Siege mantlet re-balance

[Morningwarrior]

the siege mantlet is a kind of sidelined unit, although it has a very useful role of defending the unit inside and enabling ranged units to fire, it is quite raw and almost always left to one side by the player (I for example) that's why I've been thinking for a while about the status of this siege machine
Hp:25 to 30 to have a little more Hp, enabling her to be much less vulnerable to troops like swordsmen or knights.
Atk:N/A
Def:0/6 to 0/15 the pierce armor increased because when faced with a longbow archer with damage upgrade level 2, it can do good damage to the machine that offers protection against it, the same with the pavaise crossbowman -6 Hp plucked when in mode pavise deploy and upgrade damage level 2,he is very weak,but you can say "okay but even the unit that is attacking from a distance is exposed to ranged attacks from the unit that is inside" good and true but that is the intent of the machine, to protect the individual inside, besides, she is still quite vulnerable to melee and fire attacks.
Spd,rng,atk,sight,carry capacity,mental resistence and mend effects dont need changes for me is very balanced.
Well that's all, I'm curious to know what you who read think about.

[b2198]

imo buffing siege mantlets would make them op. I actually use them somewhat frequently, and know a player who REALLY extracts a lot of their potential (along with siege towers and wagons), and the only way I see they could be receving a stat buff would be if their cost was increased again, from 2 to 3 (so from 4 to 6 ambidexterity builder actions). The way I see it currently is that they are not supposed to be a very good protection for units inside, but a cheap protection that's useful for hiding which units you are attacking with, and they excel at that.

[Endru1241]

Mantlets still offer great protection for the cost.
Even mentioned deployed pavaise deals only 6, so it's 5 additional attacks resisted. That is not small amount.
For Elite Longbowmen it becomes 4 damage, so 7 additional attacks resisted.
Arbalests only 3, so 9 additional attacks.

Not to mention how it is on the game start, when enemy still doesn't have projectile damage.

[Morningwarrior]

And yes, I agree that it is a cheaper form of defense, yet it doesn't have much use against elite longbow archers when they're in good numbers, because they're also somewhat cheap, and of course they're a upgrade and has a high cost to be done, but the usefulness of the mantlet and resisting these types of strong ranged attacks can withstand 5 attacks, however, even though the troops inside the mint can have an advantage by being protected and attacking them from a distance. enemies, it would still be completely disadvantageous as the mantlet would not last long enough for the unit inside to finish off the enemy, I agree to make the mantlet more expensive to build as it would have stronger protection and being a little more resistant would make lives up to its name and usefulness.

[b2198]

Well, you could always make a siege tower if a big number of enemy archers is your problem, I doubt your opponent would be able to destroy those with normal arrows alone, and they can carry 3 units each, but of course take way longer to make (7 turns, or 15 actions by ambidexterity builders)

[b2198]

Shield knights, skirmishers and shielders also work wonders against archer spam, if that is your concern.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Speaking as someone who extracts a whole lot of potential out of mantlets, I feel they are fine for their job as they currently are - that job being (as mentioned) a cheap form of defence/ disguise for unit used. Consider them as disposable, perhaps they will only last for one turn, but that one turn gains you extra movement, soaks up archer attack, and tower/castle attacks (obviously fire damage will burn the mantlet by your turn but leave the unit unharmed). Can also be used as decoys...

But I do understand where @Morningwarrior is coming from, things like mantlets/wagons lose their utility as the game progresses as units and attacks upgrade, whereas they stay the same. Perhaps something to help bridge that gap could be useful. @Endru1241, you previously mentioned the possibility of units from Advancement Centre and another one for Blacksmith - perhaps one of those could be something like a Siege Master / Engineer / Something-or-other that does a better buffing role to machinery than the Smith (who's abilities could be limited to Flesh and Blood to avoid stacking if nec). Perhaps a choice of +2 +2 armours or +2 attack power, temporary reduction of miss chance if poss, plus a mend rate?

The way I see it currently is that they are not supposed to be a very good protection for units inside, but a cheap protection that's useful for hiding which units you are attacking with, and they excel at that.

In other words, I agree with b. But their is a slight issue here... If you destroy a siege mantlet (possibly any carrier) that contains a stealth unit, that unit is always visible immediately afterwards even if it shouldn't be. It is not targetable, and upon game exit and reload becomes invisible again, but it does give away the secret.

