Right, so now what is the point of building a mangonel? The siege units were designed in a smart and interesting way: mangos counter mass ranged units, ribauldequin counters mass melee, while springalds and culverins counter them. Springalds and culverins are countered by themselves and by horseman/calvary. Bombards and trebuchets counter keeps, towers walls and buildings. Now what is the role of siege units in the PUP? Do mangos counter ranged units? I fear they don’t. Springalds and culverins become some sort of alternatives of ranged units, this is boring design because with these resources I can simply spawn more archers/crossbows/handcannoneers to completely replace their roles in the game. I’m worried because many siege units are losing their identities in the new patch. I mean the siege war is a unique feature of AoE4, it is better to keep them rather than having these units in the game but few of them are being used, just like the siege tower.
Magonel is good for defending your base, he has 36 base area damage and a 60 bonus against ranged units (villagers repair the siege)
You mean a “siege” unit is only effective when defending your base and at the risk of your villagers lives? I knew the mangonel can be played like this, but I doubt its effectiveness after the mangonel nerfs in the PUP
That was the goal xd 
I have seen it, but mainly in Team games where reaching Imperial Age (IV) is more common (in the few I was able to play).
- As you mention, in "Turtleneck" situations it works extremely well, so maps with closed entrances are ideal for mangonels and Need of Bees.
- In “Open maps” it is more dangerous, since in the PUP the “Horseman RUSH” with any of the civs became ultrapopular, which is quite nice to see, and well, these do get off siege.
Unfortunately, the PUP was of little use to try the Late Game in Imperial, which happens more frequently in Team Games, and you couldn’t find any game after the 2nd day of the PUP (I waited for a whole hour, I even started watching a series while it loaded). In the few I managed to play it was used, and it worked just as well.
However, and yes, the siege was easier to destroy with cavalry, especially because of the HP drop it suffered, which is good.
On the theory that archers are going to be used to micromanage and destroy the mangonels, one can also micromanage the mangonels to aim where one least expects, so in that aspect the micro will be more entertaining in the late game, which is great.
Before too late i must say one thing since janisary is a light unit it should move fast as the other light units.
Let it go man. They released a slow, fragile short ranged, gold costing spearman without a brace affect, two shot by common gunpowder unit and stuck with it. Jans are what they are in this game, and the devs are straight defensive over this d-tier design.
Yes, a DLC of Spanish and Incas and even Aztecs like those of AoE 3 and 4 variants and 1 or 2 campaigns could be a good option…something like The Warchiefs of AoE 3…
Either AoMR or AoE 3 DE xd…
Yes, and it was planned for AoE 3 back in the day and they didn’t include it… so it’s most likely that they’ll include it in AoE 5, regardless of the age it’s set in (Ancient like Rome 2, Colonial like Empire and Napoleon Total War or modern 20th century like Agression: Reign over Europe)…
Yes, but that already existed since AoE 1 with the ruins, you captured them and in 10 minutes you won… in AoE 2 they were not there because you had the victory through relics… in AoE 3 you don’t have relics and you have the victory through trade monopoly capturing the TPs and in AoE 4 you have the sacred sites… in addition to the victory through wonder in AoE 1, AoE 2 and AoE 4…
I wasn’t questioning the existence of alternate victory conditions. I know they’ve existed for years in all AoE titles, and tbat’s fine… as options to play. I always choose Conquest. I don’t play relics, wonders, or anything else as victory condition. My choice.
I just know AoE4 at one point had no ‘Conquest only’ option, like AoE2. AoE4 forced landmark possession. So, I was wondering if that is still the case today
You can change the victory conditions in the Game Setup tab when playing skirmish and custom games. The standard ruleset has them enabled by default, meaning quickplay and ranked have sacred sites and wonders enabled… but you can play without them.
Regardless of victory condition, if you eliminate all enemy buildings and units it forces them to surrender.
I am going to state my clear and forceful point of view (a point of view shared by several players who left the game and other dissatisfied players within the game).
The battle between siege is the worst of the whole franchise. Design that incites stagnant and slow games with more siege.
Mangonels or Springalds, as good support units that they are going to be, have to have a more dynamic role and not so protagonist.
There are things to improve in PuP and I hope the devs have listened.
You can always play mods in the future with the old balance if you don’t play competitive.
There is contention on this point because not everyone agrees. To me and many others, the changes to siege are not positive. I think they are going to be reverted by next patch.
They just passed the role that springalds occupied to archers. Which makes even less sense, because mangonels now have very little purpose in an army composition.
You make a fine point though, the people this change was made for already quit.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that when you brought a poll to reddit, popular opinion was against making changes like these. Most people preferred the way things were, or that minor changes be made: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/1d1nsxq/should_antisiege_siege_be_removed_from_the/
I really expect that changes won’t be reverted. The siege rework was needed.
What we now is balance, specially about ranged units, but that doesn’t mean that we need Siege warfare again to balance de game. I’m sure the game can be balanced with general updates like HP, damage, armor, range, etc, but not going back to springalds vs springalds ethernal fights, thanks.
