I think that the siege is a problem especially when the opponent is a Rus in imperial, outside of that, nothing more.
Iāve been a firm opponent to friendly fire on Mangonels every time itās 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 elseās anti-siege is a problem. I donāt 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).
Iām 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 donāt think this solves the team game issue. AoE2 got around it due to friendly fire on mangonels in those giant fights. Iām not sure friendly fire is absolutely necessary, but itās definitely an option.
2 Likes
My vote is No. No one would use them because there would be too much of a risk of losing your own.
Is that the case how is posible that age 2 has friendly fire?
for the poll :
YES if you give more damages to mangonel like aoe 2 , no if you let damages like this
Not having Friendly fire is one of the worst thing in the game.
This game is a strategy game, where you should win by numbers, tactics or using the right counters.
When you include a unit that totally outpaces others you see that lots of players start to use distorted dynamics to win.
Tell me please, the point or the plausibility of a siege units that can shot to units next to it. Or the case of a shot made by a siege unit that, in the total mess of a good melee fight, deals damage only to enemies. Itās TOTAL NOSENSE. This will make people stop trying to play a strategy game, and it gets an arcade game. Why should I care for pikes and swords, ranged units and chivalry, if I can destroy an army with just 10 bee nests and some units ahead of them just blocking enemies?
Siege units are made for destroying buildings. This is not Napoleons or age 3 wars. Itās a medieval gameā¦
You can balance all that you want about units, but if you concede to casual players the chance to win a game by just spamming mangos or bee nest you are losing the point of a strategy game, and also a strong slice of non casual gamers. Itās a marketing choice btwā¦
In other AGE games we had FF active. Iām sorry not having it in this game is ruining it (multiplayer).
This is what gets me and my friends crazy!
Friendly fire on siege is not very noob friendly I saw an earlier post in this thread that listed a ton of options to nerf siege without adding friendly fire.
Guess what siege is very slow a player can attack the enemy where the siege is not.