... skirmishers...

A strong contender for most underused unit in the entire game!

[phoenixffyrnig]

Speaking as someone who extracts a whole lot of potential out of mantlets, I feel they are fine for their job as they currently are - that job being (as mentioned) a cheap form of defence/ disguise for unit used. Consider them as disposable, perhaps they will only last for one turn, but that one turn gains you extra movement, soaks up archer attack, and tower/castle attacks (obviously fire damage will burn the mantlet by your turn but leave the unit unharmed). Can also be used as decoys...

But I do understand where @Morningwarrior is coming from, things like mantlets/wagons lose their utility as the game progresses as units and attacks upgrade, whereas they stay the same. Perhaps something to help bridge that gap could be useful. @Endru1241, you previously mentioned the possibility of units from Advancement Centre and another one for Blacksmith - perhaps one of those could be something like a Siege Master / Engineer / Something-or-other that does a better buffing role to machinery than the Smith (who's abilities could be limited to Flesh and Blood to avoid stacking if nec). Perhaps a choice of +2 +2 armours or +2 attack power, temporary reduction of miss chance if poss, plus a mend rate?

The way I see it currently is that they are not supposed to be a very good protection for units inside, but a cheap protection that's useful for hiding which units you are attacking with, and they excel at that.

In other words, I agree with b. But their is a slight issue here... If you destroy a siege mantlet (possibly any carrier) that contains a stealth unit, that unit is always visible immediately afterwards even if it shouldn't be. It is not targetable, and upon game exit and reload becomes invisible again, but it does give away the secret.

... skirmishers...

A strong contender for most underused unit in the entire game!

[phoenixffyrnig]

Alright @phoenixffyrnig, good points, but no need to repeat yourself

[b2198]

a player who REALLY extracts a lot of their potential (along with siege towers and wagons)

Speaking as someone who extracts a whole lot of potential out of mantlets

I wonder who that player might be

I feel they are fine for their job as they currently are - that job being (as mentioned) a cheap form of defence/ disguise for unit used. Consider them as disposable, perhaps they will only last for one turn, but that one turn gains you extra movement, soaks up archer attack, and tower/castle attacks (obviously fire damage will burn the mantlet by your turn but leave the unit unharmed). Can also be used as decoys...

But I do understand where @Morningwarrior is coming from, things like mantlets/wagons lose their utility as the game progresses as units and attacks upgrade, whereas they stay the same. Perhaps something to help bridge that gap could be useful. @Endru1241, you previously mentioned the possibility of units from Advancement Centre and another one for Blacksmith - perhaps one of those could be something like a Siege Master / Engineer / Something-or-other that does a better buffing role to machinery than the Smith (who's abilities could be limited to Flesh and Blood to avoid stacking if nec). Perhaps a choice of +2 +2 armours or +2 attack power, temporary reduction of miss chance if poss, plus a mend rate?

Perhaps an upgraded version of them would also help? I agree that when units and defenses get strong, their usefulness drops down a lot.

In other words, I agree with b. But their is a slight issue here... If you destroy a siege mantlet (possibly any carrier) that contains a stealth unit, that unit is always visible immediately afterwards even if it shouldn't be. It is not targetable, and upon game exit and reload becomes invisible again, but it does give away the secret.

Yeah, that bug is a bit annoying, along with the one that removes auras originated by the unit inside when the carrier dies.

A strong contender for most underused unit in the entire game!

A while ago I really thought they were weak and not worth making, but after facing a bunch of different archer spams recently, I've been finding them VERY useful to negate even herbalists + archers spams simply by out-damaging and out-surviving them (seriously, with both being at maximum buffs and upgrades, unbuffed master skirmishers can solo even a yumi samurai with both herbalist poisons if they attack first and have enough range for the second shot).

(Edit: they can't, because I forgot to add the armor from blacksmith buff and onmyoji buff to the yumi samurai, but still, if they have herb protection or either herbalist poison they can)

[Endru1241]

Endru1241, you previously mentioned the possibility of units from Advancement Centre and another one for Blacksmith - perhaps one of those could be something like a Siege Master / Engineer / Something-or-other that does a better buffing role to machinery than the Smith (who's abilities could be limited to Flesh and Blood to avoid stacking if nec). Perhaps a choice of +2 +2 armours or +2 attack power, temporary reduction of miss chance if poss, plus a mend rate?

