Should Springald emplacements on Towers get nerfed?

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Something which has bothered me for a long time are the Springald emplacements on towers, which still do 60 damage just like Springalds used to do. Springalds were nerfed but Springald emplacements were not for some reason.

Towers are everywhere in the current meta. English and Mongols especially use them because they grant auras. The YAM network is still not sufficiently nerfed. Many people suggested YAM network should be an upgrade for towers for this reason.

I feel like Springald emplacements are simply too effective against units, just like Springalds used to be. There is no reason to use Arrow emplacements once springald emplacements are unlocked.

On the other hand we are seeing more Trebuchets now, which can deal well with Towers.

Whats your opinion on this?

1 Like
2

Are you refering to the outposts or the stone towers? I’m assuming the former but just wanted to be sure.

1 Like
3

Mongols can’t build stone towers, so pretty sure it’s not those. :stuck_out_tongue:

I haven’t been around for the Springald nerf but the towers feel fine to me. Having towers just become pointless late game wouldn’t be that great IMO.

1 Like
4

wood towers. At fudiel age you can make it springe. Imperial age you can make it cannon.
YES THERE WAY OP.

6 or 7 of them are 100% better then a castle in the same area and you get more vision also. There harder to take out also then 1 massive target.
There my goto defense in my base now instead of a castle.

1 Like
5

Nah, I like them as is. Stone Towers on walls should be pushed back an age though.

1 Like
6

I mean, springald emplacements cost more than arrow emplacements, so they should be stronger, no? I’ve never felt that they were too strong; unlike stone towers, you can still burn the outpost down with units relatively effectively. Not to mention that they take time to upgrade, unlike the stone tower which starts with the emplacement immedietly

3 Likes
7

I think they are rather too weak as all defensive buildings.

1 Like
8

I also want to mention:
Springalds are supposed to be dedicated anti-siege units. That’s why they were nerfed; they weren’t correct for their role.

Springald Emplacements are not supposed to be dedicated anti-siege (They do no bonus vs siege, and have less range than the Springald). They are supposed to be anti-armor static defense. Thus their damage is necessary to piece through MAA and Knights.

Just because the two have the same name, does not give them the same role

3 Likes
9

Given that 6 towers with springalds costs twice as much resources as a castle (and takes longer to build + research) that seems appropriate.

1 Like
10

Springald emplacements are fine imo.
I think towers gotta be a bit more expensive due lots of people using them offensively but we gotta see if that +50% damage to buildings in construction helps with that
I do think stone wall towers shouldnt have springald emplacements in age2 though, but then again we gotta see how the cost increase pans out too.

4 Likes