The Blast Radius (Area of effect) and buff suggestion to bombard cannons

The blast radius is a gameplay element that describes attacks that can affect multiple targets within a specified area.

The Mangonels have “1” blast radius, Onagers “1.25”, siege onagers “1.5” and Bombard cannon “0.5”.
I suggest to make the bombard cannons like the normal mangonel have a 1 blast radius damage and in general it will be a good buff for the gunpowdes civs like Indians and Italians and will be very helpful to use the bombard cannons to kill troops not only to destroy castles or buildings

I should keep a list of everything that had both nerf and buff proposals in these forums, that’s going to be a looooooooong one. Regardless if you want a siege weapon that has the splash radius of a mangonel, use mangonels.


I know but if the Bombard cannon have the same blast radius as mangonels it will be very helpful and way better than mangonel with it’s 12 range and it is more easy to micro with. In fast imp strats especially it will be very good to have this radius in fighting

If you buff blast radius of Bombard Cannon. There will be no chance to micro Onagers and all of them will be gone.

Do every single balance suggestion but not the blast radius. I think all of units has balanced blast radius. Also think about Ethiopian Torsion Engines.

Ans why do you think giving the Bombard cannon “1” blast radius will making them unbalanced?!

Giving knight attack to light cav would be very “helpful” for using them, but is it a good idea? Bombards and onagers have different advantages and downsides and that’s perfectly fine.


Ethiopians will have 1.45 blast radius and this makes harder to micro your Siege Onagers against them.

You are talking like the whole game will be “Onagers vs Cannons” but it is not man.

It will be good to use cannons in fighting too and it will not be a siege battle the whole game, people using cannons against castles only and actually they are more expensive than trebs, giving them a better blast radius will be good

The gist of your argument appears to be “BBC should have more AOE than mangonels because it’ll help gunpowder civs”?
It’s not a good idea because

  1. Not only gunpowder civs use BBC. A lot of civs have access to then actually.
  2. With that much AOE BBC would become the dominant siege weapons, to the point they’d make all other siege weapons obsolete
  3. I already see more BBC than SO

Because Bombard Cannons Anti-Siege siege unit and anti-building. Sometimes nice shoots to stacked units nice. Mangonels has 40 attack and Bombard Cannons has 40 attack too. So in Imp it makes more ranged anti siege mangonels.

Bombard Cannons nice and used unit. They are expensive than Trebuchets with less range but they don’t need to pack/unpack.

1 Like

No not only gunpowder civs, i mean in general bombard cannons have been used in battles vs infantry too to their blast damage not only vs castles, i don’t think that they will be broken especially they are imperial siege unit and they are the most expensive siege unit in the game.

But at least the should have the normal mangonel blast radius, i am asking just giving them +0.5 to their original 0.5 blast not making them 1.5 blast radius!

Ethiopians has a unique technology named as Torsion Engines, it increases blast radius of siege units. Pretty dangerous technology because of friendly fire.

Mangonel line specialty is throwing stones at large area. There is no way to a bombard cannon going to have same blast radius except Ethiopians.

1 Like

But whats your argumentation that doubling the stat of a unit that is superb range and attack has no influence? Why have always other convince you of it not to be silly, and then it is even hard to find the right spot to convince you. Why not you try to serve more insight into your proposal and do the work behind the thought and dont do others put into the spot of need to convince you, when you try to convince us. Why you always just base anything just on, hey it wouldnt be that op right and then put others into the duty of delivery.

The only thing you bother is, as so often, the mere value of a number. Without any deeper argumentation. You just dont like this number or that number. But thats not what balance is about. Not at all. You have very odd expectations towards the game and seem to be very on the hunt to find numbers to be changed everywhere for whatever reason.

1 Like

What the hell are you talking about numbers or why am i putting numbers? I write numbers to reach the idea and to be clear to all and to show that if there will be a change it will not be that big as may people think, i don’t care about the number itself, because without numbers people will not see the full view of the change or they might think “OMG! this will be broken if they did this!” But actually it is not. Like if i am saying the CA have a frame delay of 1s just make it 0.9 and 0.8 to HCA this is not all about numbers but to make it CLEAR and many people don’t understand the effect of the changes until they saw the NUMBERS

You say: BBC 0.5 mangonel 1.0

Thats all you do and you find it it odd that this Imp superiours siege unit has half the blast radius of the simple castle age mangonel or I am wrong ?

On an unrelated note:
You know I find it odd that knights have same pierce armour as villagers after loom. A glorious knight in castle age and a simple peasant in Dark Age. Would it be that unbalanced if you gave knights +1 PA. Its not much, just 33% more, it cant be that unbalanced. And it would be very interesting to change that .


Yeah it should be better than that for an imp unit that costs 225g, 225w and if the game put the blast radius for the BBC “1” from the beginning would you say “OMG it is broken reduce it” ?!

I said this many times and i will say it again "people are always afraid of change

Oh yeah especially the vills have 100hp

Or you are very laissez-faire with your ideas and just have the will to change anything that isnt on the tree after counting to three. Remember you wanted to change the berry gathering rate because its number was too small for your eyes.

You see, we take more than one single number into account. BBC are a single unit counter. They should take out siege one by one not all in one shot. They are also very less a unit to be anti unit siege but anti building and anti siege. Therefore they have long range and high attack to take out siege in one shot while being safe. Meanwhile they cost a lot since they can make you lose several siege units like trebs that are not that cheaper than bbc in a hurry.

Transforming them into a unit that can iron a whole bunch of archers will hurt a lot of civs not having bbc because bbc are hard to counter when set into the right composition. The whole arena meta assembles around civs having BBC as a keypoint for their strength. If you make BBC stronger civs like Aztecs Slavs or Celts will fall off and you just have achieved a more narrow game and less competition.