Fixing Ottoman Unique Units and The Civ's Historical Representation

[mmoaoe4]

Devs make feudal age land marks that belongs to Seljuks which is clearly wrong.

Game starts in 10th century and extends to 15th century age by age. So this two landmarks suits well.

I suggest that Ottoman buildings like Bursa Grand Mosque as land mark.

Grand Mosque was built in 15.century, it might be used for Castle Age. (And yes other civs landmarks are also accurate to time periods)

But that dont show that ottomans were pre ottomans

No one mention that. Time period includes pre-ottomans. Ottoman history started at 14th century.

Sipahi was light and more light cav but it is more Deli Cav at age of 4

Deli cav used as a member of the ottoman army in 16.century. Not even in the time period of the game but it’s ok, not a big deal. But adding a 16.century unit to feudal age doesn’t makes sense.

But sipahi was a heavy cav used by Turks

Sipahi means literally “soldier”. Mostly used as general name for cavalry in ottomans. There are ranged, light, heavy and even unmounted sipahis. Kapikulu (household)s were professional troops (janissaries is also in kapikulu corps) but common sipahis were provincial levies. Main misconception is here, you’re assuming that sipahi is a single unit.

A movie is made about Deli. You can watch it

Influence of that movie probably affects Turkish viewers opinion. Some of them want to see them because they were cool in the movie? Is a small corp in a limited period of history can represents ottoman military? They re not even popular in the time period of the game. They became popular in 16. century.

Finally, the image everyone shares about deli is from 17.century. There are tons of manuscripts about sipahis looks exactly like the design used in the game. About wings in the picture: most cavalries used that decorations in that periods, even heavy kapikulu sipahis. That decoration was also popular in other countries. Single image cant decide how sipahis should looks like. It’s a generic name used for cavs nearly 1000 years. Which sipahi we re talking about?

I’m not going to argue that anymore. I just created this account to clear some misconceptions because some users keeps asking why devs used that design and represent sipahis as light cavalry. They probably working with professionals and do their researches better than us. Most of us just googled sipahi and commented based on first image we encountered. Google the “knight” for example. Each period has different armor, shield and weaponry.

[mmoaoe4]

@Alexios732

I already researched this topic 2 weeks ago, but surprised it gains traction here, so here’s the images I found and why I decided the devs should rename the Sipahis to Delis.

i’m surprised that you deciding how a generic unit class should look like by a single image.

[falcon0920]

These buildings were built by Seljuks not Ottomans even game starts 966. Age of 4 civ start dates are wrong for example Abbasid Dynsty wasnt fallen 1517, Memluk was fallen at 1517. These buildings were built by Anatolian Seljuks at some 1200’s. Ottomans were founded at 1302 not 966. These landmarks were build with Seljuk architecture not Ottomans. Ottomans building architecture were different than Seljuks If you look. You can look Grand Bursa Mosque. If you call a civ asTurks, this is umberella name so this approach is true, If devs call a civ as Ottomans so they have to make every landmark to be built by Ottomans. From your point, ottoman civ date starts with 966 which is so absurd, why dont Ottomans have horse archers? Can you explan this please? Deli cav were used firstly at 1444 so this date was feudal. Also sipahi didnt wear these wings or lion horse faces but Deli cav weared them. You say that Sipahi wears them. Turks dont call heavy cav as knights so we suggest that Sipahi should be called heavy cav and Deli Cav should be light cav. These things breaks the immersion if you arent Turk. If you arent Turk, these things dont bother you, you just play the game. You guys says this is game based on historical things and some time says this is a just a game, it cant have things to be true 100%100

[Alexios732]

It isn’t just ANY single image though, but here’s another one with source

The New York Public Library Digital Collection

Men at Arms Series:
Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 (David Nicolle, Angus McBride)

Armies of the Ottoman Empire 1775-1820 (Men-At-Arms, No 314) (David Nicolle)

[mmoaoe4]

These buildings were built by Seljuks not Ottomans even game starts 966

Yes, first two LMs are pre-ottoman that we mentioned before. Game’s starting time line is 10th - 11th centuries. Starting period of ottomans is too late and the game trying to accurate about time lines and history. So devs decided to use predecessors of the ottomans. Devs also calls other civs with umbrella names. English or mongols is not the name of the countries. They re representing the nation. Ottoman is also an umbrella name.

Age of 4 civ start dates are wrong for example Abbasid Dynasty wasn’t fallen 1517

I didn’t get that. Abbasid Dynasty was ended by Ottomans at 1517. Last Abbasid caliphate taken prisoner and brought to the Istanbul. How is that related to civ starts date.

From your point, ottoman civ date starts with 966 which is so absurd, why dont Ottomans have horse archers

I don’t know. Maybe they didn’t want to add too much unique unit or balance reasons. It would be perfect if Ottos have horse archers.

Deli cav were used firstly at 1444 so this date was feudal.

Yes, but they were a small group.

Also sipahi didnt wear these wings or lion horse faces but Deli cav weared them

Sipahis wore that, even in the later periods. And roman style helmets also used by sipahis. Most of the images you can see that delis not wearing helmets. Sipahis looks more like a winged hussars in later periods. And yes, wings were very popular in that era. Delis have a weird uniform without armor and helmet, but a shield. Sipahi design in game literally armored, and using roman style helmets.

Turks dont call heavy cav as knights so we suggest that Sipahi should be called heavy cav and Deli Cav should be light cav.

