Poll: Siege Friendly Fire on?

Friendly fire or significant damage/AoE nerf is a must.

You know what is best feature of friendly fire ? Its most toxic mechanic in video game design. Once its introduced in any form its used for trolling more than anything else. In non RTS games, people will just use it to kill allies and troll them to oblivion.

What happens in RTS? Team games can be ruined by trolls even more effectively. Solo games will either consider them useless or overpowered. Friendly fire will make each unit that does it feel like pain to use for 90% of player base (less then 15% are above 1200ELO in 1v1). Creating units that friendly fire will not feed rewarding to use. You will never be able to leave them unattended, because they would just kill your army over one running wolf to their aggro-range. Thats just not fun to babysit single unit you made, when the whole feel of game should be to make large army. And its not even rewarding to make them, as you never know if that large cost will pay off or it will in reality cost you 10x as much as it wipes more your soldier than your enemy one.

What about using that brain we humans are so proud of and and be more creative?
We have so many options that dont make game toxic and discouraging to play:

  • Mangonels & Nest of Bees can cost 4 - 5 pop
  • Mangonels and Nest of Bees can have adjusted damage and AOE to make them easier to dodge or harder to dodge, but deal less damage.
  • Mangonels and Nest of Bees can have range reduced, so they need to be closer to frontline.
  • Ribauldequin can be buffed, while Mangonels & Nest of Bess suffer from nerf to give few nation more valid lategame anti-infantry option that is more likely to be countered.
  • Springalds can be changed to 2 pop
  • Culverin can have higher range and deal even more damage to siege
  • Siege units under attack could be slowed or unable to move
  • Cavalry units & ranged cavalry can deal more damage to siege
  • Archers can deal more damage to siege, making it easier to deal with mangonels as infantry&cavalry can have hard time reaching the backline.
  • Making Siege Tower useful by increasing speed and carry capacity would made it possible to unload your infantry closer to enemy siege (maybe strange use, but would definitely benefit them to have more use cases.)

Remember that even one buff to counters or one nerf to mangonel can make them obsolete and situational.


That only happens to trolls and we have a report section for such trolls, so they get punished.
Your whole post is just about trolls.

Also, friendly fire reduces casual players to spam siege. That leads to more non-siege unit battles with little sieges. Current AOE4 is based on siege spam and siege superiority wins games.

In a competitive game, it makes players more responsible and improves the gameplay.


Absolutely agree with everything in your post. There are so many other ways to nerf siege that would be better than friendly fire

1 Like

I just saw N4C Beasty destroying HRE mass with just only mangonels. It reminded me of seeing AOE2 siege which would destroy their own units by bombarding enemy units swarming and torching them. Or how you absolutely need army to protect your cannons in AOE3.

Instead in Aoe4 all fully upgraded MAA army died and all siege survived.
Seems like 6x mangonel= tank batallion in medieval ages right now.


That was Leenock fault, he made too many mistakes and had very few production buildings. Not to mention he did not switch to cavalry even through his opponent made only siege and Streltsy as core of his army. MAA are countered by both Streltsy and Mangonels.

bump bump 20 characters

@ZdsAlpha This convinced me to change my opinion/vote. Having no friendly fire floor siege always seemed odd, and made siege feel less like siege. However, their use would become very narrow and players would just ignore them.

@DoctBaghi makes a good point where some smaller damage for friendly units may work. Even if the damage was minimal (10%), this small change would make using siege weapons more like what a player might intuitively expect.


Siege should not be such an effective anti-personel weapon in the first place, this is not the age of Napoleon or the World Wars.

Siege should not be so mobile, their placement should be carefully considered with long set up and tear down times. Adding Friednly Fire will probably just lead to people avoiding melee units and just relying on ranged and siege.

1 Like

Ok hear me out. I think mangonels needs is to shoot twice slower yet deal 50% more damage. Yes, twice slower, and no it wont make it twice weaker and i’ll explain why:

The first shot is the most important shot, so that remains true. If Mangonels shoot twice slower, it means you’ll have to be more mindful and make sure your first shot hits well. The enemy on his end will have to make sure the opposite happens, if they dodge or waste your first shot they are on the advantage. That makes for strategic play and a more “skirmish” and fun engagements where enemies probe each other before making an attack, as that first strike can change the tide of battle.
Right now, all I need to do is to defend mangonels (spears + xbow) and they dish out all the damage needed to destroy my opponents in a battle while the other units just guard to keep the mangonels alive. Enemy will be still willing to throw unfavorable horse trades against my spearman to destroy my mangos because they are that strong…
If mangonels shoot twice slower with abit more damage, the initial hit (which will either destroy your enemy or leave you at a disadvantage) will mean alot more. Enemies will actually be charging against you if you miss your shot as more will not ensue soon, or you will be charging them if they suddenly took that first massive hit to their bulk. It means engagements will actually happen after the initial shot, rather than two deathballs turtling and staring at each other.

Thats my take anyhow


I think that the problem is that we have gone from a game with siege that have friendly fire and no ballistics to a game with siege that have no friendly fire and ballistics.

That’s the big problem, they take the units from aoe3 but made it like it was aoe3, which are too different to make it work…


siege that have friendly fire and no ballistics to a game with siege that have no friendly fire and ballistics

Yes, that’s the whole problem right there!


By looking at the post here, is clear that game design has a lot of flaws, siege should work as in age2 they can miss and they do tons of friendly damage, that’s the the only way to avoid siege spam, also cav suck countering it, they still uses torches lol.


torch damage is an absolute joke agreed

1 Like

There are other ways to avoid area siege spam (lower attack speed, higher minimum range, etc.)


I think relic already tried but siege and springald spam is a thing, also sepringalds is the only way to countering since units still use torches…


Torch damage is ok. In a team game an enemy player had 20+ mangonels… I spammed 60 horseman from my 10 stables in 2 minutes. I run through mangonels with open formation, when all mass of horseman in globes them, I press A + LMB. He lost everything in few seconds. Half of my horsemen still alive. Few minutes later he resigned


I think that the siege is a problem especially when the opponent is a Rus in imperial, outside of that, nothing more.

I’ve been a firm opponent to friendly fire on Mangonels every time it’s brought up. However, I did have a decent idea - what if Mangos did friendly fire, but only to their own siege? This lets infantry do more damage if they dive into the siege line, but gets rid of the toxic effects of having your own infantry killed by your mangos.

Yah, having anti-siege that owns everyone else’s anti-siege is a problem. I don’t necessarily have a problem with extra range bombards or mangonels on some particular civ as long as everyone else can still counter that with springalds/culverins, but every civ should be on the same footing with anti-siege range. And springalds/culverins should outrange bombards (maybe some civ has a tech that makes bombards the same range - that would be fine, but not more range).

I’m fine with upgrades that give more range as long as everyone can get them. But being in post imp and 1 civ having more culverin/spring range than the other civs is really problematic. Especially in team games where there are more units available to block cavalry.

The only other solution is to make siege WAY more vulnerable to torch damage, but again I don’t think this solves the team game issue. AoE2 got around it due to friendly fire on mangonels in those giant fights. I’m not sure friendly fire is absolutely necessary, but it’s definitely an option.