Sieges will be the most hated unit if Relic wont change its wrong concept

Imo your line of questioning is flawed from the start. Why do you need 10 bombards?? How is 10,000 resources worth of units that only take up 30 population and can level anything and everything in a matter of seconds not already a grave issue?

I hope along with making them glass cannons they also increase the cost significantly assuming the power levels are maintained. 1-3 cannons make sense, and if we’re talking extremes then 4!!!

The game if well designed mandates a diverse composition of units. Going full pike bombards isn’t diverse, yet currently it’s not cost efficient to count said composition with range sprinngalds (unless you abbasid or rus)


You’re not, that’s kinda the point. Army composition shouldn’t include so much siege, that’s why there’s so many posts calling this a siegefest. I just played a game where I had 15 mangonels, 10 bombards, and 10 culverins, and 20 spears.

Why are there more artillery than infantry? Bc it’s the only thing that works right now.

Nice try, but no, it would shift the meta to mixed-unit armies, like they intended us to be using.

You mean at minimum 15 spears? I literally just tested this it takes 15 infantrymen two torch throws to kill one singular bombard, in which time the other 19 bombards have blown them to bits.


Thank you! Exactly!


It was only example to demonstrate what happens if HP is changed. Meaning vast amount of resources can be destroyed in matter of seconds by low tier unit that can just charge at them and you cant do anything to defend against it.

Either they need to be tanky to allow defending or they need to be fast to run away from threat.

Are you playing 1v1 or team games?

Tried to check your match history to confirm but its hidden but now Im assuming you were playing team game if so then its not your individual comp that matters but your teams comp.

Not in single RTS game that I have ever played individual comp has mattered as much as team comp in TG’s

This is true in 1v1 and I recall you playing team games if so then its already like that.

My comment was literally pointed that IF HP was nerffed.

Or they can just have an effective counter?

They are not tanks


You mean to tell me, you want this thing^ to be able to pack up and speedily escape? Or to be able to absorb an inordinate amount of damage?

Historically that makes no sense, and gameplay wise it is terrible, if I wanted tanks I’d play CoH.


but they got effective counters?? Another siege or handcannoneers which both deal with them very effectively. Also mass of horsemen or scouts is cheap way to take down siege.

And you mean to tell that bunch of heavy armored infantry men could run past through whole battlefield to throw couple of torchers and all that iron and everyone reloading it would just blow apart?

Dude its a video game that REFERENCES real life things its not reality simulator…

Ye I was playing team games but that wasn’t rly the point, all my teammates also spammed artillery.

We actually genuinely tried not to for half the game but the other team started to so we had to to stay alive.

I wish, you think I’d still be here complaining?

My bad I misunderstood, I thought you were advocating for leaving their HP

So you countered them by doing your own siege and you got issue with that? You could’ve made x amount of springalds to snipe mangonels/NoB then just rush their siege with horses or handcannoneers or come from multiple different directions and sending few units first to soak first hit from mangonels and then get to their melee range and torch them. If opponent doesn’t have NoB or Mangonel I just go in with any unit I got and torch siege or force them to run away while winning rest of battle.

Only maps that I have seen your setup to work is black forest even there it can be lethal to go mass siege in TG’s or well my experience comes from 2v2 but all it takes that one player goes around you and you cant respond fast enough unless you got multiple layers of walls

This is fine and fun, and how it started.

But it devolved very quickly into 20 bombards vs 20 bombard, which isn’t fun.

Doesn’t work so well with 15 mangonels behind the bombards

It’s a pipe dream and a half if my enemy doesn’t use mangonels.

Depending on the civ I’ve seen people delete entire armies of bombards to get pop to train at the base to defend.

That is a handicap but easily(that’s a relative easily, but you get what I mean) overcome by just deleting the units

Age of seige is boring very very boring and 1 dimensional. Having seige properly be support units would naturally have your pop space and resources heavily invested in protection for your weaker units (aka archers seige etc).

Even in team games mass siege should be extremely vulnerable for the sheer power it holds.

1 Like

I think reducing siege health is not the way to go. Springalds would annihilate siege and would be utterly pointless building any siege against an opponent smart enough to mass some springalds.

Reducing siege speed and increased damage for melee units against siege would be nice, maybe even reduced siege damage against armoured units so they are a bit more tanky and can reach siege easier. Increased pop requirement could be nice also but if you let your opponent build so much siege game is probably lost anyway.

