Take out that “-50% resistance against range” and make them move slightly faster than ordinary HC, that’s enough for me I tihink.
1 Like
i think that too but they cant add it since they can run away from archers,archers need to catch them.
thats what i want to see too but they wont do it they need to feel like they get countered by archers actually i would say they need 6 range atleast
yes that one make sense too lets see are they gonna change when they released
yes that can work they can kite the close combat better
i think they should get a health boost without breaking their role too much
1 Like
What is their role exactly?
Anti cav , get countered by ranged attacks
It should be fine it jans can run from archers since the latter win a cost trade. If they cant fight and cant run, it becomes kinda hard to make use of them.
i agree with you but when i think like devs i wouldnt done that because its broke the role best thing is improving their health so they can last longer
as if there isn’t a Mether that increases its stats. If Janissary is made this good, it won’t be necessary to produce crossbowmen, I bet that’s not to the devs’ liking.
I remind you of the micromanagement video so you don’t get frustrated if the developers don’t comply with all your personal demands
Maybe janissaries should replace crossbows instead. Change bonus vs cav to bonus vs heavy. Jans now stronger than the unit they replace. Everyone is happy. 
To rework a civilization you need its winrate stats, not personal biases
1 Like
My suggestion was mostly tongue and cheek. But since you mentioned win rates, what happens if ottoman win rates are good (say close to 50%) but janissaries are not used at all? Do you leave it as it is or do you try to make the unit relevant? I’m asking this out sincere curiosity btw. 
3 Likes
actually it was bonus to heavy first than they changed it at the trailer janissaries killing the man at arms at 3 shot but they didnt manage to kill spears next to them it come to my attention
It can be said that ignoring video evidence if a pretty extreme bias.
Try to be objective. Just try:
These tests dont even account for the fact that french knights can get a -25%cost reduction.
The janissary cant do this - despite being apparently built for the role and having many other weaknesses besides. So the jans won in the vid with micro against royal knights that had no unique upgrades? Yea, that doesnt mean anything - its still a unicorn scenrio where cav is running head first into a counter unit. In other words its similar to this:
1 Like
the elephants won the micromanagement because they have a rank of 5, I recently suggested increasing the rank of the janissary
1 Like
Finally someone rational from the opposing view…
overall civ balance has a number of factors if we take the devs own words for it. If anything i miss eric balance lead doing those podcasts bc he’d go into “too much” detail into philosophies behind civ design and unit design.
Unit design similar to civ design is originally driven by a concept and or function but once thousands and thousands of data points emerge on all things prevalent to said unit; adjusts follows.
There will be NO difference with Ottomans and the Janissary specifically.
IT is apparent to me they copied OTTOMANS from aoe3 and likewise the “LIGHT GUNPOWDER INFANTRY” AOE4 unit is an homage to the "heavy range infantry " of AOE3. In aoe3 the counter to heavy range infantry is light range infantry, so likewise, i believe the designed the unit to be weak to range units in aoe4. Also heavy range infantry in aoe3 counters all melee cavalry and some light range cav… especially the Carolean musketeer… I’ve not played this game in a billion years but this specifically heavy range unit with proper upgrades would virtually have noooo counter. I suspect the aoe4 designers while porting the aoe3 concepts didn’t want to have that issue out the gate hence the 50% range dmg penalty.
I also believe the aoe4 designers DID NOT give jans large hp pools or innate melee resistance to further enforce their overall design philosophy of fielding a large variety of different unit types in order to be most formidable on the battlefield. Otherwise you could go full jans vs all melee and either cav and or siege to counter opposing range dmg. Think originally grenadiers with a few spears…but instead of in late Imperial think immediately in castle.
IMO, if data suggests to the devs a change to jans is necessary i think they’ll likely increase their DPS bonus vs cavalry to further empower their niche role which will likely relegated Janissary to a mix unit (landsknecht, camel riders, war elephants, etc).
2 Likes
Civ balance is important but balance isnt everything. All the civs must be balanced in line with their historical characteristic. It doesnt have to be %100 historical of course but for example Mongols should be a civ relying on its cavalry not infantry.
Janissary should be a more expensive counterpart of generic handcannoneer unit, sure they can have vulnerability to archers which would push the player to diversify units. However they should win in 1vs1 against generic handcannoneers.
I wouldnt want Ottomans to be a balanced or even successful civ in rankings when janissary is a cheaper, more expandible handcannoneer counterpart.
Anyway unlike others, I dont care much about janissaries. Lack of horse archers however is a great issue.
1 Like
So they should used rarely only in the late game if your eco supports it?
I believe when aoe3 is concerned the sure fire counter to heavy infantry was always falconet or horse artillery. Until artillery is available its either light infantry but almost always other heavy infantry (which was kinda boring).
As for niche & mixed role of janissaries, none of the units you listed replace base units. Abbasids and delhi still have knights, HRE still has men at arms. In this case ottomans should have had their handcannoneers too. Then devs could have double down on the anti-cav aspect of janissaries with impunity by lowering base damage and increasing bonus to cavalry.
Also wouldn’t this aoe3 port problem apply to every handcannoneer unit, especially buffed up ones like steltsy? They can counter virtually every unit. What exactly is the counter to handcannons? Mangonel is one obvious answer they share with janissaries. I have no idea if horseman and javelin thrower can trade well with handcannons. They don’t have a specific weakness to ranged or melee and have more health compared to archers and crossbows. There is one thing though…
To me it seems janissary fell victim to the might of great bombard. The historical inaccuracy is worse with great bombard, which should have been a trebuchet type unique unit, but they went with the bombard + mangonel route (much like aoe3) and handcannoneer section of ottomans suffered for it.
This section is my silly ideas. How about ottomans had a unique spearman, azap infantry? Azap could be slightly cheaper (eg. 60 food 10 wood) but have no elite upgrade. This way you encourage the anti-cav janissary transition in late game. Or player could stick with the slightly cheaper yet only veteran version of a spearman.
1 Like
What’s the purpose of the standard HC? “Powerful all-purpose range infantry”, expensive, but if well protected offer extraordinary DPS as a back-line unit. Devs, as a design, chose to split that “all-purpose” function of the HC into a cav specialist + infantry splash dmg specialist, aka the jans+ GB. And they give you a lil taste of that combo in CAstle (sooner than anyone else), especially if you use the 25% siege pzivor buff.
NOW, WILL ACTUAL GAME DATA SUPPORT THIS DESIGNED FUNCTION??? If I were on the dev team I would want to SEEE it work or SEEE it NOT working.
1 Like
What is that mean? Could you explain it a little more?