Since the Siege topic of the PUP became popular, I think I’ll proceed with my Siege poll.
And so that I don’t get accused of being biased (jejeje, how I loved that review), I’ll leave you with some ideas for questions of the poll:
How do you think it’s better to put them? Should I add more options to some of them or correct anything?
1.- About the general changes to the siege
- A.- Great, I like most of it
- B.- I like it, although I would correct one or two things.
- C.- Some changes are good, but I don’t agree with most of them.
- D.- I don’t like it at all.
2.- About the armor changes to Percentage Resistance (%) to Siege ranged damage:
Ribauldoquin 35%, Springald 65%, Mangonel 75%, Bombard & Culverin 85%, Rams 95%
- A.- Great, I like it a lot.
- B.- They should keep some ranged armor, a balance of both, but it’s fine.
- C.- I don’t like it at all.
Note: Consider that with this and other changes, now the technology “Bodkin Bolts” from Order of the Dragon will be useful against the siege as originally planned, and “Incendiary Arrows” will work similar to Age of Mithology Retold or as in AoE III, since increasing the attack of ranged units will be useful to do some damage to the siege.
3.- With the HP drop from the siege
Trebushet - 18% HP, Springald - 40% HP, Ribauldequin - 36% HP
- A.- Great, now the siege will be easier to destroy with melee units.
- B.- It’s okay, but I think the HP reduction shouldn’t be so hard.
- C.- I think they should have nerfed them even more in HP.
- D.- On the downside, the siege HP was fine as it was before.
4.- With the changed role of the Springald
“Armor-piercing damage”, “anti-infantry bonus”, “pierces units”, “loses anti-siege bonus”
- A.- Great, excellent!
- B.- It’s fine, but I think the “Anti-Siege” role should go to another siege unit, like the cannons (Culverin and Bombarda) in the Imperial Age (IV).
- C.- I think a way should be found to keep its anti-siege damage. They could give it a double type of damage, like the Manjaniq, one vs siege (stones), and another vs units
- D- I don’t like it, I prefer the original anti-siege version.
5.- With the Mangonel’s (the Onager) no longer perfect aim:
*Note: now its shots reach where they were originally launched and do not magically deviate halfway.
- A.- Great, excelent!
- B.- I don’t like the change.
6- How do you suggest filling the lost anti-siege role of the Spingald and Culverin?
- A.- The changes are fine, the cavalry is enough to fill the role.
- B.- Give back the anti-siege role to both (Springald and Culverin)
- C.- Give the anti-siege role to the cannons (Culverina and Bombarda) in Imperial age.
- D.- Give back the anti-siege role only to the Culverina, and make it available to all civs, just like the Bombarda, which is only anti-building. Let both remain anti-infantry.
- E.- Give a siege bonus to all siege units so they can all destroy each other.
Note: I’m not suggesting another unit to fill its role because… well, I don’t actually think it exists, the Culverina was the best historical opportunity for anti-siege, (at least the English proved it by destroying low-range Scottish cannons with their long-range cannons, just like Babur). And it still can be, along with the Bombard.
I follow the idea that “cannonballs” crush wooden siege weapons (springald, mangonel, trebushet) and other cannons. In this case I would vote C.
It depends on when you ask, the answers can change, so taking a single reference in a Reddit poll doesn’t seem that relevant to me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/s/bZB8wyktvj
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/s/X8YoNDt62w
Siege will still be relevant accompanied by units as support, not making 15 siege units with some frontline.
I played the game since the closed beta, I’m telling you I wish they had made these changes much earlier.
I assumed that’s why you made several polls, because you were shopping for answers that confirmed your bias. The point stands that not all people agree with the changes, and that the pushback to them is significant.
While the results of the polls skew in different directions, all 3 of the referenced posts are ‘ratioed’ (upvotes significantly outnumbered by replies, indicating most readers were in disagreement. that the polls themselves are either unpopular or controversial). That points to a large portion of the community being in opposition at the least.
1 Reddit poll of my links is not mine.
Yes, there are also players who like Springald vs Springald either because they like that style or because their favorite content creator likes it too (and it’s an important part of the Reddit community), that doesn’t mean it’s a majority sentiment and if the devs are going to do such a big rework (hopefully they’ll put aesthetic stuff in the future) it’s for a reason.
I’ll keep that in mind the next time a community liaison leverages their position and access to push for changes in the meta, and then invalidates community opinions that are in dissent to their desired changes.
The title of this thread is “discussion”. Each user one has their point of view and it is better if it is supported with arguments.
You have disagreed about the changes and, regarding my response, you have tried to keep your point of view strong with a poll of mine from a Reddit thread and I have clarified and given my arguments.
Maybe I am not right and the siege design in AoE4 is ideal and others of us are totally wrong, who knows.
All of those changes was unnecessary just lower more of the mangonels damage increase its building damage make them little bit cheaper and maybe they can move to age 2.Also nest of bees damage need to be lowered.