Well, does not mean just nerfing siege HP. It is making non-siege units deal more damage to them so it would feel fragile.

1 Like

This is literally what springalds are for tho, you should have to counter the springalds with your horses or something not the other way around, it’s supposed to be defenders advantage not offensive advantage.

I’m actually against this, keeping with my theme of realism, if you get hit by a cannonball you and the next three guys behind you are gonna die.

I don’t have a problem with the damage of siege, just the lack of counterplay

And yes I know I’ve referenced bombard health a lot but I’m sure everyone knows what I mean, they just feel like you’re burning down a building not killing a cannon.

Like go watch a little clip of age of empires 3 cannons being killed, you’ll see what I mean, the feel is just wrong.

Oo I feel like I found an Easter egg, I found a spiffing Brit age of empires 3 video, yeah ok random side bit but I was trying to look up a cannon dying, not as easy of a thing to find as I thought, I’ll link it if I find a good clip.

1 Like

What I’m trying to say is that I think springalds are fine the way they are, don’t want them buffed via reduced siege hp. Not trying to counter anyones points just putting it out there.

On second thought increased armour would be weird. I just struggle to see an effective counterplay aside from whoever masses more springalds. I think I’ve played too many choke maps where it is nearly impossible to run up to the siege.

More cav/melee damage against siege definitely adds some more options

I’d just like to add that I find it funny that Culverins kill bombards in two shots… while bombards kill culverins in two shots… while both cost the same… while there is no point for me to mass lots of culveirins in order to get a numerical advantage in order to kill the opponents bombards, because after the siege wars win I would have a lot of dead pop space that deals very little damage to anything else.

I mean… this is something I really didn’t get. Did someone do the math on that matter? Culverin, from an anti-siege weapon, it’s actually a very niche anti-siege weapon. Like very VERY niche. It’s certainly not a go to, which is weird, in a meta filled with siege.

Is that weird to anyone else?

The way I see it:
Siege in this gamedesign brings way too many cons with it.
High hp pool with high arrow armour makes counterplay against it very very specific, especially when units can’t reach it anymore due to 100 military on the field.

The way siege is designed in AoE1 or 2 is overall not only way more useful, but feels way more encouraging/fun to play against due to the open nature of it in which literally everything can be threatening to siege.

Right now in compositional fights, siege feels completely untouchable to meele (bodyblock around it and even if you could get to it, you’d always need to pull way more units than he has in supply for siege) and is immune to arrows anyway.
That puts the game in a weird spot in which the only way to counter siege is building siege on your own, which slows down the game and makes it very one dimensional and also frustrating when you throw civ bonis in the mix cause the only way to deal with it is mirroring what he does which is by definition a way worse version of what he has (+50% hp clockwerk or more bombard range, rus more springald range).

The cavbuff against siege doesn’t adress this issue at all, since the problem behind siege is that the later thr game gets the more it slows the game down since you can’t reach it at all anymore when higher number of military is on the field.

I’d say buff siege in a sense that mangonels for example shred every blobbing unit and are more dangerous while beeing more accessible (cut cost by 1/3) and don’t let it pack up but therefore slow it down a bit and give it way less hp on 0 or maybe 1 ranged armour and go from there.
Buff it a bit against buildings as well.
Mangos should scale with dmg upgrade instead of atkspeed upgrade in imp to compensate for the growing unit hp (imp version of inf/cav, bloodlines and inf +20% hp upgrade) and underline it’s role as a nuke aoe unit that punishes blobs or engagements in corridors.
If it needs friendly fire or not you have to playtest.
(Might not be a bad idea to involve an additional risk factor if it oneshots backline and twoshots MAA line).

