Anyone here treats the Hindustanis as the second Turks? considering the following facts:
Hand Cannoneers with Shatagni would literally be on par with Janissaries.
There are times where people prefer making Cav Archers over Hand Cannoneers, which is also the same as for Turk, or any other steppe civ.
Both Turks and Hindustanis have bonus regarding gold income. Turks get mining bonus, and Hindustanis get Grand Trunk Road.
hindustanis get fully upgraded elite skirmishers, Turks can’t even upgrade to Elite
Turks get FU cavalier, Hindustanis dont even get knights.
these are some huge differences
no, turks historically were weak as heck, and only good in certain situations. and while they are better now, they are still pretty much relegated to closed maps only.
if anything is a turks 2.0 its basically bohemians.
while I agree they are more similar it’s still very different:
turks have amazing hussars, bohemians some of the worst light cav in the game
bohemians have some of the best halbs, turks dont even get pikes
It’s accurate if Hindustanis are similar to Turks. Mughals and Ottomans were both very similar. Guns and Sipahis.
If I were to redesign both Hindustanis and Turks then I would’ve made a lot of changes by today’s design.
- Becoming a Gunpowder + Cavalry civ. IRL, they were never well known for Camels. Imperial Camel should belong to Arab/African civ. There were very few well known use of Camels and wasn’t their main. Gurjaras should follow same pattern.
- A new Sipahi Knight unit becoming a regional Knight UU for Tatars, Turks and Hindustanis.
- Jannisaries becoming Hand Cannon and Infantry switch unit. In IRL they were very skilled in hand to hand combat as well.
- Orban/Great Bombard as a unique Trebuchet upgrade if researched Artillery.