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.
No not really.
Jannis are usually used as a castle age unit to go aggressive with. They excel at being microed a lot but don’t scale super well into late. Shatagni hc on the other hand are a late game unit that are great when in large numbers.
Hindustanis ca aren’t even FU while turks have a bonus here. Cav archer hussar was somewhat common with old indians but you don’t see it that often with hindustanis. In fact I think old indians with extra pa was more similar to turks than hindustanis are now.
That seems pretty random especially as hindustani bonus is UT so comes in pretty late.
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.
Hindustanis:
Turks: