Buff turks after 20 years (ideas from a 1600+ player)

Translate the effect of sipahi (20hp) for CA to a civ bonus and give Sipahi as an UT 15 hp for all Stable Units. The idea behind this is that Ca in CA with 90 hp after Bloodline will counter Crossbows more effectively and can take 1 more unintentionally pike poke. Cavalry units with 15 more hp will be more durable against archer units and will perform about the same against halbs. So Arbs +Halbs will still perform well against turks but will no longer kill the turks late game combo with CA and Hussars instantly.

Turks have a weakness against archers but ALSO against cavalry (basically against everything) cuz of lack of pikes. In this regard a 15hp bonus granted from sipahi would buff their camels against cavalry and strengthen their Hussars /chevalier against archers.
Sipahi would help turks as a pocket player by competing with other strong chevalier civs as well.

For all “haters” 20 more hp for Ca in CA are not better than free thumb ring (tatars) which enhance the DPS dramatically at the beginning of Castle Age. In fact Thumb ring is so important but so pricy that most players pick this upgrade mid to late castle up.

In addition to that i would argue 110 hp Hussars in Imp are not better than Cumans Hussars which get created in an instant.

I am open for criticism and changes my only hope is that the aoe2 community begins to understand that turks are lackluster in 1vs1 arabia and no pro picks them even after the recent buff to their scout line.

Btw frankly i don’t think these changes will be enough to make turks viable so we can further play with the whole turk theme idea which begin with a nomad civ which evolved to an gunpowder civ. Artillery (a very expensive tec) should, in addition to its usual effect, make all gunpowder units 100% accurate against non moving targets and get the effect of ballistic (like the Portuguese UT). This will make jans and Handcannoniers as a support unit from the second row more effectively and BBCs can deal better with arbs and other archer units.


Or maybe just give them Eskirms 11

1 Like

big difference being the power spike on the early imperial turk hussar, on top of the strength of the actual castle age light cav (when sipahi is already available)

yes because if someone disagrees with you, they’re obviously just a hater, and not just considering different aspects… anyway the tatar free TR is a power spike, yours is a persistent advantage (free hp), imo thats like comparing apples to oranges… and radically reduces the overall cost of the FU HCA, as well as radically boosting their kts, light cav AND camels in castle age…

people were already crying that the scout line PA was OP… would love to see what they think of all of this… AND then adding a mega boost to artillery (which is about the only part of this i support)

turks maybe do need a buff, but certainly not the one you’re proposing imo, its way too much

just some reminders…

135 hp knights/camels, 155hp cavaliers, 95hp light cav… best case scenario, castle age kt v kts are dying in 2 to 3 more hits. i can only conclude you arent a 1600 player… if you are thats TG, not 1v1


135 hp knights/camels, 155hp cavaliers, 95hp light cav… best case scenario, castle age kt v kts are dying in 2 to 3 more hits. i can only conclude you arent a 1600 player… if you are thats TG, not 1v1

You never know how do people reach 1600+ these days. People just pick mayans and full wall fc or just lame to reach that elo. Also, given the fact that elo is inflating quite a lot, people who read this post in a year will think 1600 is such a low elo (which is quite high elo now).


In fact Hera reached 2.6K recently, one day all Pros will be playing at 3k.


First of all i am happy that you are replying. I have to say that almost nobody make their UT in Castle Age. Why would you? Those UTs are very expensive in relation to the blacksmith upgrades and co. and requires a castle. Furthermore stirrups chevalier (CA UT Bulgarians) will indeed beat turks chevalier with 15 more hp. Even after all those proposed changes i would always pick tatars, Portuguese and co over turks simply because of their broad Trash Tech tree. BTW i achieved my rating without cheap tricks :slight_smile: Envy is something bad isn’t it. Play the game and have fun. its all about GL HF.

1 Like

Nah just give them Eskirms and they will be better. Your solutions with making Siphahi a free civ bonus is totally sick! Your soulution with +15hp for stable units is totally sick too.

Why would you want to change a civ that has been near perfectly balanced for years?

1 Like

you’re kidding right? Turks has been one of the weakest civs in the game basically the entire time its been around.


Say it to the stats.

1 Like

now go look at tournament use and tell me that they are okay. plus look at high level play winrates and tell me turks are fine.
know what i see in that picture you linked? a civ that has NEVER been above 50% winrate.


The pro players aren’t the only players, can one of you AoE II fanatics ever focus on the casual player?

1 Like

It doesn’t need it, the Turks are for the people who like to boom to imperial and annhilate their enemies with gunpowder not for those who rush before the game has even started.
And for those people they are above the 50%.

1 Like

casual players can literally win doing whatever they want. we’ve seen teuton players at that level win with cavalry archers. that’s why its not good to use them to determine balance.

furthermore at lower levels Chinese are a fairly weak civ (45% winrate below 1k elo). and yet the pros consider them one of the best civs in the game. so how do you balance that?

except thats clearly not true, because if it was true Turks winrate would suck outside of Imperial. Guess we need to, according to you, nerf them in the early game.


They can still benefit from playing to the strengths of their civilisation.

Get a kick out of twisting other’s words, do you?

1 Like

teuton cavalry archers straight up suck. the point was that you can literally do whatever you want at low levels.

no, that was your argument. your argument was that they are for people who want to win in imperial age. and yet what do we see in that graph you keep showing? they are strong in the early game too.
so which is it? are they an imperial age civ or are they not?

if they are an imperial age civ only, per your argument, they need nerfs before then.
if they aren’t an imperial age only civ, then you need to consider that other play styles are completely valid and Turks need love.

To be fair, pros doesn’t pick the majority of civs on arabia. I think that they regularly pick about 10 to 12 of the 37 civs when they want to be serious. Even less if they are in a competitive setup, so I don’t think that we can use this as measuring sistem…

While all civs should be decent on arabia, not all have to be a “must go arabia civ”, some just are decent and have good matchup against other civs, but they aren’t a super strong or flexible arabia civ.

1 Like

They have to rush their enemies in order to keep them from interrupting their advance to Imperial and it just so happens the enemy resigns during the rush. My answer is yes, they are an imperial age civilisation.

but that sounds like they would also be a good early game civ because their rush is good enough to win the game.
therefore that means they are NOT just an imperial age civilization and other strategies are valid.

an imperial age civilization with a good enough early game rush to win games?
not very logical. sounds like we need to nerf their early game rush enough that it doesn’t win the games, just keeps them in the game.

Not my fault the enemy’s response to a rush is to resign.