There’s a lot of ideas thrown around, but what would be the simplest way to fix siegefest without having to rebalance every other unit that exists? Balancing out siege is great, but what I fear is the fallout of undertuning sieges and/or breaking the meta of the game. So, I propose these relatively simple balance changes that more or less slightly tunes existing units and removing certain upgrades:
Remove Siege Works upgrade
Remove Greased Axles upgrade
Give Siege Works upgrade bonuses to Clock Tower and remove +50% bonus
Knock down bombard/cannon health by 120 across all civs
Increase culverin move speed to 0.90 (honestly, what were the balance team thinking, to make an anti siege slower than bombards?)… with good micro, you should be able to beat bombards even with much fewer numbers
Buff trebuchet damage vs buildings by 50, decrease rng… Fix trebuchet in general; there’s lots wrong with it.
The idea is that 1) infantry run-in should be effective in dealing with sieges by having them slower, 2) cavalry should be more effective to run in also, 3) a good springald/culverin micro should be able to defeat bombards even with fewer numbers, 4) severely down-tune Chinese bombards and bombards in general, and 5) remove resource/time barriers of upgrading sieges before making them.
Moreover, in castle, trebuchets should be much more effective at quickly knocking down walls and towers, exposing mangonels/nest of bees behind them. As for mangonels vs melee units, I don’t think there’s too much of a problem. It’s melee units vs bombards that’s problematic.
Siege damage is fine for the most part, in my opinion. It’s the counter siege play that’s completely out of whack in this game.
Edit: There is no specific thread about simply tweaking existing stats/tech in the game without changing the meta too much. In the megathread elsewhere, folks say things like “make sieges more like aoe2” and “I think it’s good to refer to the siege ‘concept’ in Age of Empires IV because it does feel like siege aren’t a tweak away from being in a healthy place.” They are suggestions or sentiments that want to drastically change how siege plays. What I want to suggest is relatively minor tweaks to the existing meta.
There is already a topic about it, why do you feel the need to open a new one?
Anyway I agree that siege needs to be nerfed, but the methods you have presented are wrong and badly thought of in my opinion.
1: Removing siege works upgrade(I guess you meant siege eng) ? Really? Removing options is the worst thing you could do. Removing player choice to nerf a unit is such a bad game design choice.
2: same as 1
3: How does it solve any issue? You just address China specifically, and nerf the only viable landmark they have. So an entire landmark for a single upgrade? Are you serious?
4: Ok suggestion, just dull.
5: same as 1
6: Increase range is better than increase speed. Half the problem with siege is it can run away from units, why do you want Culverin to be able to run away from units as well?
7: Trebs probably need a slight buff you’re right, tho I think that once other siege is nerfed they’ll seem more viable. I do still find them useful, when you have a defensive position yet can’t push they are the way to go.
There are alot of good ideas in the other thread I suggest you read them.
Many suggested siege to be slower, and that torch damage would simply be more effective(x2?) against siege units that are not siege towers or rams, I actually think thats all that is needed to fix the issue. It incentivizes players to keep their siege safe from melee attacks, which is true to life and a fun gameplay mechanic as you’ll have to keep formation so they won’t be swarmed.
The mod can push this post to the other one if so desired. But there is no topic about finding the simplest way without shifting the meta specifically. The mega thread that already exists is convoluted with insults. Also, most suggestions would change the game too much.
I meant Siege Works. Not siege engineering. It’s a tech that gives 20% hp increase with +3 rnaged armor. Also, this upgrade is not a choice to be made. It’s mandatory to keep your sieges relevant right now. Providing players with an upgrade that you have no choice but to click to have a chance at winning the game is not really much of a choice.
If you are serious about tuning down siege, yeah. You need to nerf clockwork. A whopping 50% is too much. 20% keeps things more leveled
12 range of Chinese bombards is the reason why anti siege play with culverins and springalds is not viable. If you put up fully upgraded clocktower bombards against equal resources culverins, culverins will not come out on top. That should not happen.
My take might be a little more extreme than the takes being discussed here, simply because everyone keeps talking about “balancing” changes, as if “balancing” is somehow a magic silver bullet.
I think the problems here are much deeper and the game needs to be more fundamentally re-thought. Although this will likely never happen, they might want to start with removing most siege weapons all together (maybe keep the mangonel for grouped units and the trebuchet for walls, but scrap everything else and reintroduce it once each unit has been thought through deeply and its role has been clearly established?).
To be clear, I know this isn’t a realistic suggestion and that I’m probably in a minority with suggestions to rip out the kitchen sink for entire aspects of the game, but hey, it’s how I feel given that I didn’t get the game that I had hoped for.
Frankly, I also feel this way about:
Water maps and ships – they were clearly added into the game hastily and not much effort or thought was put into making naval warfare and water maps as exciting as any other aspect of the game. Remove water maps and harbors and offer it later as free DLC?
Destruction animations – every building is a 4 piece puzzle
Graphics more broadly – so much love is missing in this regard, from the UI to each and every single unit/building/animation for each and every civ getting unique and detailed skins