why shouldnt it be ? All Turkic,Turkish,Turco,Mongol & Turco-Mongol tribes somehow&somewhat came from Asia. All speak smiilar language and had similer religion (Old turkic religion which is called Tengirism’‘kinda shamanistic belief’’ ) Everything so far we had ( Huns life style culture stuff being so similar with Turks&Mongols and their leader’s names (%80 of them fully intelligible in only Turkic languages.Their appearances etc.) shows so clear that Huns ( Ancient Xiang-nu’s decendants ) were of Turco-Mongolic origin or at least pure Turkic most probably as mongolian population is very very low compared to Turkic ones. ‘‘even today mongols only have 5-6 million while Turkic people have like 250-320 millions’’
As a conclusion Huns as a civilisation were of confederetion of nomadic Asian oriantiated tribes which were mostly Turkic while some others possibly Mongolic. ( At that time there weren’t pure distinction between Turks&Mongols.)
For me it is easy to understand but some people can take it difficult i can understand. 
So Huns,Turks,Tatars,Cumans are enough for representing Turkic people.
İmportant Note : Even at the peak of Genghis Khans rule more then %90 of Mongolian army were of Turkic origin (Khazakh’s,Turcoman’s,Uzbhek’s,Oghuz’s,Tatar’s etc.) also there is a GREAT monument made during Genghis rule in Ulaanbaatar (capital of Mongolia).Even on that monuments description Turks&Mongols are mentioned fairly.(Probably even during Great Khan’s rule distinction between Turks&Mongols were not that clear)
Doesn’t seem like a very relevant distinction unless you’re a coder on the dev team: players don’t care about the guts of how the code works, they care how the game plays. From the player perspective all of these mechanics were new in-game. Adding new code is literally the devs’ job (among others), so I have faith in their capabilities for the type of mechanics we’ve discussed here.
Caravanserai also affects unit speed, although in a non-combat context, so showing it isn’t essential. Even so, as a technical matter this is easily done, either with a ring around the aura unit, or the augmented stats showing up (perhaps in a different color) on affected units.
This is the most important thing, but also the reason I brought up the Shrivamsha (and charge units for that matter): players had to get used to paying attention to a new type of information and responding accordingly. Again though, much of the initial dislike/aversion to the unit seems to have diminished, as I imagine may be the case with future mechanics that are added. To be fair, there are plenty of bad or jarring ways in which aura units/buildings could be implemented, but I’m not necessarily against it in principle.
Generally I agree, since it’s easy for people to want to go all-in on new mechanics and the result is usually a unit/tech that feels out of place or is just bad. It’s also possible that a new unit/tech could employ an aura-type mechanic in a way that fits well within the existing game, but by and large this should be left to the experts (devs).
I eagerly await the development of a civ that can research the Fifth Age: Space Age 
I’m not opposed to this type of ability outright, but it seems like something most appropriate for a headhunter-type unit. Don’t hate it, but don’t think it’s great either.
Reasonable.
+3 would turn everyone into oldschool Saracens. Don’t think we need a rebirth of Obsidian Arrows for mounted archers. +1 or 2 max IMO.
I literally meant say a civ that instead gets -advance to Imp Age 150% faster bonus. The Byzantine vs Italian version of the Malay bonus.
I love the idea of Lifesteal, we dont have it yet in AOE II. I’m not sure yet about the numbers but it can be easily adjusted as needed.
I think that one step too far, I’d let them Arson though, extra damage against buildings will make CA steal the show from their fellow Batyrs.
Haha that’s alright. Every idea can be implemented into a strategy game, the question is at what price. Some ideas are just harder to be nicely implemented and require a whole set up.
An Anti-Buildings Cavalry with +1 range is one of those ideas.
An aura of max HP bonus, that’s what you’re saying? (I wish they had this one for Missionaries tbh)
Yes, that’s the idea. It’s either that or the lifesteal, since neither have showed up in the game yet and Batyrs need an identity. I’m definitely leaning more towards the lifesteal concept though.
Honestly hope no such effects (auras (more anyway), activated abilities, etc) ever make it into the game. The gimmicks we have as is are hard enough to balance.
I think the first Aura this game deserves must be related to damage in any way. Max HP aura is a less intuitive concept, even some RPG games dont have it.
