Thus is one if my new favorite topics!! Let me say this…
Mangos kill archers BUT… if your micro is pro-like… you can really really reduce your archer losses!! Play this decent level Abbasid player that dud not do the lame eco wing 3tc!!! But we end up having several several big fights of composite bow/boot camp archers and Abbasid maa vs my mali fambria musofadi and mangonels. His maa were getting shredd BUT he was super dodging my mangonel shot and eventually killing them???
Yes he took major losses every big engagement but I’m not sure it didnt work to his favor resources fo resources??? like i think I’d kill like 20 or so archers but I’d always lose 2 to 3 mangos?? And the only times i for sure could keep the magos alive theu his dodges long enough to scare him away is when i have villagers to repair???
Maybe mangos need a lil more range resist??? Just to help against specialized range units like composite bow bootcamp archers?!
I think they hit it too hard on the damage front. Taking their tracking away was already a lot, for the most part mangonels don’t have any kind of significant damage post-patch. For most civs crossbowmen are just too good of a counter not to use in every engagement. You can see it play out here:
First mangonel makes it out @ 28:00. Completely ineffective for handling the situation, it dealt about 15% of health on a solid hit on the center of a ranged mass, most shots were completely dodged once OOTD made it out of the treeline.
I do have to agree with the post here! I didnt like the siege rework either!
Also no anti siege means there is nothing to counter great bombards in the game right now!
I don’t understand, it makes sense to get rid of anti-siege because it’s too effective when a player isn’t looking?
Isn’t this true of other units, such as demo ships or knights doing villager raids?
Playing this season I’ve had a few haywire games vs english where the consistent strategy is them rushing white tower and using it to spam trebuchets. There’s no response possible from me other than diving under a castle and town center. There are many situations where waiting until imperial to counter siege at long range is unfeasible.
You mention anti building and aesthetic, ballistas primary purpose was anti building, not anti personnel:
As a siege weapon, the ballista’s purpose was to attack castles from far away. During a siege, the attacking force needed a way to penetrate the castle walls and attack the castle forces without getting too exposed; weapons like the ballista were helpful for that purpose.
To me it always made more sense as anti structure/ship because of that. It being anti infantry is a AoE 2 concept, comparable to scorpions.
That being said, springalds were typically a defensive emplacement not a moving contraption. Springalds did fire bolts while ballistas frequently used stones as ammunition.
Picking on weaker arguments is the definition of strawman’ing a position? Yes it fair game bc he said what he said, but the stronger more consistently back with data and high level opinion is what the devs already mentioned in their notes.
Just stick with this IMO let the minor arguments go.
But in regards to the white tower… its fair play!!! Requires higher levels of scouting and practicing preventive measures, aka feudal aggression and or FC time where all your landmarks aren’t right next to each other so the trebs have to move out from the safety of the white tower. (Imo this playstyle is toxic and i hate English…but its fair!)
It’s less about picking on a weaker argument and more on the idea that they wanted to remove anti siege specialty. The problem with this is that we still need it, with bombards and trebuchets for example, and it isn’t a realistic option unless both players are on equal terms.
Typically when a player has siege knocking on their door it’s as a result of something happening along the lines that you mentioned: a lack of scouting or a lack of map control
This isn’t always the case though. For haywire the players are right next to each other. The english play is to go for fast castle with abbey of kings, and they are able to do so without the opposing player being able to stop it as all resources are under their main TC. When the white tower goes up they don’t have to place it near the opponent, as the players are so close together. Trebuchets can then be trained immediately and fire into the enemy base without moving from under the cover of their main TC and white tower.
In that scenario you can’t survive it without rushing FC yourself and going for trebuchets to trade. This seems extremely counter intuitive to the argument which has been pushed by people decrying springald gameplay because it is EXACTLY THE SAME. Removing springald as a ranged siege counter actually imbalances gameplay and makes some strategies impossible to respond to.
It feels insane to be told that trading springald for springald to have siege dominance was boring or imbalanced, but trading bombard for bombard is a logical thing. There is no reason there. I suggested that a potential solution would be tuning the springald damage lower so that people wouldn’t have their siege destroyed as quickly, but it appears that is being ignored.
Historical considerations aside (because really the Springald was used especially as a defensive emplacement in towers and not as a mobile unit):
I’m against TTK so fast with ships so, while you can look somewhat spectacular the impact of the demolition ship, they should nerf the attack a bit on all ships.
The fast white tower strategy in the opponent’s base is more than refuted and explained. Honestly, that map is weird and unbalanced so if I were you I’d ban it.
Defensive structures are there to buy time, if the opponent reacts fast, has Trebuchets in Castles and you can’t defend your Keep, get out of it to fight, it is what it is.
