Siege Engineering feels bad

Hey all. I spent quite some time trying to figure a way to express this, and wanted to open a discussion on it.

I feel that Siege Engineering feels bad. I’ll clarify by saying, I do like what it represents (a feature that shortens game length). But, it feels all too forced, watering down the gameplay experience between all civilizations.

I also feel it strongly contributes to the claustrophobic Feudal meta we currently have.

Is it interesting?

Creating a ram outside of your opponents base is incredibly powerful. So much so, that this is the way every civilization does it in that stage of the game. As a result, whenever I play, it always bothers me how similar this feels between all civilizations. Despite all the differing tribulations and experiences, for it all to end the same way just doesn’t feel interesting. And don’t get me wrong; these aren’t complaints about being unable to defend against it nor being unable to do ram sieges. It is about how so much of the gameplay pivots on this in Feudal.

It also doesn’t feel too great to be on the other end of this. The enemy creating rams outside of your gates while you are unprepared should be a death sentence for sure–but, there is no salvation lest you can defeat their entire army. No potential decision making to get you out of it. Except doing a desperate raid on their base.

As a sidenote, when I initially started playing the game, I was really excited about the notion that Abbasids could do this by default. It didn’t take long before I realized it had bare minimum requirements and that Siege Engineering was in almost every game ever–you rarely choose to not get it. That is just how necessary it is for anything to happen.


Again, I do like what it represents and wouldn’t want to get rid of that game shortening essence. So, here is a suggestion. Now that Siege Workshops can produce Rams, what if they cost less and could be created in Feudal with only Rams unlocked?

This would force players to have some control of an area before enabling them to a proper all in. It creates a scenario, like when defending a real siege, you can forgo defending against the enemy’s army and go for their nearby workshops. The result of which would depend on the placement of their siege production. If they were placed recklessly, guarded or even stealthily. It forces the attacker to be strategic, and rewards the defender for dismantling the core part of a siege, creating a scenario where decision making can be far more vital than just who has the best economy and most units in Feudal.

The fantasy

The idea of cutting the supply chain has always been important in these games and simulations, and I feel that Siege Engineering removes a crucial part of gameplay. Unless it is part of that civilization or army’s speciality, then that army should be stuck with no means to raid if their workshop was destroyed. That is why I think Abbasids should retain their ability, while Mongols should still be able to learn it, as they were exceptions to begin with. This would make those features stand out a lot more, and make it feel like a rewarding, interesting part of their civilization.

What does everyone else think? I know this might slow the game down a tad bit, as it would force players to plop down a Workshop when all inning. But, it also makes that raid a much more delicate and interesting situation than just waltzing in with your army.


When a player already has a minimum skill level, he can stop all-ins even if that player goes to second TC.

I would give the ram more power for each unit inside it (+1% attack and speed) to make that raid interesting and in Imperial I would nerf it slightly.

The average of the games is 25-30 minutes (more tending to 30 than 25), so most games end in Castles.

Definitely don’t want to get rid of siege engineering. It’s made rams FAR more interesting and used than they are in AoE2.

I am glad they added rams to siege workshops so that they also get more use late game though.