Before making my proposal, I want to make clear that I don’t know how Turks perform in the game against other civs, I’m making this discussion only to have a more unique civilization: I think that Turks in AGE2 are too based on Ottomans and don’t represent well turkish previous nomadic history before gunpowder; a lot of people use Tatars or Cumans to represent them in custom campaigns or scenarios set before 1300.
To solve that, Turks could have also an unique cavalry unit
What do you think?
2 Likes
Turks still represent early Seljuks and Oghuz Turks, reflected in the Sipahi tech, free LC and Hussar upgrades, and the extra PA for light cavalry.
24 Likes
I kind of like the unique design of the turks. I think they could still use something for more open maps, especially their kinda bad early eco is bad for them their (lategame is insane still).
But I don’t have a good idea currently how I would change them in a meaningful way, cause any open map buff would need to have a closed map compensation nerf to it.
1 Like
I think currently Turks are just fine, like Teutons they are not as strong for open maps, but monsters for closed maps.
8 Likes
Lol so you suggest another generic cavalry unique unit to replace the undoubtly most unique unit in the game, the potential of Turks in Castle Age is one of a kind, yet so balanced.
Team_Jannisaries > All History justice warriors, bring it on.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t be opposed against something like reworking the Sipahi tech (Particularly the name) and then adding the Sipahi and Elite Sipahi as a unique Turkish replacement for the knight line to service as heavy cavalry, possibly with more speed and attack, but less health or armor, I’m not sure. That could be an option. However, I also think that Turks are mostly fine as they are, and could easily be left alone.
3 Likes
I always thought turks could use a great bombard unit as a uu.
4 Likes
That could also be interesting. It would be kind of cool if it got added, probably as an upgrade for the bombard cannon, because then you end up with a unit that can pursue different upgrade paths depending on the civ. (Either Turks or Bohemians)
2 Likes
Turks are so ridiculously overpowered in lategame situations with gold involved like arena 4v4s because of the insane BBT and BBC, there is no need to make it even more annoying to play against them.
And this is coming from, judging by the overall opinion on these forums, one of the perhaps most liberal people when it comes to implementing new stuff, and someone who thinks civs should have 2 UUs and have less symmetry, more UTs as well.
I just don’t see how another UU is going to help their poor earlygame (but let’s be real, their feudal and castle age is a better version of bohemian feudal and castle age and nobody is complaining about bohemians being UP).
And no, god no, unique BBC with +2 range and +25% hp that trains faster, no. Just no.
3 Likes
It can be a gimmick uu like the tatar second uu.but you are right adding more stuff for diversity is a bad idea.
Nah I just use bombard cannons for turks, since they are the predecesors to the Great bombard that was only used from the exact end of the Medieval period (Fall of Constantinople to 1550) , thus I think the great bombard is perfect if left for DE3. I love the Turks as they currently are. Altough any new (Added) content is always appreciated.
It would be cool to have a huge bombard tho.
3 Likes
I’m not interesting in balancing, I want to simply propose a graphical change for Hussar with a more appropriate unit maintaing the same specs. Seeing the Turks using a sort of winged hussar as their main unit isn’t very immersive, at least Tatars, Cumans and Mongols have the Steppe Lancer who, despite being useless, make nomadic civs more unique
3 Likes
Agreed. I have been asking for that for years.
2 Likes
I agree with this great. We could do with a Sipahi cavalry, a heavy cavalry to replace the knight line entirely. And nother unique tech can be added. The Turks were historically known for their excellent cavalry and later their gunnery.
3 Likes
Ottoman Empire had great cavalry like its predecessors. If they want to include earlier Turks, Steppe Lancer and hunting/herdables bonus should have been. Mining bonus represent neither Ottomans nor Seljuks. Ottomans even used his non-Muslim (mostly Jewry) minority to run mines. Turkish population wasn’t involved with mining. It is for supporting late Castle and early Imperial gunpowder play. Of course, AOE2 has to diverge from real history in order to make a balanced game but claiming that in game Turks represents Seljuks as well as Ottomans isn’t concrete statement.
3 Likes
Light cav and cav archer bonuses are there to represent the seljuks. Even the devs acknowledged this
4 Likes
Tbh only reason people use Cumans and Tatars more nowadays is because they are new and can add more variety in a scenario (ie. 3 Turkic enemies can be done with Turks+Cumans+Tatars instead of triple Turks). Turks are otherwise still commonly used to represent non-Ottoman factions (like in the Bukhara scenario or the Hautevilles campaign)
Ottomans had both cavalry archer and nomadic light cavalry.
Old Turks, even first century of Ottomans were nomads. Osman Ghazi’s, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, tribe was nomad. In game, there is no nomadic bonuses for Ottomans for instance (hunting/herdables, house bonuses like Mongols and Huns).
Unfortunately, foreign people don’t know that Ottomans was firstly nomads. They adapted to urban life but still big part of Turks were nomads (they are named as Yörük (in Turkish, walker) and Türkmen ( in Turkish, -men, -man suffix means proper, genuine. ) until 1980s.
There are very few Yörüks and Türkmens left in Turkey, but the fathers or grandfathers of millions of Turks are these nomads.
1 Like
Because they would be busted it rhey did.
Strong at every stage of the game. Just like the civ you designed.
So they have elements from each section but not full elements of each.
1 Like