The bombards wars, in most situations, would be if the siege is well protected and is under a defensive structure, besides it would be better to destroy the Keep because the opponent’s bombards take longer to eliminate yours because of what has already been said.
They removed the range anti and kept and buffed melee anti siege also they made all range a soft counter. So we don’t have a problem of no anti siege capabilities.
This is specifically an Eng balance issue, which might need special attention. Everyone doesn’t have a free knight, villagers with shortbows with a age3 castle landmark that doubles as a full military production building??
Niche civ gimmicks, we can’t balance all of siege base on English abuse. But maybe it needs attention.
Bombards vs Bombards is an imperial gameplay and expensive. Springalds vs springalds was castle at half the price.
Hence again
So it’s an amazing delay on siege vs siege. And trebs vs trebs isn’t real.
Well no, not at all actually. Springalds vs springalds was to establish control over siege in an area. If your opponent had no springalds you really didn’t need to build more than 2 of them, as they would one shot a mangonel, and be a major threat to any attacking trebuchet/bombard.
They already slowed down siege gameplay by reducing the damage output of siege devices, which is the second half of that sentence that you cut off.
I understand their goal when removing anti-siege capable units was to put some brakes on siege interaction, basically that a game could quickly snowball, but the removal of anti-siege specialzation introduces a new concept to the game: protection of siege through body blocking.
It’s inevitable for the meta to shift to something else to protect siege, and with siege no longer being vulnerable at ranges past 6.5 tiles (archer vs siege), the siege engines that provide the greatest threat can be fully protected by defensive structures and units. Suddenly a stone wall is no longer necessary to protect trebuchets from responses from the enemy, 2-3 villagers moving with an army can set up a defensive barricade that makes an offensive push much harder to stop. While the damage was reduced overall, the pace of an attacking force hasn’t been slowed down that much.
So, when given a situation with a FC in close quarters, the players benefit from building trebuchets as quickly as possible. It’s hard to get a surround with melee units, and ranged units don’t deal enough damage to mitigate villagers repairing the sieging units. This does actually lead to trebuchet vs trebuchet gameplay, which you can see here starting around 1:00:00
I appreciate the argument that you’re putting forward, however in practice that is not what is being seen in high levels of gameplay.
I really feel the need to say it again:
The issue of needing to trade springalds would still exist, but needing to field 4 or 5 at a time while having them only able to destroy siege would mean a player has siege dominance but an incredibly weak army composition. This would give people the opportunity to counter siege at range, hell you don’t even need to take away the ranged armor change, but it would mean that this siege heavy army would be very vulnerable to a unit focused army.
I really feel like there’s a good solution somewhere in the middle here. I think it could still use some adjustment though.
Dude you’re arguing in circles??? If you have 2 springalds before i have any siege clearly i need to first make 2+ springalds or out micro your springalds before i can safely add mangonels and trebs? And there IMMEDIATELY starts the siege on siege warfare they clearly wanted to slow down??? You’re not paying attention enough to what you’re saying IMO??
No I’m not. I’m saying that the springald vs springald meta was about establishing control over the battlefield, and allows the player who has that control to field a complement of siege units (bombards, mangonels, trebuchets) without them being threatened (by springalds, they’ve always been vulnerable to melee infantry and melee cavalry).
Having bombards be the new ranged siege counter maintains the same principle while making it more difficult to access, and places it in an age most games will not reach.
I’m very confused about what you’re confused about with that.
Do you have an issue with the idea that if you have archers the opponent will build horsemen so you need to think about training spears before you see the horsemen? It’s not something that is exclusive to springalds as a siege counter, that’s the entire counter system.
I really think you should re-read my posts and consider that I’m not confused. I know exactly what I’m saying, you’re just not understanding it.
This is something that I think is actually very easy to understand. I can break it down, but I kind of need you to follow along with me instead of trying to dismantle everything that I’m saying.
With the reduction of food economy the game’s pace has already been slowed. If you consider that in combination with the changes they’ve made to the siege damage model, ie that they deal less damage across the board now, then we have achieved the slowing effect they are reaching for.
The issue now is that we don’t have an effective way to counter siege at range.
Even if they reverted the change on springald, kept the 65% ranged damage resistance, reduced the damage that they deal, it wouldn’t bring it back to the same state.
Late game villager economies need to be much larger to maintain food production for a constant fight. Needing to field more springalds to maintain the one shot kill ratio would further strain army numbers. Mangonels are no longer anywhere near as effective vs infantry and cavalry masses as they were in the past. So you could counter a siege heavy composition with a non siege focused army, especially if they are wasting population space on springalds for siege that you aren’t building.
