Are you kidding me ? Turks conquered Byzantines.They had huge wall.
Yes, and then proceeded to get crushed at Vienna, which had a small wall.
Byzantium was weakened after centuries of struggle, before the Ottomans had a chance.
It is actually debated if the Ottos would have lost, if the 4th Crusade never happened, for example.
2 Likes
Turks are a useless civ, they don’t have anything to play, no wonder they are a pure meme across the pro scene and never picked in any tournament.
3 Likes
If these updates come, Arabia, where the Turks ruled for 400 years, will be more realistic for the game.
They would never come into existence in the first place.
The Byzantine Empire was never able to recover from the Crusade but was still able to hold out for centuries.
Without that Crusade they would have been able to defend for much longer and would likely still exist to this day.
If they would have never come to exist in the first place, then they were not so strong.
They out-teched the Eastern Europeans and Muslims they conquered, but they were actually behind the Western Europeans, which is why they failed at conquering them.
But since 1999, many new units have been added, trash should have come to Turk.(for pikeman)
it may also come to Tatar, but not elite.(for Javelin Thrower) also maybe some to other civilizations
you can always ally with berbers for genitour if thats what you want.
But I talk about 1v1 game ,also we haven’t together with Berbers all team games.
I got a feeling as if i would be banned if i say anything further about historical facts 11.
1 Like
I do not hate the Turks, but they were weaker than the Spanish and Portuguese, and if the game was historically accurate, they would auto-lose against them.
Spanish or Portuguese fought against civilians or undeveloped state in general.Turks conquered all state.If it weren’t for the Americas, these two races would be nothing and would be poverty.They were just a colonial state.This fight wasn’t important for Turks.Turks wanted Vienna and Rome.These two cities were important for the known world. Besides, Turks also raided England and took an island.
1 Like
No, not at all.
Also this is a funny take, because Ottomans literally expanded through Eastern Europe, which was below their technological and social structure level.
When they faced the Mamelukes, they also faced a fully Medieval army, still dependant on Heavy Cavalry, while the Ottoman artillery shattered their ranks.
If anything, Europeans learned power-abuse from the Middle East.
When, and which island? I have never heard of this.
They raided Ireland, as far as I know.
Lundy Island in 1627 but these have nothing to do with our topic.;Spanish are very similar to Turks in the game, but Turks don’t have trash units.Why? why? Also game give him monks.
Lundy - Wikipedia
They raids iceland. The island in the atlantik. They catch the people and enslaved them.
But that had nothing to do with military strength.
1 Like
Those were Moroccan Barbary Pirates, under a Dutch commander, and it was a slave raid, not even conquest.
Wrong. Janissary is better than Conquistador, Spanish do not have a Gold gather bonus, Artillery is the strongest tech for Cannon units, and Turks have free upgrading Scouts and the best Cav Archers (or tied to the best with Magyars) in the game.
Turks, to get Trash units, would have to lose several of their advantage, specially free upgrading Scouts, at which point people would complain they are too slow and cannot compete in 1v1 Arabia, or Arena.
Turks are fine. Practice Jans + Mango Rush, it is the strongest comp in the Castle Age, and can win the game there.
They were pirates because Europe was enough for the Turks, trade routes were with the Turks, the Atlantic Ocean was important for the Atlas states.First time for raid in 1625 but they conquered in 1627. The Turkish flag flew until 1632.
They were sailors of Turkish or other nationalities, depending on the Ottoman Empire. His name is Murad Reis.
But conquistador have mobility.One question: Are Turks among the breeds you prefer most in the game?
They never had Europe, and that is a lie. The Ottomans invaded Egypt, Persia, Arabia, and all North Africa (lost against Morocco, though) and launched several expedition into India and the Indian Ocean.
It was never enough for them, they just reached the limit of their expansion, very quickly, which is also why their Golden Age was so short.
The Turks literally overextended faster than the Roman empire, and collapsed underneath their own weight, and inability to fight modern Western centralized nations, that could also mass levy and had standing armies.
This does not mean the Turks were not a great power, but the extent of their “greatness” is exaggerated. They could not beat Spain on Land, or Portugal on Water.
Castle Age Conq is a wet noodle compared to Castle Age Jan.
Breeds?
No, I play mostly Infantry or Archer civs, and Turks are a Gunpowder and Siege civ, with great Light Cavalry and Cav Archers.
My favourite civs are Goths, Vikings, Incas, Ethiopians and Vietnamese.
I still play Turks often, and also often win with jans + mangos in Castle Age.
200 years is too short ? hmm there are many European and Asian other countries which couldnt exist for even 100 years.
I understand that u love crusader culture and maybe u feel as if u were one of them Jon.I respect that but we Europeans couldn’t win open wars against Turks mostly they are not like Arabians we faced during Crusaders.Because of their Nomadic past and their Turkomans in cavarly line our Knights couldnt catch them as they use horse archery hit and run things perfectly.And during 15-16-17th centruies Turks had more advanced millitary technologies then us thanks to their gunpowder and millitary skills.
After a while Turks as far as i know couldnt manage to bring their ultimate nomadic (cuman,tatar,turkoman) cavarly line into battle field and most of jannissaries(approximately %60 of them) were of no Turkic origin didnt fight as they do before.For that Turkish Lands were so wide they couldnt protect all of them at same time then normally they start backdown(thanks to god xD).Some historians say Ottoman Turks didnt give enough importance to their Turkic people in army and government and they start to rely on slave army so much thus they lost their perfection in battleground.
In short Turkish cavarly and archer line was generally far better then ours.
Their Gunpowder things were more and more better for years then us.
BUT ; they allways lack infantry and European foot soldiers were better then Turks as they were not heavy armored like ours.
Turkish navy wasnt strong as their European counterparts.I think this is one of their real failure.
There is no history without Turks as far as i can see.And i respect their nomadic origin and bravery on field.
2 Likes
on sea yeah i believe so.But on land nope they were beyond our limits in battle.
1 Like