They can or could give 25% gold per food (like Poles stone mining bonus) from hunters/herdables referring to weaving (Rus Tszars used to wear Ankara wool fabrics in 17th century for instance) and leatherwork of Turks instead of unhistorical gold miners work 20% faster. I am really curious about based on what sources Devs have added the gold miner bonus. bonuses would effect similar as well.
Devs didn’t approach Turks accurately since the beginning. It seems they only read Classic Age of Ottoman Empire (1453-1566) and they saw Ottomans using firearms effectively, thus they decided to make Turks only dependent on gunpowder units.
+20 hp to Cav Archer and +1 Pierce armor to Hussar were added afterwards. Only cavalry bonus to Turks was free light cavalry upgrades. Burgundians has heavy cavalry + gunpowder composition with great eco. Turks could have light and medium cavalry + cav archer + gunpowder composition with weaker eco which they already are now.
Now, Turks is strong at every stage of the game except early game. They have weakness to cavalry and archers which isn’t related to game stages. Late game is supposed to Turks’ weak stage but Hussar + Cav Archer + BBC carry them even in late game.
I totally agree that one of the top powerful civs in History still has no personality in AoE 2, after 20 years! (plus, HC / Janissaries are altogether useless and non-existant). No, Turks representation is NOT OK in AoE 2.
But I don’t think the solution is to make them “more Seljuk” (or more similar to Tatars or Cumans). The solution is rather to double down on what makes them unique from everybody else on Earth.
For twenty years, the most iconic and coolest historical weapon on planet Earth has been ignored by Age of Empires 2: the colossal GREAT BOMBARDS (devs wake up)…
How can ANY medieval / early modern Age of Empires game NOT have Great Bombards for XXX’s sake???
Yes it’s true, they fit even better in AoE 4 timeframe, but they can totally and absolutely fit into AoE 2 timeframe as well, especially the DE version.
This has nothing to do with game balance, there’s like a MILLION freakin ways to have a proper cavalry and Great Bombard in the game and still make it even MORE balanced than it is now. So stop talking about balance!
So here’s the solution in a nutshell: 1) Replace the Turkish Knight line with similar heavy, mace-wielding Sipahi cavalry. 2) Add a new Unique Tech, “Great Bombard”, which can research the real-life, real-History absolutely must-have iconic weapon. 3) Make HC / Elite Janis finally useful for something.
Purpose of these kind of forums is proposing new ideas and concepts. Of course, you can oppose these ideas if they feel illogical and redundant but opposing all ideas without argument (purpose of these forums is also having arguments collided. If you don’t give a counter argument, rather you shouldn’t reply) isn’t pleasant.
it’s simple. Turks are in a good spot and don’t need changes.
Furthermore many people enjoy the cav archers the way they are and wouldn’t want to lose them.
I don’t say anything to counterarguments. My problem is with condescending behavior by these guys. It is like you are speaking hundreds of words to make a point to someone but he/she say “No, you are wrong”. Saying yes or no is specific to surveys. Forums’ comment section exist for discussing.
Elite Janissary need buff though. They don’t worth 850 food 750 gold. Going Hand Cannoneer and Heavy Cavalry Archer is always better than Elite Janissary. Similar problem exist for Elite Conquistador. HP buff to Elite Janissary (50 to 55) and attack speed to Elite Conquistador (2.9 to 2.4 (20%)) is must.
Given how hard it is to survive vs janissary spam in castle age, making them stronger in the late game too isn’t a good idea at all. Especially since they already got the projectile speed buff despite being the best gun unit already.
If only there was an AoE game that already did that…
Making a unit outright bad is wrong idea. It is like amateur gamer trap. This unit exist but you should never create it. Elite Jan and Conq exist for using. Their power can decrease but making unit 95% of time useless is wrong. Right now, Elite Jan kill only infantries (especially slow ones) and heavily countered by archers and softly by Cavalry. If they had 5 more hp, they would hold their own against at least. Conq need more damage output, 20% attack speed would make unit useful at least.
To control the overpowering of the Great Bombard make it limited to one per match at a time, and it can have a high setup cost and slow movement speed (like Trebuchet) but have devastating attack.
Ok lets go and make Turks strong in all maps in all situations in all ages so then people will cry why they are OP
Lithuanians are really good on most maps played out here and people wanted nerfs to them.
And maybe stop begging to buff Vietnam, Turks, Teutons, Portuguese when they are fine, with only Spanish, Incas, Burmese and Koreans needing some buffs, but we TRULY need more nerfs cmon
I said Elite Janissary. They’re the among the most completely useless unit in the game. Please read everything again.
There’s no reason why Turks need to remain a no-personality civ in AoE 2 DE. They’ve improved other civs’ looks and design. Urgent time to do the same with Turks. This has nothing to do with game balance as a whole.
That’s positively correct.
Exactly! It can be done while totally maintaining game balance. Limit numbers, expensive to get, slow rate of fire… Too many ways to balance out. So easy, uncomplicated, painless to do.
I reiterate my view, for twenty years, the most iconic and coolest historical weapon on planet Earth has been ignored by Age of Empires 2: the colossal GREAT BOMBARDS (devs wake up)…
How can ANY medieval / early modern history-based game NOT have Great Bombards for XXX’s sake???
It’s simple. You’re utterly wrong.
It’s about enhancing a civ’s looks, dynamics, actual historical units. Giving it the least personality acceptable, making minimum justice to its history. It’s NOT about changing the overall balance of the game in any way. ZERO connection with balance, buffing or nerfing nobody.
Suggested changes have ZERO relation with balance. Please read everything again. If you still can’t understand, I promise to help you.
I just wrote:
It’s about enhancing a civ’s looks, dynamics, actual historical units. Giving it the least personality acceptable, making minimum justice to its history. It’s NOT about changing the overall balance of the game in any way. ZERO connection with balance, buffing or nerfing nobody.
YES it has, to give another unit to any civ you have to consider how to balance it in a way on how impacts the civ. why Indians lack battle elephant, for example?
Exactly. That’s what we said. It’s incredibly urgent and necessary to (finally!) give Turks their real looks and historical units that absolutely should be in the game, like Great Bombards and a real Turkish cav, while making relevant adjustments to maintain the game balance. There’s a million ways to achieve that.
Yes you’re right on the spot. It’s perfectly possible to (finally!) have Great Bombards in AoE 2 while maintaining game balance. Limit numbers, expensive to get, slow rate of fire… Too many ways to balance out. So easy, uncomplicated, painless to do.