True, you can call heavy, light and cav archer a sipahi. If game give ottoman knight a different name, so it has to be unique unit. Maybe they should call them lancer instead of knights.

[HaleTortoise579]

I dont really mind that the horsemen is called sipahi, but it is odd that they picked the horsemen for that icon over the heavy cav.

The horsemen could be passable as a rumeli timarli sipahi if it got a reskin to look like one. Granted those were medium cavalry more in line with the current sofa horsemen, but eh. We could throw in an extra armor/hp unique tech since Ottos are a bit slim on those.

Horse archers are easy - regular timarli sipahi fron anatolia were the classic horse archer types iirc. Simple and easy.

Labelling the heavy cav as knights is a bit odd with how far the game otherwise tries to go with historical relevance. Renaming them Kapikulu should be enough, maybe add in a 25% cost reduction tech to highlight thier significance.

I know Im schucking the deliler cavalry, but I really dont think they were as relevant to the Ottomans’ political/social/military structure as much as the various sipahi and janissary divisions were.

[MatM1996]

@mmoaoe4

Game starts in 10th century and extends to 15th century age by age. So this two landmarks suits well.

@falcon0920

These buildings were built by Seljuks not Ottomans even game starts 966. Age of 4 civ start dates are wrong for example Abbasid Dynsty wasnt fallen 1517, Memluk was fallen at 1517.

In fact,really the game starts in 8th century if we count the Abbasid Caliphate and extend to 1645 when the Malians will launch it…

[mmoaoe4]

@MatM1996

In fact,really the game starts in 8th century if we count the Abbasid Caliphate and extend to 1645 when the Malians will launch it…

Possibly. Tang dynasty started even before than that (7.century). I don’t know when rus and english civs started at. Maybe being existed in the time period of the game is enough for developers. Also the time period of the game was mentioned by the creative director once. So it should be something like between 10th - 16th century.

Age of Empires 4 Expands its Era - IGN Live | X019

[DapperDeer8]

There are 3 civs that have a representation and personality deficit:

Ottomans, Delhi, and Mongols.

[MatM1996]

@mmoaoe4

Possibly. Tang dynasty started even before than that (7.century). I don’t know when rus and english civs started at.

Yes that’s true…the Rus civ started at 879 to 1547 with the creation of Russian Tsardom by Ivan the Terrible and the English civ started at 1066 with the Battle of Hastings to 1558 with the coronation of Elisabeth Tudor…the two are the leaders of these respectives civs in AoE 3…

[Charleminime]

@CatnipSniffa

The Sipahi’s only problem is how Fortitude simply cannot work well with the numbers it works with. The attack speed buff only gives them a fraction of 50% damage in practice -around 7% if I recall correctly- while they receive guaranteed +50% damage. With numbers adjusted, it should be fine.

Agree with you. In fact, this is not a problem for Ottomans only, it’s a huge problem for the entire game. As another popular topic “My issues with the game and why I left” states correctly, minor horseman raid is dead in AoE4 and it makes early game so stale.

TC nerf, ram buff is not the final solution, because the best solution would be to energize horsman raids, not reinforce the boring binary “ram-all-in aggro or boom”. We need to break this binary mindset, there must be multiple strategic paths, make AoE4 early game dynamic.

Sipahi’s Fortitude (literally useless as of now) and Musofadi Warrior’s stealth (not effective enough in raids) are vital, instrumental in fixing AoE4 early dynamics, as is Horseman line small +3-5 attack bonus vs vils. Even more so than continually nerfing TC (last patch achieved little, game dynamics still unchanged).

[JoinedClover143]

Deli shouldnt represent light cavalry. They werent that significant. Akinji should represent light cavalry. Akinji were so significant that they literally won wars on their own in 14th century.

[weird, I cant link wiki article for ‘‘battle of sirpsindigi’’ here, it turns to ‘’#######‘’ for some reason]

7 years after:

Battle of Maritsa

These two battles decimated the Serbian Kingdom for good.

Battle of Krbava Field

This battle decimated Croatians.

Advantage of akinjis was that they lived a nomadic life on the borders of the Ottoman Empire. So even in peace time they would raid the enemy economy. In wars they would go in front of the army.

They were literally the light cavalry of the Ottomans. Sipahi were medium cavalry.

[Nanshinner]

I don’t even know if this is the AOE4 forum or the Ottoman history forum, it’s full of articles talking about how great the Ottoman Empire was.

[JoinedClover143]

I was explaining the historical justification behind why akinji should be the light cav of Ottomans and not Deli.

[KnowingLamb8370]

This is an old thread not new where are you guys seeing this threads im like nearly a maybe 1 month here but this was the only post i seen about historical aproach

[CRothlisberger]

@Nanshinner

I don’t even know if this is the AOE4 forum or the Ottoman history forum, it’s full of articles talking about how great the Ottoman Empire was.

Yeah it’s becoming more and more worthless.

[PlumpDucklin]

@Nanshinner

the Ottoman history forum

Yeah it’s quite sad.

Literally 4 out of the top 7 threads are ottomans (including the pinned post)

And 1 of the other 3 is some guy saying why he left the game a year ago.

Will be great when the patch is finally released and we can talk about other things

[AgeOfAwesomenes]

I feel like there could be a return of vinifrss in some of the Ottoman topics

[CRothlisberger]

Vinifrss has never been gone for long. He’s had dozens of alt accounts by now.

[AgeOfAwesomenes]

I think you could be right judging on how some of the people who have come and gone through here write format and name topics. But that is a separate matter