Lifesteal can work nicely. it’s also implementable easily.
All right, I’ll change the gimmick of the Batyr then. Maybe I’ll keep some of the anti-fortification bonus damage, but it will be much less.
The lifesteal mechanic will actually work well and make the Batyr perform significantly better than the Steppe Lancer, despite only slightly superior stats.
CHANGELOG
- Added new civilization bonus
- Altered team bonus
- Changed functionality of unique tech Kolbasy
- Added Chain Barding Armor
- Altered historical information
- Significantly lowered Batyr attack bonus and added new primary functionality
Cavalry includes CA by default. (for the sake of aesthetics )
This one is much more sane and suitable for a Cavalry unit, roughly 40% more Tarkan if you add up the slower rate of fire. However much less HP and Armor. Tarkan is clearly an anti-Archer unit, its anti-Building feature ends up being almost a gimmick, a side-kick. Batyr is worse than a Cavalier when facing Archers if we look at the raw stats, 15 less HP and 40% less damage, despite the little movement speed edge they have over Cavalier and the extra Range they’d still preform worse in this situation, which is cruicial to define the differences between the units.
The Lifesteal gimmick wont help them much at defeating a ball of Archers, Lifesteal works similarly to Keshik Gold generation, it helps you win harder, it doesn’t help you win, relatively, roughly speaking. Against Archers you need a punch which they seem to lack.
It’s good at killing Skirms (can probably do it indefinitely, perhaps some low tier Light Cavs, but there it ends. I dont see a reason to create this guy, at its current worse-Tarkan form.
How about:
Armor: 3/1, 5/1 (Elite)
Cost: 55 food, 50 gold
This way they can be somewhat efficient against Hussars and some Infantries, again this is tricky, this unit is a hybrid of so many units:
- Tarkan: Anti-Building Cavalry
- Steppe Lancer: 1 Range Cavalry, Lower HP
- Keshik: Conceptually belongs to a civ that is highly similar to Tatars
- Knights/Cavalier: Kolbasy forces this similarity
I personally dont think the lifesteal bonus is enough to justify this Tarkalancer. The Lifesteal feature as it is- is an awesome thing, can be a trash killer (Hussars, Skirms, Vills) with barely losing HP. However since you’re so commited to the Anti-Building nerative it’s becoming so hard to design an unique identity while being balanced.
If you increase the Lifesteal numbers wise- it’ll end up being a Tarkan, cause he’ll be able to give a fight to Archers. (which are mass of low HP units, which is perfect for Lifesteal). I think people would rather just make Steppe Lancers.
…Wow, I had no idea the Batyr was so weak! Maybe if I increase the attack, say, by 2, it will be able to more effectively utilize the lifesteal mechanic. What do you think?
CHANGELOG 2
- Increased Batyr melee armor to 2/3 (Elite), allowing it to survive better against melee units and justify its higher cost than the Steppe Lancer (and also giving it a more unique role)
Lifesteal would definitely enjoy more attack, I’d make Lifesteal as the core identity of this unit rather than a gimmick. That’s in my opinion is the key here. Will it be a flat HP gain? a precentage of the target’s HP? an area of effect feature?
So many questions.
Assuming it’s these +10HP per kill you were talking about, it’s solid though I feel like something is missing in this mechanism. Perhaps make it more meaningful and rewarding when facing melee units? And less when killing vills?
Perhaps instead of a flat 10 HP, I can make it 10% of the killed unit’s max health.
Perhaps. It’s a hard one to figure/predict, I wonder how it looks like in practice.
Then Magyars and Proto-Bulgars are also turkic people? I don’t think so. Huns are something like a Mongolic-Nomadic tribe that absorbed European culture when invade it.
I would recomend you to just ignore him since hes really convinced in the whole “Turkic civs are unnecesaary”. He seems to think one of them was good enough (he even calls Tatars alongside Huns and Cumans his least fav civs because of this lol)
If he cant understand rthat the Turkic peoples were a varied groups and were extremely influential then just its better to not continue with this conversation that leads nowhere. Also the Hunnic language was turkic
Well, i didin’t research the origin of the civ, but i clearly can see that they can’t be compared to Tatars or even Turks