Bro the mangonel in castle had been nerfed to ground. Its splash radius is small, tacking is worse and easy to dodge, and attack range is reduced. It is not worth spamming without upgrades. It only becomes relatively better when you finish researching the adjustable crossbar tech, which becomes insanely expansive (2200 resource) in this patch, while all other university techs also become heavily resource consuming. I think the university changes are also problematic, but that is another topic.
having personally face some high level ottomansā¦ I can say with empathically siege meta is broken, OP for ottoman. They can camp and FC/Fast Imp fielding knights/sipahi then spam free springalds to deal with spears, then great bombards/ribs once in imp; that siege ball is toxic.
But back to the mangos; they are initially not as strong as they use to be ONLY in their reduced spread and splash zone; they still track, dodging is as its always been; they got nerfed vs non range, but still 2 shot infantry range units (HC is the exception).
That is what I was talking about, now siege can be weak and strong at the same time depending on which civ you are playing with. Before, it doesnāt matter how op the mango, the springalds destroy them whatsoever. Back then the great bombards were op but the springalds can limit their numbers to some extent. The springald was the ultimate solution to siege meta. Without the anti-siege role itās hard for devs to balance siege strength across civs, and thatās why we see the funny damage great bombard deals to a vill. The devs struggled to balance the great bombard yet they are still broken.
The old way was not at a stage where you had to redesign the whole mechanics or otherwise the game would be dead or something. Let me bring out the CoH analogy once again, the siege units were just like heavy armors in CoH. The best counter to tanks are tank destroyers and AT guns. Those TDs and ATs are similar to springalds. They deal negligible damage to infantry while they are super good against armors. I know the old way works based on the experience from CoH series. They only needed to tune some stats, slightly nerf mangos, NoBs and perhaps reduce the efficiency of springs to extend the siege engagement duration.
I donāt know about you but many players choose to play AoE4 not AoE2 because they prefer this kind of CoH-like play style of siege engagements. Putting everything aside, it was not a wise move to change one of the foundations of AoE4 mechanics, because you are basically turning against a considerable amount of players who play this game just because they like the very idea of springlad anti-siege! Of course you can argue the siege war was boring, but really if you want to make a big change to the core mechanics, then feel free to throw these ideas into AoE5 but leave alone springalds in AoE4!
This is not a now situation? Civ like Ottomans already had siege prowess; but the good news is to see it all shake out then we retune base on this anti-siegeāless playstyle, which I personally love!
I canāt say this number of players was zero, butā¦I think the more popular opinions was springalds of old were cancerous!
Siege battles were balanced because units such as mangonel (or area damage siege) and springalds were broken in their function. That generated an obligation of the players to play a siege meta when the game was getting longer, stagnant and boring.
If you think that the vast majority of people enjoy playing AoE4 for the siege battles including springalds and not for a gameplay of strategic variety and decision making, let me tell you to look up AoE4 siege meta and enjoy the comments of the time.
Losing some players by attracting more potential players seems to me the best move in the medium/long term.
CoH is not an example of a competitive RTS game like AoE neither have the same mechanics nor are they the same era.
Iām confused by this, the patch release has led to a decrease in player engagement not an increase. This has been the most divisive patch to date.
If I can level with you, making it about what is popular with the majority of the playerbase is a flawed argument. Polls were being done, by you, and they got mixed responses. Youāre talking about a simple majority, something around 60% of respondents.
Alienating +35% of players and telling them to deal with it or leave is an awful way to go about this. That makes it more about meeting your personal preferences and people who agree with you than making it about what it should be: balance.
As a side note, Iāve been tracking reviews from people on different platforms. It breaks down to a 50% approve/disapprove ratio and has held since the patch launched. This is consistent with the opinions given in the months leading up to the patch.
People donāt have an issue with the entire patch, itās mostly about the changes made to siege.
Why donāt we count players who donāt participate in the polls and already left the game, being able to return to the game in a DLC?
The network polls that were done were to a portion of the players who already play the game regardless and there is still division.
Why donāt you look at Reddit comments (for example) from over a year ago about siege battles, for example? This has been the case since the launch of the game.
Some donāt like the patch because the melee infantry is somewhat weak in Late Game and even some donāt like the patch either because they have tightened security in the game (you get my drift).
As I said, itās DLCs and big discounts that attract more players, not a patch.
Thereās a reason I said itās more medium/long term oriented, not short term.
