I personally think imperial janissaries are fine but the castle age janissary is weak and nearly unnecessary this can be changed by moving the +3 bonus damge tech to castle age or split it into 2 techs like +1 for castle,+2 for imperial age.Also janissary vizier point has no point it can give janissary some not op bonus like health or range.But i like the fully upgraded imp janissaries they are fine in my opinion but if we look history they are the first professional standing army so at some point i agree with the people who are complaining
I mean thatās what theyve been doing in Call to Arms professional tourney. Games being played sipahi + archers, and then they mix in like 5-10 jans and suddenly all the enemy sofaās or knights are dead and enemy archers/xbows are being overrun by sipahi
Interestingly, Beasty said the opposite on the latest stream. He said castle janissaries do WAY to much damage vs cavalry, to the point you canāt even build cav anymore. He said French gets forced to go MAA basically once Ottomans start making Janissaries. On the other hand, their base damage is too low in imp and Ottomans donāt have a great answer to post-imp MAA flood.
Yes but if enemy only goes cav and they are expensive its hard to mass, if enemy puts some not even man at arms just spearmen into that army they are useless im not even talking about the damage they take from archers which you can have a archer mass when you reach castle age.They got killed by french knights easly if you dont have high number of them or sometihng front of them to protect
You could make pretty similar statements about crossbows who shoot much slower and do less damage (they do slightly better vs castle MAA).
Heck if my enemy is playing like French or Rus and forced into MAA or spearman archer comp, Im pretty happy.
well yes cheaper crossbow is better than janissary you are getting there keep using your brain you will make it
Sure crossbow costs 60 less resources, but also needs units to be in front of them to not die just like jans. In castle age, xbow do significantly less damage vs any cav, about equal to MAA, and moderately less to every other unit in the game.
when enemy switch to man at arms crossbows still good and you can build numbers quicker than janissaries so if there is no unit front of them they can one shot it and melt the enemy army
The plan is never to mass Janissaries. You add janissaries to your army. You donāt need more than like 5-10 janissaries to make it impossible for the enemy to build cav. Since you are going to have a bunch of Sipahi + archers with that, going MAA archer is just going to get ruined by Sipahi.
If Janissaries were bad, pros wouldnt be building them in games playing for money, but they are.
1 Like
and this is why some folks around every forum shits on it Ironically the game has horrible balance which is a common opinion by pros
From what Iāve heard, pros generally consider the current patch to be the most balanced state the game has been. Of course there is plenty of room for improvement (maps cause slogfest Imp games, Rus is OP, water balance is still not great, imp rams are a pain etc)
no you said sometihng must be in front of them to defend it you can mass the crossbows easier so you can kite your enemy and melt his army.You can put jans to your army but if oppennet has man at arms they are useless just trash in castle age.I didnt watch the games but games before that someone was talking like you and no pro build it can you show me a match video they build.
Starts building them around 43 minutes into the video. (first game I found that wasnāt vs English/Mali where the enemy built 0 cav that actually got noticeably into castle age)
Thereās a lot of civs that donāt want to be building MAA in castle age. Forcing the enemy to go MAA at the cost of a handful of units is a pretty big win in many matchups
Castle age starts around 54 minutes where he is building them against HRE.
Mangonels just die if they donāt have other units in front of them, doesnāt make mangonels bad, and they are mostly only good against 1 unit type and also expensive.
You dont understand they counter knights but if there is nothing in front of them with equal resources they get defeated by knights which they suppose to counter .First game he made janissary at the begining but when he realized they are useless he stoped making them.Demu does janissary i know it but i saw so many games he lost bacause of janissaries are there other games or just these 2.
He stopped making more because he forced French off of cavalry into archer/pikeman comp and started making a MAA switch, but ended up winning first. Janissaries arenāt good because you mass them and win the game, but you build a dozen or 2 and then the enemy has to full tech switch off of cav, and thereās a lot of civs that donāt want to do that in castle age.