Trebs should also be cheaper, cost less supply and be a bit more arrow resistant in comparison.
Should be a long siege situation type of unit but the issue is that it does the same as a ram for waaaay more cost while preventing the siegeworkshop from getting actual higher impact units that influence the fight (springald to win siege fight/mango if the oponent plays heavy english trashinf e.g.).
Ah and fix the english treb splash tech in imperial pls :slight_smile:

Springald and Culverins therefore need an utter rework or big rebalances to compensate for the fact that the game is more open to play now since everything can kill siege now.
Lower health, movement speed and no arrow armour.
I’d say make them high base dmg solo target units and look into culverin vs chinese bombard situation (bombard kills its’ supposed counter cause it outperforms it in every metric (range, firering speed, dmg, even Hp with clockwerk).
That opens up the game way more when it comes to land vs ships.
I know ppl still have ptsd from these old springald meta games, but I am convinced that the main issue was the movement speed, cost efficiency paired with the fact that these units are basically immune to any arrow play.
They should be absolutely overrun when you mainly rely on them and that’s the goal for the balance in their regard in my opinion.
Accessability, supply efficiency and fragility instead of closing the game more into rock paper scissors 1 type of usecase unit.
That’s the only way I can think of where to put these units, since they obviously have a way different spot in the siege concept rn that brings just too many cons with it in my opinion.

Bombard same treatment as mango.
Cheaper, slower, less hp, no arrow armour, maybe more supply and no packup.

When it comes to culverins, springalds and bombards, you obviously need to adjust the base dmg/bonus dmg accordingly to the shrinking hp of the siegepool.
Some testing required here.

Siege should just be completely overrun by any type of heavy military play to underline its’ role as a support unit, while still beeing very high impact in certain situations.

On that note, ships should get similar treatment.
They need a rebalancing to be way more vulnerable to arrows with less armour/hp but tweak on maybe +1 range on galleys, less supply and less costs overall for military ships.
Demo dmg relation to shrinking ships hp pool should be kept the same for now.
That should also help a little bit against the demo play, that I wouldn’t touch further until the ship design spot overall is more clear.
Rn hybrid maps play like water maps, since it has huge lockdown potential without any counterplay from land.

Ofc those changes above will bring balancing issues with them as well, black forest comes into my mind, but this is more a design issue of the map rather than the unit itself in my opinion.
Nothing is set in stone and you can tweak here and there ofc.
Overall I think siege and ship design is way too one dimensional and forces you to mirror it to be able to deal with it, which is quite the bad design in my experience and changes above should absolutely adress it without making it unappealing to get siegeweapons here and there at the same time.

But we talk about a complete overhaul of the Siege concept here so it should be tested througoutly and most likely come with additional balance changes.
Horsearchers for example come to my mind that are going to be absolute siege snipers with low commitmentcost due to their speed.

Hope you’ll keep us up to date what the devs idea and plans are.
Siege/water designs and balance are the reason I personally left the game a few weeks ago.
Not because it’s imbalanced per se but because the design only has 1 right respons and if you don’t do it in time instantly you have to concede water/siege entirely without much of a chance to come back into the siege/water play again.
The suggestions I’ve made up there are only one way to do it, but I think we all share the conclusion that the way siege and water is designed right now is pretty bad when it comes to counterplayability.


I think In a first step:

  • set up Population
  • slow down a bit
  • less HP

will solve the Problem for the most Players

1 Like

Less damage… and they should be a suportive unit , not a main one to mass , they should cost more .


Thank you for responding!

I think all of what you said sums up the issue. On top of that siege units should have slow rate of fire, and be countered by melee units that get close (because in real life you’d kill the people operating the siege weapon with swords and not torches).

The only counter to siege today is siege (springalds) but in all other Age games, siege really is countered by anything that gets close.

The goal is to have a unit that is very high damage if it manages to land a hit and can be protected, but siege units alone on the field is a sure fire way to waste resources.

I’ve played AOE3 for 15+ years and this is misleading, in AOE3 on an equal game where both players are decent, you can only kill canons[siege] with other cannons. And if you ever tried to use infantry/cav you could lose half if not all to only killing those cannons

After having played AOE4 the feeling is mutual as to the one in AOE3 when it comes to Siege in general.

To add to this topic just my personal opinion siege cannot be weaker than they already are, currently they are somewhat slow and take some time to set up. Anything more slower or weaker would make them useless. I understand and respect peoples point of view when it comes to realism, but this is a video game.

The moment siege can’t really deal vs mass of units which is hard enough already in 1v1. It becomes a problem and solutions are not many.

In aoe3 we have an effect called Snare which most Melee units can apply and this helps a lot when facing too many melee units when using a meatshield+Siege[canons] Then In aoe4 there is free movement for the most part and not much can stop 10+ horses from going on top of your siege and killing 1