Perhaps an upgraded version of them would also help? I agree that when units and defenses get strong, their usefulness drops down a lot.

Mantlets are currently balanced somewhere in the middle - to not be too strong in the game start and yet still somehow useful on the end.
Common problem for units without upgrades.
If upgrade would be made - original would probably need to be slightly nerfed, while upgraded one being a little better.

As for tech bonuses - there is a need for siege machines attack boost, so I don't see any reason why not add armor boosts along.
Actually - it's only logical, that to keep balance it would be then needed and even now for many non-building constructs it would make things interesting.

In other words, I agree with b. But their is a slight issue here... If you destroy a siege mantlet (possibly any carrier) that contains a stealth unit, that unit is always visible immediately afterwards even if it shouldn't be. It is not targetable, and upon game exit and reload becomes invisible again, but it does give away the secret.

Unfortunately - stratego spend few days on trying various ways to get rid of stealth unit visibility bugs, but without success.
For now I am pretty sure it must be vivid in his memory as something bad, so I doubt there would be an attempt any time soon.

...along with the one that removes auras originated by the unit inside when the carrier dies.

Well - auras are generally quite buggy, but at least here the removal is proper (no stat changes left) and player only needs to move unit with aura to kick it on again.
Although I believe, I haven't seen any bug report about that.

... skirmishers...

A strong contender for most underused unit in the entire game!

Maybe the reason is that main point of skirmishers - p.armor to survive many ranged attacks without any need of additional protection is still not enough against proper archer spam?
Or usage of cannon towers nullifying their advantage against defences?
Or too many axe throwers?

And yet - considering, that I never nerfed any part of skirmishers, while on the other hand - gave them various (but slight) boosts, imagine what would it be if they were completely left alone?

Speaking of boosts - I was thinking some time ago about giving them +20% or +30% hp and same bonus damage vs irregular infantry on regular medium infantry (swordsmen like). Possibly also remove heavy infantry bonus against ranged flesh and blood.
Skirmishers would benefit, all other irregular infantry would get slight nerf.
All medium infantry would get slight boost.
Mounted archers/skirmishers would also benefit.

[b2198]

Although I believe, I haven't seen any bug report about that.

Oh, really? I must have forgotten about that one, gonna post it then.

Mantlets are currently balanced somewhere in the middle - to not be too strong in the game start and yet still somehow useful on the end.
Common problem for units without upgrades.
If upgrade would be made - original would probably need to be slightly nerfed, while upgraded one being a little better.

Yeah, that makes sense.

As for tech bonuses - there is a need for siege machines attack boost, so I don't see any reason why not add armor boosts along.
Actually - it's only logical, that to keep balance it would be then needed and even now for many non-building constructs it would make things interesting.

Nice.

Unfortunately - stratego spend few days on trying various ways to get rid of stealth unit visibility bugs, but without success.
For now I am pretty sure it must be vivid in his memory as something bad, so I doubt there would be an attempt any time soon.

Yeah, visual bugs can get pretty hard to fix sometimes, perhaps it will be easier to fix it in the Unity version, since it will be an entirely different rendering system.

Maybe the reason is that main point of skirmishers - p.armor to survive many ranged attacks without any need of additional protection is still not enough against proper archer spam?
Or usage of cannon towers nullifying their advantage against defences?
Or too many axe throwers?

And yet - considering, that I never nerfed any part of skirmishers, while on the other hand - gave them various (but slight) boosts, imagine what would it be if they were completely left alone?

I was thinking some time ago about giving them +20% or +30% hp

Actually, I think they're mostly fine where they are, but yeah, hp is their main problem, since they can get bursted quite easily by high damage archers if the opponent was faster on the research side (also herbalist poisons, but that's for another topic).

and same bonus damage vs irregular infantry on regular medium infantry (swordsmen like). Possibly also remove heavy infantry bonus against ranged flesh and blood.
Skirmishers would benefit, all other irregular infantry would get slight nerf.
All medium infantry would get slight boost.
Mounted archers/skirmishers would also benefit.

