mass siege and ‘‘30%’’ meatshields simulator… which is not the case.
Practice, learn more of the game, play games and study your weaknesses to address YOUR problem against players who do this noob tactic (Yes, it’s a noob tactic. not even a good one considering the price of siege units and their softness to springalds/culverins).
Hope you dont take this comment harshly, but it’s the truth.
Beasty do this a lot using HRE, he trains MAA as meatshield and a lot of mangonels and bombards.
Honestly, the more you climb in the ladder the more people abuse from siege. Despite said there that siege is easy, it’s not. You have to manage more kind of units, and in case of siege it’s very important to do it well.
Springalds needs to not overkill, mangonels need to focus the right targets, etc… And if you mess up with the siege battle then you lose the battle, and all your siege probably will be killed.
Lost infantry or even knights isn’t as critical as lose the siege.
I’ve only got into conqueror when I started to use siege properly. So, mass siege it’s not a noob tactic.
Mass siege is only possible if you let your opponent get that many resources. Hope my opponents gave me that much time …
Matches like abbasid vs chineese are likely to be a boom fest. In these games I can see a lot of mass siege, or even vs ottomans.
I’ve seen ottomans just getting fast imp and then spamming jans+great bombards.
In this new meta I can’t see a lot mass siege since everyone is picking very aggresive civs(japan, jd, etc…) And games usually doesn’t long as much.