So you are saying what i said when he switches to man at arms he stoped training them they are very expensive unit and cant keep up with expactations they just trash at castle age only good at so little occasions but i think imperial age one is fine but still need a little health or range boost
Look, you trust this theory crafting of yours too much. Whatever little details you put down, heres the hard facts:
The comparison vs mangudai is at abt 12 min. They lose in terms of even pop and even res. To a unit they theoretically counter. If we consider even number to be important - which is very important when building composite armies - then they lose to basically all ranged cav, all ranged units, spears, maa - kiting be damned. Even knights - which they counter - roll over them in even numbers. On release they had 1.75 attack speed, and the secret attack speed buffs have tried to cover the blunder, but nah - they still suck vs most comps related to handcannons.
And stop throwing out ābehind defense line thoā like its a new thing no one considered. Its a given, everyone considers this before saying anything - so of course the hadncannons will have maa infront and the knights will have archers in the back.
Janissaries have significantly higher attack speed than handcannons, so as long as they arenāt fighting straight up against other ranged units with no frontlines, they actually do similar or more dps to most units while being faster to mass and much cheaper.
They have 3.5 range, 1.12 speed, and a huge weakness to range - trivial to counter them if one bothers. Handcannons, once they get their numbers are only weak to good mangonel micro or better/more handcannons.
Sure they take bonus damage, but not THAT much bonus damage (even ignoring the fact that they mass faster). How are your Janissaries getting shot by enemy Handcannons?
Iāll give the scenario most tilted towards jans to make a point.
- you have, say 25 jans + 15 maa. I have 40 hcs. ## #### of HCās seeās your army andā¦kites it. Yep. Your jans have lower range and the same speed. They get off few shots while chasing, but do ultimately little - then with the frontline dead the HCsā¦ keep kiting but shooting the jans from outside theyre range now. +50% bonus range damage taken means that the 42 attack of HCās hits jans for 63. The jans HP caps at 105ā¦2 taps from the HCās is 126 - 120 after armor.
A more realistic scenario.
- Jans and sipahi into maa and handcannons. Jans have high attack speed at the cost of lower base attack + maa have high armor = jans accomplish little. Handcannons and maa chew through otto cav faster then jans can gun down maa. Then jans die since they cant really escape. Starting from 3.5 tiles away and running a 1.12? Pff, forget kiting, with that its a full retreat or bust.
Look guy, no ones ######## on Jans for street cred or whatever - we wanted this unit to not suck. No amount of presenting simple math (done mostly wrong) can change reality.
3 Likes
That video is on pre-nerfed Mangudai that lost 1/3 of their attack damage in February, and before the janissary attack speed was buffed. They also beat out the horse archers even back before janissary buff.
I talk about having units in front, because it doesnāt really matter if janissaries lose to archer units. When you are fighting 40+ unit battles, you canāt really micro 10 archers to hit each janissary. Because fo this, either archers super overkill by all shooting 1 janissary, or they never shoot eachother like 70% of the time. Archer vs jannisary doesnāt matter, because the fight is about who can kill the melee units faster, not whether than jannisary can fight the archers by themselves. By the time the janissaries and archers are shooting eachother, the engagement has already been won by one side.
Janissaries do fall off a bit compared to handcannons, but they are a really solid castle age unit.
2 Likes
Brubie the problem is you can say this theory to every unit in aoe4. If we think about your point of view The game shouldnāt have needed a single patch since its release.
Most people dont think they are a very solid castle age unit but lets say its ok. Ottomans doesnt have normal handcannoneers. When the game goes for imperial age what should the player do? The problem is exactly this beasty said one of the reason he put the ottomans low ranks on the list because they are weak in imperial.
3 Likes
Beasty in his tier list last week put Ottomans on par with English/French HRE, and considered putting them higher, saying he can see them being a higher tier next list since thereās been some development in strategies, Demo put them in the top half of civs in his list.
Lack of handcannons really only matter in mid-late imperial (the point where massing handcannons is viable). That could be adjusted, but I also donāt mind Ottomans having a weak late imperial since they are really strong in Dark/Feudal/Castle. Follows the same as Mongols who arenāt great in imp either, in part because no walls/forts.