1 Like
Ha! This might explain in part the review bombing coming from a certain part of the world.
1 Like
This makes sense. I am trying to tell you that using polls and majority opinion is flawed. Itās because not everyone logs onto a website to share their opinion.
But then you do this:
You immediately contradict yourself.
This isnāt a popularity contest. This thread is a person sharing their feelings on balance. What are you trying to tell them when you say most people disagree with their feedback, and that the game will be better even if they donāt like it. As a volunteer moderator you have impact other posters do not.
Not to mention the sinophobia. I have not interacted with nearly as much xenophobia since I started interacting with this community. Itās deeply disturbing.
A stain on a once proud legacy.
MedicMaaan is one of the forum posters of all time.
This is a little different now. They track more slowly. Down from 1.5 tiles/sec to .75 tiles/sec. So I believe they can actually miss fast moving units without those units having to change direction to dodge like they used to.
Perhaps I was misunderstood, but I clearly indicated that surveys can generate trends but they should be ātaken with a grain of saltā.
I invited you to look at all the threads and comments of thousands of people when the game had more players. Of course it is not representative of the entire playerbase, but it can indicate a trend. What I do know is that the dislike for siege wars has years old and if a rework has been done itās for a reason.
In the end itās a matter of adapting and the devs adjusting what they have to adjust, as when other major changes have been made.
1 Like
I have, and I brought you trends before. When it was inconvenient to your analysis you told me to come back in two months.
With all due respect, get bent.
At what point did I say the ācome back in 2 monthsā thing lol.
Donāt get mad. The devs have quite a bit more info than we do about what players want in their databases, this isnāt the stuff of 4 people mad at the siege game.
What is broken in their function?? mangonels? They deal aoe damage to counter particularly ranged units because the devs wanted to introduce a unit that counters mass spamming of one unit type, which is what really will make the game BORING. Similar for ribaudiquin.
I think even if you like ānew siegeā you can argue it needs work.
Mangos arenāt good enough versus archers now. Especially in Imperial with full upgrades. Longbows just mow them down. An option could be upping the ranged resistance from 80% to 90% (or whatever is balanced). Either base, as something they get in Imperial, or as some sort of purchasable upgrade. Or you need to increase the range/aoe or something.
Thereās scenarios where someoneās clumped up archers get deleted by 6-8 Mangos, but I donāt think thatās a common occurrence in 1v1. Right now you make say 2-3 Mangos, they do little and then get sniped.
Iām not sure Springalds are worth taking versus melee either. Probably need more testing there. I think a few splashed in does add to your armies DPS once you have big armies. Butā¦ the game isnāt typically some equal resource micro-wars scenario. The point of units countering each other is either so you can push further ahead (and win the game) - or so you can catch up. I feel if you are trying to catch up the Springald is too expensive/fragile to be worth bothering with. MAA will easily stomp it if they can make contact. If you are aheadā¦ buy a bombard or two and go win the game. Again maybe there needs to be an Imp upgrade to make it feel like a harder counter rather than āits probably a bit better.ā
Admittedly as argued - if you have these things, you potentially make spears+siege an unbeatable comp.
1 Like
I donāt think anyoneās arguing that it doesnāt.
Itād be better, imo, if the discussions were about how it could be better than āit sucks and never shouldāve happenedā, but thatās the Internet for you.
1 Like
I think they may just need a bit of a cost reduction. Itās a delicate balance point though.
I think the micro battle between archers and mangonels is pretty decent now, more and more I am preferring this new siege play to the old springald arms race (even though popping things with them was satisfying).
However, a mangonel is a pretty big investment, so if it only gets off one shot before getting sniped by the archers that feels pretty bad. Itās worth 7.5 archers (more really because gold), and it certainly canāt kill those in one shot, wonāt even get that many in two.
Also, maybe that imperial tech makes them a match for silk bow strings archers, but itās hard to say because Iāve only researched it once, itās so dang expensive.
The new springalds I like too, but Iām not sure yet if the balance is quite right. Iām also not sure about culverins yet, itās a bit odd having them be bombard replacements, but thatās fine I guess.
Couldnāt a unit called the Basilisk been the one to be the Bombard replacement for the Abbasid Dynasty/Ayyubids and Holy Roman Empire/Order of the Dragon instead of the Culverin being the replacement while it stayed as an anti-siege cannon?
1 Like
