Historically, Jans were anti maa not anti cav. They were the key of battles for Ottomans but this game they dont believe themselves as they are anti cav and bad stats. As a anti cav they dont even beat cav units. I dont see any pro choose Jans to win the game.
They made janissary anti cav just to make it feel unique its the devs idea and i respect it.I tired talking about janissaries i dont care what they do with it anymore.Devs do what makes game better i dont have anything to say more here.(In good numbers and someone who can stay front of them they are good against cav and in imperial they good against most units too expect ranged units)
I think they’re trying to reflect the army comps that used very early guns.
The earliest guns in europe had about half the range and fire rate of bows at the time and really only picked up beacuase there was a need for any kind of weapon that could deal with the biggus ###### of the day - mounted knights in full plate. Gunners were easy picking for archers so they were used in combo with xbows. I think the idea behind the anti cav damage was to force a unit comp with xbows. The jans can theoritcally keep the cav off the xbows and the xbows can deal with the maa.
In practice, this fails because the jan is so hilariously weak that if you split the pop between xbows and jans then any cav stronger than a horsemen army is gonna smash right on through and on the other hand if an even pop of maa come up then the you will have too few xbows since jans can only tickle those.
The IIRL armies worked like this because guns were much better anti armor than xbows even at their lowest, but I guess the devs though that players would stop making xbows if they allowed jans to be anti armor in general. So they went with making gold costing spearmen that cant brace. W/e.
Its a weird design on several levels - in the first place the Ottos got their rep for gunpowder cuz they were the first to adapt field artillery (volley guns/ribbauldequins) not actual infantry guns - europeans did that first. Till then, jans were pretty much maa with bows and were soundly overshadowed by the cav armies.
But thats a hole that asks why the turks dont have horse archers, why the great bombard is a field artillery unit, why no culverin for the civ that spread it to 2 different asian empires…
I think jans’s bonus against Cav is a little historical nod at battle of mohacs when janissaries completely destroy cavalry force of hungary charging on them
BTW jans secretly got HP buff in PUP now they have more HP than Regular HC
I don’t think they need a rework they just need some unique upgrades for them, like the castle age land mark for extra vizier point it could have more unique techs for sipahe instead of fortitude for sipahe they can shoot arrows and act like horse archer or a mangudai maybe for 8 - 10 secs, or maybe some more unique upgrades for jans i dont know anything that actually makes them a gun powder civ ! Because giving them great bombard and a lame hand cannoneer in castle age doesn’t make them gun powder civ, the idea that Malians have a better hand cannoneer in imperial age and the anti siege unit is making me really sad and they were never a gun powder civ they never knew about gun powder until the 18th century ….
Btw pleeease remove the idea of taking more damage for sipahi and jans the word taking 50% more damage if you do this or from this specific unit is not pleasing just make a unit that counter this or counter that no need for the extra taken damage - and they are the only civ take extra damage too !