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.
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