That would be nice, mounted archers and skirmishers are in a kinda bad spot (except for herbalist+yabusame/mongolian), and I feel irregular infantry don't have enough bonuses against them overall, so this should help with both of these.

[phoenixffyrnig]

I'm not sure if skirmishers need much buffing either. What I meant was that they are not being used anywhere near as much as they should be, not that they aren't worth it in current form.

As b mentions, archer spam is a fairly common tactic, so it baffles me that generally people don't apply an anti-archer strat that in the main, works perfectly well

[Endru1241]

I'm not sure if skirmishers need much buffing either. What I meant was that they are not being used anywhere near as much as they should be, not that they aren't worth it in current form.

As b mentions, archer spam is a fairly common tactic, so it baffles me that generally people don't apply an anti-archer strat that in the main, works perfectly well

I was planning to increase their HP and give swordsmen bonus against them a long time ago.
The reasons are to give them clear enemy and to make AI try to target skirmishers with melee units a little more.

What I am mentioning here is something like HP change 8/10/14->10/13/16.
With +25% damage bonus added to swordsmen and all units taking bonuses from them.
So kinda making players more likely use Medium Infantry, instead of Heavy Infantry.
And maybe skirmishers would be somewhat more likely to be used as ranged support.

It would surely impact the game, but cavalry would break through them just the same.

Additional effect would be a little more poison resistance and more archer attacks survived.
I think it shouldn't be enough to suddenly make them OP.

[phoenixffyrnig]

It would surely impact the game, but cavalry would break through them just the same.

Oh good, I'm glad someone knows how to counter skirmishers properly

Yeah, I would certainly not oppose those changes since I already use them frequently. And tbh, you are right, a) they wouldn't be OP (when properly countered) and b) from my experience here, the majority of players do need some encouragement to try new things. What do we have, 200plus units? So many players stick to a choice of about 2 dozen or so, the "tried and tested". Variety is the spice of life. To quote a horrible song, some people really do need to spice up their life!

[Morningwarrior]

It's good, a focus also on skirmishers would be perfectly good too, I came up with some ideas in my head. going back to the mantlet, i must say that they are a cheap way to defend your unit inside it, and that they are useful in the early game, but, they could be more resistant to ranged attacks, with an extra Hp or what for me and better and makes more sense, a higher P.armor, it doesn't necessarily need to be 15, on average 10 or 8 would be good, since I remembered that the ballista's attack is considered P.armor and being a 15 of P.armor from the mantel against 12 damage from the ballista at its maximum and fixed upgrade, it would deal a mere 1 damage...it doesn't make much sense and would somehow break its usefulness, making a very unbalanced counterattack against the ballista, it has the encirclement mode of ballista that throws rocks and deals bodily damage, yes, but the basics and no research needed should work too. so let's soften the possible new status of the mantlet HP:30 to 28 P.armor: 15 to 8 or 9 (I don't know which would be the most efficient for a good balance)

[Endru1241]

Even if upgrade would be added - I was thinking of more like:
HP 22 -> 28, armors 0/4 -> 1/7.

I see no reason why cheap unit should be able to be any stronger.

[b2198]

Even if upgrade would be added - I was thinking of more like:
HP 22 -> 28, armors 0/4 -> 1/7.

Maybe 0/5 -> 1/7 in armor? Otherwise it would become a bit too weak against arrows in the early-ish game imo.

22 hp 0/4 dies in 8 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 6 with ranged damage +1 and 5 with ranged damage +2, 4 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

22 hp 0/5 dies in 11 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 8 with ranged damage +1 and 6 with ranged damage +2, 5 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

(current)
25 0/6 dies in 25 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 13 with ranged damage +1 and 9 with ranged damage +2, 7 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

elite longbow with +2 ranged damage is achievable by turn 11 with 2 starting TCs and few starting units, without using money couriers to rush it, and arbalest with +2 ranged damage is achievable by turn 14 under the same conditions.

I see no reason why cheap unit should be able to be any stronger.

But yeah, I agree, they are too spammable to be directly buffed by that much.

[Endru1241]

That's exactly the point.
Skirmishers die mich easier against upgraded enemy archers if you skip your own upgrades.

And 0/4 is enough to be almost unbreakable on the start.
11 attacks for 3 turn longbowmen, 22 for 2 turns archers.
Only starts to be vulnerable if some investments towards archers are made - either an upgrade or blacksmith.

