I know I know. Hear me out
Now that units can do real damage to siege (no touch damage lameness). There need to be a speed buff. There just to slow even with upgrade.
Siege should get a speed increases. They are slow. now that carvery can kill them it would be balanced.
What you all think.?
Again not a damage buff or anything unbalanced…Just a speed buff for all siege units .
I thought the community was good with where Siege is if its not OP?
I think siege is in a pretty good spot now. It needs to be protected, it shouldn’t be able to escape from enemy units.
Dude your two biggest threads are about how OP siege is wah wah nerf them. This is your fault. Now you’re changing your tune? I thought you also quit like 5 times by now.
Its not in good spot.
There is 2 completely opposite sides of siege. Either its unkillable without using siege or its too easy to kill which neither are balanced.
With the mobility nerf and recent overhaul to dmg taken etc its more common to see multiple outposts and keeps protecting siege instead of units and the amount of units might be left to protect siege is just stockpiled on top of siege so it cant be touched.
All the changes has made siege harder to kill if there is even small number of units and some chokepoints. For example yesterday I won 2v2 game against vastly superior number of units thanks to single chokepoint and one nest of bees that literally killed 30-40 spears while my 15 lancers were just blocking the path. Needless to say my opponents made mistake and threw the game but its perfect example how siege is unkillable without using siege and reason why they attacked was because they had overwhelming amount of army. It was literally like 30-40 army supply vs 120-140
Only way to cost efficiently trade against siege is to use siege. Cavalry or infantry is extremely situational for killing siege and too easy to take countermeasures when in the past it was possible to kill them even in somewhat unfavorable spot now its impossible.
Siege weapons in real life 1000 years ago =
Very slow mobility
Very slow setup time (like trebuchet in game)
Very slow aiming adjustments
Very slow rate of fire (lighting a rope fuse after slow aiming adjustment/winding up the tension spring)
Very poor accuracy vs troops on the move
Very good accuracy against structures
Very high friendly fire chance if allied troops are in close combat with the enemy
Very high single unit target or structural damage
Nowhere near as much area-of-effect radius against soldier units on the move.
Very little Health( a single infantry or cavalry can cut down a siege weapon’s operators as they aren’t heavily armored/a barrage of archer arrows could kill siege operators because they are attacking humans not necessarily the machine itself, which also allowed them to steal the siege machine and use it for themselves similar to monk conversion)
Currently in aoe4, the trebuchet and ram and siegetower are the closest to irl siege weapons.
Other siege weapons in game are basically long range/areaofeffect radius gunpowder infantry considering their fast mobility, fast setup time, fast aiming adjustments, fast rate of fire, high area of effect damage vs troops, and less than realistic friendly fire incident ratings…
Siege seems somewhat balanced as it is right now, I would say they need less accuracy and more frequent friendly fire incidents if they are used improperly.
I am fine with how Siege currently feels in the game, quite balanced to be honest. Properly protecting your Siege is part of your in-game micro and unit formation.
And no one used boiling oil in fights. Why would they? Could do same with water and even then why would they, because they could use stones to drop down. So yeah the historically accurate thing for balance reasons is one of the most stupidest arguments out there
They used boiling pitch. Besides causing burns directly, it would stick to whatever it touches and be highly flammable. Covering a siege engine in pitch and then throwing a torch at it was a viable way to burn the ropes or wooden structures of the siege engine.
If you are going to insult someone’s intelligence, try not using the phrase “most stupidest” lol embarrassing yourself.
The only buff I want for siege, is adding a command to siege weapons to Prioritize targets.
Attack All. Attack Buildings, Attack Siege.
Cant tell you how annoying it gets when you have multiple springalds, fighting opponents multiple springalds, with troops between them going all ham at each other, and you gotta Piano the damn keyboard to prevent the damn things shooting into the melee fray rather than prioritising enemie siege.
We’re now talking about boiling oil which is keep upgrade that is commonly used against infantry or cavalry in AOE4 and during middle ages they did not do such thing.
Burning structure, vehicle, siege engine or even human may have happened, but its completely different from boiling oil. There was no reason to use boiling oil, because boiled water would’ve achieved same thing and even then why would’ve they bothered to set up huge junks of fluids and boiled it when they could just throw stones over the wall. Top of that if intention was to burn something it didn’t need to be boiled.
If you want to prove this statement wrong, why don’t you find recordings from history that castles / keeps commonly used boiling oil as defensive measure. I can tell u rn there is none because it would’ve been too much of effort with the existing technology and manpower to produce and spent expensive oil on something like that
You’re right that my english is far from perfect and I have never claimed so. If you read what I typed. Bringing historically accuracy into balance conversation is the stupidest thing ever and no matter how many typos or mistakes I make that won’t change the fact. Historically accurate wouldn’t be balanced at all and the conversation is about balance and those historically accurate argument is stupid and anyone who takes deep look at AOE4 would know that game is not historically accurate and never was intended to be and never will be. Neither is AOE2 or 3 historically accurate.
