Springald Changes

[Thunder]

Springald movement speed decreased
Springald cost increased from 400 to 500 resources
Springald base damage reduced from 60 to 30
Springald bonus damage to siege increased from 20 to 90 (80 to 120 total)

[ARCAGNELL0]

Escrito originalmente por Banknes:

springalds will be doing too much dmg to siege now. as it alrdy took 4-5 spring shots to down 1 siege. 20-90dmg increase is 4.5x its base. meaning they will literally almost 1 shot any siege now. it is NOW a WOODEN CULVERIN & this is only nerfing civs, with "access to culverins" by making culverins utterly useless now. other than the fact that they will have a bit longer range. Because why? getting hit with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bolt twice the size of a human shouldn't actually 1 shot a infantry / cav unit? imo thats more realistic. & what they should've done is just increase the reload time / reduce the range. watching an archer take 3 springalds to the chest before dying is just dumb. giving this bonus vs siege is just ridiculous. 1 spring = bye bye any siege. relic is off their rockers.

A Culverin still one-shots any Springald, including the Clockwork ones from the chinese even if they also get the upgrade giving them ranged armor and 10 more health (I think? I did not find any enemy mad enough to try and contest my Chinese Bombards with their own culverins, cannons and bombards recently).

Just remember to aim each one of your Culverins at a different springald and you'll be deleting their Spring blob in no time.

A Springald on the other hand will still take 5 shots to even take down a Culverin (it was 6 before), assuming there are no villagers repairing it, which is rare.

The Culverin has a higher range than even the Rus Springalds, and the fact it has no set up time makes it really good at poking enemy artillery and then falling back to not get shot at.

With all of that said, I would have also preferred they fiddled with Springald damage in a different way:

Keeping the base damage at 60, reducing range by 1, increasing reload time by 33% while also giving Springs +60 damage vs siege and +60 damage vs ships would have been better in my opinion.

They would still do as much damage as a giant pole sized bolt should against infantry and cav, but their DPS would be really subpar against anything that's not enemy siege or ships.

The only springalds which would not get fire rate and range nerfs would be the ones on both Outposts and Stone Towers, they are very disapponting as they are still from castle age onwards, nerfing them further would not be a good idea.

[Viscule]

Escrito originalmente por ARCAGNELL0:

Escrito originalmente por Banknes:

springalds will be doing too much dmg to siege now. as it alrdy took 4-5 spring shots to down 1 siege. 20-90dmg increase is 4.5x its base. meaning they will literally almost 1 shot any siege now. it is NOW a WOODEN CULVERIN & this is only nerfing civs, with "access to culverins" by making culverins utterly useless now. other than the fact that they will have a bit longer range. Because why? getting hit with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bolt twice the size of a human shouldn't actually 1 shot a infantry / cav unit? imo thats more realistic. & what they should've done is just increase the reload time / reduce the range. watching an archer take 3 springalds to the chest before dying is just dumb. giving this bonus vs siege is just ridiculous. 1 spring = bye bye any siege. relic is off their rockers.

A Culverin still one-shots any Springald, including the Clockwork ones from the chinese even if they also get the upgrade giving them ranged armor and 10 more health (I think? I did not find any enemy mad enough to try and contest my Chinese Bombards with their own culverins, cannons and bombards recently).

Just remember to aim each one of your Culverins at a different springald and you'll be deleting their Spring blob in no time.

A Springald on the other hand will still take 5 shots to even take down a Culverin (it was 6 before), assuming there are no villagers repairing it, which is rare.

The Culverin has a higher range than even the Rus Springalds, and the fact it has no set up time makes it really good at poking enemy artillery and then falling back to not get shot at.

With all of that said, I would have also preferred they fiddled with Springald damage in a different way:

Keeping the base damage at 60, reducing range by 1, increasing reload time by 33% while also giving Springs +60 damage vs siege and +60 damage vs ships would have been better in my opinion.

They would still do as much damage as a giant pole sized bolt should against infantry and cav, but their DPS would be really subpar against anything that's not enemy siege or ships.