Fielding springalds would be more about breaking a siege, like bombards and trebuchets attacking the main base, than it would be about gaining a supremacy in siege to field mangonels. That is the issue they were trying to resolve.
Not only that, it would also decelerate siege gameplay because it would mean that trebuchet and bombard pushes would lose the trump card status they currently hold.
This is not the same as you are describing it. I really don’t think you have been understanding what I’m saying.
In case it isn’t clear: I really do want to talk with you about this, but I need a little cooperation on your part!
you reiterated the basic concept/purpose of the original springald? Allege the bombard is the new “springald” just available at a latter age, an age that is seldom reached. You’re convinced the other things they did to slow down “siege on siege” warfare is SOO SUFFICIENT… that they could REINTRODUCE the old springald concept back and somehow would not defeat …the very reason they got rid of the old springald??
You’re clearly lost…
it doesnt matter how effective or less effective you make the reintroduced springalds?? The gameplay will ALWAYS GO AS SUCH with your idea…
I make a mango?
you see my mango you make a springald?
I see your springald? I make my own springald in response??
You see I responded with a springald of my own to your springald?? So YOU MAKE ANOTHER SPRINGALD
…
WHO CARES IF IT TAKES 1 shot or 2 or 3; IF they reintroduce an age 3 range ANTI SIEGE UNIT??? You are then mandated (if you care to win the game??) to make the appropriate unit to answer this siege question??
Removing the original springald functions means??
If I make a mangonel??
you see it and you either make sufficient melee to swarm? Micro your range to dodge and snipe? or you run tf away??
Notice how this does not devolve ever so rapidly into a spring-fest?? HOW? Are you missing this? And bombard vs bombard you just admitted takes place in an age that is seldomly reached? AND bombards are twice as expensive as old springalds AND bombards dont snipe bombards you need several shots.
That was in reference to this, which has been brought forth by others in more than just this thread:
It’s not that it’s sufficient, it’s just that it has been slowed down. Changing springalds back, but giving them the reduced damage model with the rest of siege, would add to what they’ve been doing.
You make a stable. I know you’ll make horsemen, so I make spears. Are you understanding that what you’re outlining is just the counter system this game uses?
Edit: I can tell you are referring to the springald counters springald dynamic… but if they are vulnerable to all ranged units as well as cavalry, why can’t you use those instead? All this would mean is you wouldn’t be able to siege an enemy base with impunity as long as you can keep them inside of their walls. They would still have a disadvantage, but at least having a ranged anti siege that doesn’t cost 850 resources each would allow a person to strike back. Especially considering the current option is to dive into an enemy while behind in resource availability.
Edit 2: It’s also inconsistent, you are fine with building bombards to counter bombards, but building springalds to counter springalds appears to send you into an apoplectic rage, typing in all caps. It’s confusing more than anything, and it’s a clear double standard.
I understand that siege gameplay is a change in pace with what you may be used to with the standard counter triangle, but it was one of the more interesting additions to the game. Taking one piece out of it leaves siege in an unbalanced state, where trebuchets and bombards have a much more powerful position since it sets a timer for the defender to take them down. You have to kill them by pushing past their army, so the attacker is favored every time in a siege, as the defender can never rely on the defenses they built, they have to leave the walls and towers and castles they’ve spent 1000s of resources on. That actually accelerates gameplay, which leads me to:
You are interpreting the developers as using the removal of anti-siege role from springalds and culverins as their primary adjustment, but that second sentence applies as well. It’s a major change to the makeup of the game, and I’m not alone in saying that it was an error in judgement. You’re posting in a thread dedicated to the idea that the ‘Siege rework is terrible’.
If you spent less time telling me I’m lost or confused, and more time just talking to me normally, this wouldn’t get so personal. Please, I really am just trying to talk with you. Making this a productive conversation relies on both of us collaborating and talking this through rather than telling the other they don’t understand.
What I’m understanding from you is that you are opposed to the idea of springalds having an anti-siege purpose in the game, and that you would rather there be no ranged anti-siege unit rather than trying to find a way to balance that interaction. I think that kind of approach is deeply flawed, and I’ve brought you live examples of why that is true. You’re talking past those points and focusing on how ridiculous you think I am. Please, this is not how a fruitful discussion is formed.
Kind of funny to post this over the last 48 hours and have beasty pretty much cover the topic the same way. Can’t wait to see how people shut this down too.
04:05:00 to 4:26:00~ , timestamps don’t work on this forum
like i think I’d kill like 20 or so archers but I’d always lose 2 to 3 mangos?? And the only times i for sure could keep the magos alive theu his dodges long enough to scare him away is when i have villagers to repair???