Also there was no reference to intelligence. Just because something might be stupid, doesn’t equal that person itself is stupid, also it was not personal attack towards you in any form just that the argument you provided is stupid because you’re trying to base it to real life / historically accurate stuff, but at the same time ignoring that game is far from actually being accurate. Top of that if we look at the siege as of rn its not balanced. Its either too hard to kill without siege or too easy to kill without siege and thats not balanced at all. Then the fact that meta moved more heavily towards outpost / keep spams after siege changes which even further points direction that siege needs adjustments in terms of buffs, unless you enjoy that best way to defend siege is actually spam outposts / keeps everywhere and just idle your units on top of them so no unit can get close enough and wall as much as possible because siege cannot respond to any threats anymore on the map other than the spot they’re in.
Sir, you need to calm down. Also calling my argument stupid is rude. All i suggested was less accuracy and more friendly fire.
Obviously the game is part realism/part fantasy —i.e. monks converting soldiers in a few seconds while they are fighting is fantastical.
But to say the game isn’t partially based off real, historical battle methods also isn’t true.
i think siege is in a good spot
Im calm.
Its just fact. You’re trying to justify balance changes with more realistic behavior while ignoring that game is not even remotely realistic or tries to copy accuracy of units or techs etc.
If you want game to be historically accurate then it cannot be only that siege is supposed to be that way. It should be whole game and not just 1 small part of it.
Also balance is far more important than anything. In campaign its fine to do things more accurately while ignoring balance of units, structures, techs but once game moves to PvP side, balance is the most important factor and nothing else comes close to it.
What comes to less accuracy, put it into perspective. In middle ages battles might had hundreds if not thousands soldiers and accuracy wasn’t as relevant as you think. All siege weaponry needed to be able to land shot close enough opponent and it would cause dmg or kills. Besides if you want less accuracy then something like bombard should one shot every unit in game if the shot lands. This is another reason why trying to change game into more historically accurate state would be stupid idea. Essentially trebs, culverin, bombard, mangonel, springald, nob should either insta kill one or more units with single shot or incapacitate them and making them unable to fight.
Then another thing about having less accuracy is that AOE4 has unit cap of 200 so siege not one shotting units and having less accuracy is not close to accurate. If we had thousands of units in single game on field then the lack of single target accuracy would be fine, but because the army size usually is around 30-60 pop for balance reasons siege needs to be more accurate or 100% accurate against single targets otherwise they would be worthless. Imagine trying to shoot with bombard single villager and missing 5 times in row. Whats the point? Also it would be close to impossible to miss cannon fire from structure so it would always do something. So would u suggesting adding hitboxes to buildings so if you land your shot poorly then u do less dmg to buildings?
Friendly fire. I don’t really see the point of having this, but thats mostly because games I come from in terms of RTS is SC2 and WC3 and neither of them really got friendlyfire. Some units might do some sort of FF but its very limited. But again would make no sense to apply this to siege especially if its not applied to other units too. Same way archers can hit your own units or melee swing others. So if reason for this is to make it accurate then it should again apply to everything and not one small part of game.
Based on reality is completely different thing than trying to make it realistic. For example WC3 is based on reality, but at the same time its complete fantasy game. Just like AOE games. They’re based on reality and events that happened in the past, but doesn’t try to copy it 1:1, because it would create dull and boring game that no one wants to play. Wanna build house? Ok gonna take 6months real time.
Once more. For PvP side the balance is most important factor and nothing else matters. If unit is bad it should be buffed and if its too good it should be nerffed and nothing should effect this especially if its not realistic or not. Just like I have brought boiling oil tech up and its complete fiction made by creative minds, because its more interesting than simply throwing rocks.
Ppl love explosion, fire and flashy things and more they add to games, movies and trying to mimic reality that way more further away they get. Reality is just one dull and boring thing to watch, play etc
Wow, you are rude…And closed minded if I might add!
Ummm ya bdelloidbore people are trying to have a civil discussion here and you’re kinda being a jerk
Makes him feel good I guess. I’m gonna have to try AoE 4 again to see how much siege was nerfed. Last I played earlier in the summer it was still too strong.
Mangonels and NoB are useless in Age IV because they don’t scale well. Infantry and Cavalry gets way more upgrades and is getting stronger. But the devs forgot to add unit upgrades for HP and damage to Mangonels and NoB in Age IV. Infantry will get more than 100 hitpoints, meanwhile Nest of Bees don’t even do 30 damage per shot because most of its attack miss.
Its about time for NoB to become stronger than Mangonels aswell. Because they are not. All they do is spread damage, which is not what you want. Anyone who knows how to play RTS will know a unit with 1 hp is worth as much as a unit with full HP. Meanwhile a Mangonel will deal more damage to a smaller group of units, killing them in less volleys.
The change is very simple. Increase ranged damage from Mangonels and NoB by 1 for each ranged damage upgrade. Decrease the hit area for NoB so they hit the same unit more consistently and spread less. After this both units will deal up to +3 damage. This will serve as a basis to evaluate further.
If you want to take it that way then take it. Same way I could say about you, but not bothering, just points that we live in different culture and how ppl can get offended over nothing. I gave you multiple reasons and explanations of your suggestion and you’re free to disagree with my opinion, but this is now going sidetrack and not in topic anymore so don’t we go back to it or not is up to you.
I can still try to explain as best as I can why trying to mimic historically accurate situations for single unit is not good idea, but if you don’t want thats completely fine we both shared our opinions