My distaste for this unit has been unimaginble since launch, but this got into a boiling point. Why can a single unit deny siege completely, especially siege that are meant to take down buildings. And the way to deal with it so to throw more springalds at your opponent until they can’t keep up. Something that won’t work in the late game with an income 2K+ wood and gold per a minute.
And on top of this, it isn’t even between the civs: one civ will have an objectively better springald, or culverin, which a straigth upgrade. So based on the matchup you can give up any hope of fielding a siege engine again. Also, by the time you take out the springalds, your army is likely gone thanks to the mangonels your opponent has. The units you originally wanted to take out with your springalds but had to sacrifice them in a springald war.
And i’m all for strategic outplays but when i have 40 villager advantage for 20 minutes(replaces by traders later on), 20K extra resource in the bank, using an army composition of different units compared to my opponent who used nothing but warrior monks and man at arms, and raiding their eco, i for once believe i shouldn’t be losing that match.
Yet i did in a 1 hour and 30 minute match. why? Becuase they dropped 3 keeps to both sacred sites and defended them with 10 rus springalds. And i won’t even go into things like having 37 tokens on their kremlin which means they used the milita twice. againts my palace guards. and i could go on, In other words the person in question had very little macro or civ knowledge. Outside of warrior monk they utilized pretty much nothing from their civ.
It’s just simply feels horrible to lose to a turtle strategy. Especially when the main reason of it is because of the aforementioned anti-siege unit.