The only springalds which would not get fire rate and range nerfs would be the ones on both Outposts and Stone Towers, they are very disapponting as they are still from castle age onwards, nerfing them further would not be a good idea.

The base dmg was the main issue, as it could delete any unit. Not just Siege. Reduce base dmg a lot and buff bonus dmg vs siege. Which they did.

[Slaytherine]

Escrito originalmente por ARCAGNELL0:

Aye, I'll finally be able to actually use Nests Of Bees now, since many civs will probably use less Springalds and more siege that's actually useful against enemy cavalry and Infantry.

Also don't forget that the Springald now doing 120 damage against siege actually turns it into a ram push hardcounter now, if you manage to get to Castle age and get one out in time.

A Ram has 700 health and 30 Ranged armor, a Springald will deal 90 damage to it per bolt, allowing it to destroy a ram with 8 shots.

You're still probably going to need more than double the number of Springalds to deal with Chinese Bombards, since they 1-shot all springalds but Chinese ones, have over 900 health and have even more range than any Springald but the Rus ones, which I think have almost the same range.

The damage is significantly higher, and few springald could actually rekt nest of bees. So I doubt you'll be able to recourse to Nest of Bees now without playing the Springald war.

[Snuggy Serian]

When i started with AoE4 and saw how much more units do against specific units, i was afraid it could turn out like this.
Building so much more damage as bonus then base damage, that the usage against other types becomes invalid.
I really hope it will get further changes.

[Sonnenbank]

Huge nerf to Abbasid imo.
around 12-14 minute
springhold push with spearmens was their strongest move

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por Xaphnir:

I know they were overperforming, but were they overperforming that much? That is a gigantic nerf.

They're meant to be anti siege. They're probably slightly better at that specifically now. The unit doesn't need to destroy non siege units to have a niche in the game.

Imo if they're viable unit counters they're probably over performing vs units, and they were way better than viable. So I think that nerf is a justifiable amount.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por Banknes:

springalds will be doing too much dmg to siege now. as it alrdy took 4-5 spring shots to down 1 siege. 20-90dmg increase is 4.5x its base. meaning they will literally almost 1 shot any siege now. it is NOW a WOODEN CULVERIN & this is only nerfing civs, with "access to culverins" by making culverins utterly useless now. other than the fact that they will have a bit longer range. Because why? getting hit with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bolt twice the size of a human shouldn't actually 1 shot a infantry / cav unit? imo thats more realistic. & what they should've done is just increase the reload time / reduce the range. watching an archer take 3 springalds to the chest before dying is just dumb. giving this bonus vs siege is just ridiculous. 1 spring = bye bye any siege. relic is off their rockers.

No that's not how it works. Damage = base + bonus. You can't just compare the bonus damage.

The OP spelled it out for you. Its a 50% damage bonus vs siege compared to before.

If they increase reload decrease range, its no longer anti siege. The whole point is to make it a siege counter. If you want realism, everything would do more damage. Springalds would be nerfed simply because they'd be relatively weaker after soldiers started limping after taking 1-2 crossbow shots and ended up dying from an infection. And ofc when they missed all the time.

[Banknes]

Escrito originalmente por Cacomistle:

Escrito originalmente por Banknes:

springalds will be doing too much dmg to siege now. as it alrdy took 4-5 spring shots to down 1 siege. 20-90dmg increase is 4.5x its base. meaning they will literally almost 1 shot any siege now. it is NOW a WOODEN CULVERIN & this is only nerfing civs, with "access to culverins" by making culverins utterly useless now. other than the fact that they will have a bit longer range. Because why? getting hit with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bolt twice the size of a human shouldn't actually 1 shot a infantry / cav unit? imo thats more realistic. & what they should've done is just increase the reload time / reduce the range. watching an archer take 3 springalds to the chest before dying is just dumb. giving this bonus vs siege is just ridiculous. 1 spring = bye bye any siege. relic is off their rockers.

No that's not how it works. Damage = base + bonus. You can't just compare the bonus damage.