Mantlet without upgrade going against enemy arbalests would mean you skipped building siege workshop, but enemy got their archery range, so deal with consequences of lacking upgrade.

If we also add armor bonuses from advancements (or blacksmith) - similar +2/+2 to some set if siege machines, then properly deal with fully upgraded and blacksmith boosted archers the same as on the start - it would be needed too.
Both cases two buildings needed.
Only research time would be varied, because siege mantlet, as specialised unit needs to be cheaper to boost than general purpose archers.

[b2198]

If we also add armor bonuses from advancements (or blacksmith) - similar +2/+2 to some set if siege machines, then properly deal with fully upgraded and blacksmith boosted archers the same as on the start - it would be needed too.

Only research time would be varied, because siege mantlet, as specialised unit needs to be cheaper to boost than general purpose archers.

Hm, ok, considering those points, and the stats in the upgraded version, I think that's fair enough.

[Morningwarrior]

Even if upgrade would be added - I was thinking of more like:
HP 22 -> 28, armors 0/4 -> 1/7.

I see no reason why cheap unit should be able to be any stronger.

it could be iron mantel or reinforced mantel, for me reinforced mantel and better, the iron mantel can be in the future, and at the moment there is only one siege unit that has 3 lines of improvement which is the ram, but the game would be very good If the mantelete status, if the intention is to even be a cheap siege unit to be built, then it's ok to think about improving it instead.

[Morningwarrior]

Even if upgrade would be added - I was thinking of more like:
HP 22 -> 28, armors 0/4 -> 1/7.

Maybe 0/5 -> 1/7 in armor? Otherwise it would become a bit too weak against arrows in the early-ish game imo.

22 hp 0/4 dies in 8 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 6 with ranged damage +1 and 5 with ranged damage +2, 4 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

22 hp 0/5 dies in 11 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 8 with ranged damage +1 and 6 with ranged damage +2, 5 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

(current)
25 0/6 dies in 25 shots to arbalest without ranged damage, 13 with ranged damage +1 and 9 with ranged damage +2, 7 if elite longbow instead of arbalest.

elite longbow with +2 ranged damage is achievable by turn 11 with 2 starting TCs and few starting units, without using money couriers to rush it, and arbalest with +2 ranged damage is achievable by turn 14 under the same conditions.

I see no reason why cheap unit should be able to be any stronger.

But yeah, I agree, they are too spammable to be directly buffed by that much.

and true, it could be an easily spammable machine.

[godOfKings]

The problem that units can still attack from inside mantlet that is garrisoned in something else still exists so some of us forumers discussed a temporary solution @Endru1241


Packed mantlet:
Cannot carry unit, speed same as normal mantlet, health and armor probably same as well, but it can b garrisoned into anything while the normal version cannot b garrisoned (mantlets still need to enter transport ships so the packed version can do the job)

The packed version can also enter tc like battering ram

[Endru1241]

It shouldn't allow to shoot from garrisons, that normally won't allow shooting.
This is straight up bug.

And it should normally allow shooting from TC, so I don't know the idea around limiting that.

[phoenixffyrnig]

It shouldn't allow to shoot from garrisons, that normally won't allow shooting.
This is straight up bug.

And it should normally allow shooting from TC, so I don't know the idea around limiting that.

What if there was a recategorising that distinguished carriers that allowed attacking and carriers that don't, (eg calling carriers that don't allow attack such as wagons and transport ships "transports" aswell) - could we then apply an "is in transport uses action" spec? Would that be able to override a mantlet or siege tower allowing attack when they were inside a transport? Or giving a transport an aura that removes action or ability? And then upon exiting it would allow attack as per normal ?

[Endru1241]

What spec?

I don't recall anything like that.
There is "No attack if garrisoned", which could be applied by aura.
But making either:
Aura for mantlet, that applies aura on carriers, that don't allow shooting, that applies said spec.
Or
Making an aura that applies said spec and giving it to all not allowing shooting carriers

Is pretty complicated.
Especially when talking about a bug.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Lack of clarity on my part, apologies - I was meaning creating a new spec that did that. But that probably isn't easy either

[Endru1241]

Needs engine change.
Just like a bugfix.

The latter one being in that case probably easier change in that case.