The OP spelled it out for you. Its a 50% damage bonus vs siege compared to before.

If they increase reload decrease range, its no longer anti siege. The whole point is to make it a siege counter. If you want realism, everything would do more damage. Springalds would be nerfed simply because they'd be relatively weaker after soldiers started limping after taking 1-2 crossbow shots and ended up dying from an infection. And ofc when they missed all the time.

lmaoooo & 50% isn't huge? its an unnecessary buff to springalds. The dmg per shot to cav / infantry units was fine. Idk how increasing the reload time / lowering distance a bit, somehow makes you think it will just be completely ineffective against siege units now, a bit dramatic. Culverin movement speed + the cost will leave them being unmade & as i said prior, this change only hinders civs that have access to culverins.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por Banknes:

Escrito originalmente por Cacomistle:

No that's not how it works. Damage = base + bonus. You can't just compare the bonus damage.

The OP spelled it out for you. Its a 50% damage bonus vs siege compared to before.

If they increase reload decrease range, its no longer anti siege. The whole point is to make it a siege counter. If you want realism, everything would do more damage. Springalds would be nerfed simply because they'd be relatively weaker after soldiers started limping after taking 1-2 crossbow shots and ended up dying from an infection. And ofc when they missed all the time.

lmaoooo & 50% isn't huge? its an unnecessary buff to springalds. The dmg per shot to cav / infantry units was fine. Idk how increasing the reload time / lowering distance a bit, somehow makes you think it will just be completely ineffective against siege units now, a bit dramatic. Culverin movement speed + the cost will leave them being unmade & as i said prior, this change only hinders civs that have access to culverins.

Ok you have 2 lines fighting each other. A bombard has 10 range, so its shooting at that line from 10 range away. How do you shoot the bombard if your siege doesn't have longer range? You'll just end up walking into the line of units and getting your siege deleted. Even worse vs Chinese bombards which would outrange them (springalds already lose to them anyways).

Bombards would also be able to return fire on them. Bombards currently have around the same damage per cost as springalds at about 200 for 1000 cost vs 80 for 400 cost. But bombards can be more easily repaired, and you've just lowered springalds fire rate. They'd lose to bombards, and even worse if the opponent has culverin.

Short range siege is anti unit, not anti siege. Siege is a backline unit, so you have to have the range to hit the backline to hit siege.

Besides, its not a massive buff. They're slower (so they can't get into position as fast to fire), and they cost more. 80 damage for 400 is .2 damage per cost, 120 damage for 500 is .24, its a 20% increase in damage per cost not 50%.

So basically, we've got a 20% increase in damage vs siege explicitly for the price of like a 70% decrease in damage vs units.

I honestly felt like bombards was one of the better units you could build against springalds. And they're supposed to counter bombards. So to me this makes a lot of sense.

Besides, its a way better solution than age of bombards after your change ideas hard nerf them against siege. I'm gonna be honest here, you don't even seem to know what the change is. I don't know why you think its so bad.

They also won't kill culverins. A culverin is basically a unit that gives you the win in the springald war because they 1 shot springalds. They're basically a better springald your civ gets acces too (other than I think they'll still be slower). Now that springalds don't kill units, I think there's actually less reason to build them over culverins (which were better in the anti siege role and still likely are). Rather than taking away reason to build culverin, this change is far more likely to take away culverin civs reason to build springalds.

[Subtle Butt ( >ω<)っ ♡]

There was really not much reason to build springalds if your civ had access to culverin in Imp anyways. Still, you're underselling how good springalds are vs any other bombard that isnt Chinese. They'll still outrange them, cost half the resources and I think you forget that springalds do shoot faster than culverins so their anti siege damage is quite high. They effectively buffed it against siege by 50%. I wouldn't agree with the price nerf as well but we'll have to see it played out.

[Thunder]

Escrito originalmente por Subtle Butt:

They effectively buffed it against siege by 50%. I wouldn't agree with the price nerf as well but we'll have to see it played out.

Devs said price increase was needed because of the buff vs siege.