I agree that even though their bonuses help gunpowder a lot, their bonus of faster gold gathering helps Knight, Camels, Cavalry Archers, Crossbowmen, Monks and Siege also. It is just that people have ignored it completely. Since Chemistry helps with both Gunpowder (Bombard Cannons is nice, Janissaries in Castle Age were already there), Crossbowmen and Cavalry Archers, it makes sense to help buff these strategies. Crossbowmen aren’t viable to be honest since they lack Arbalesters. They already have a UT for Cavalry Archers, and they are one of the 6 Civilizations to have fully upgradeable Cavalry Archers (Arbalesters need 25 shots to kill a Turk Cavalry Archer). I would like to see this happening actually, with a 1 range nerf on the non-elite Janissary maybe.
Janissaries do not actually benefit from Chemistry, but Crossbowmen, Onagers and Scorpions do, aswell as Ships.
It unlock them more than help them, this bonus wouldn’t buff gunpowder.
They could still work, but of course the CA would be buffed a lot, and this would increase the turks chances of closing the game in castle age.
Exactly, with +20HP, +1atk in castle and their gold bonus, they could become a bit more archer resistant.
Maybe add that sipahi affect scout-line too.
I don’t see that necessary.
This is erroneous. Turk reliance on gold isn’t only about super late game. Its about map control as well. A lot of civs can still function and still have amazing eco bon bons that aren’t reliant on accessing rare gold. It hurts turks even more than most civs if you deny them gold
I think this is a really good idea and good compensation for their abysmal trash.
I also don’t think it’s a minor buff… You end up with better than mongol hussars… Especially vs archers…
And turks are literally the only civ without eskirms. This makes no sense in the current meta. They don’t even have a bon bon to help the only trash they do actually have. Compared to other civs that might miss one trash but have boosted other trash or eco bon bons
This also isn’t true. It’s very common across most civs to go for archers into xbows regardless of having final archer tech due to their power curve in feudal /Castle.
Yes but they would be able to tank in just like 5 arrows more, which isn’t game breaking.
Still, this, maybe combined with chemistry in castle age, could really help them.
Minig faster also means that they can make out the most in less time under pressure.
However, I agree with you, the point was that I was arguing against a bonus that would have helped them in the late trash game, which turks doesn’t need to shine.
Still, buffing the light cav and CA could work.
Yes, I know that. But I am talking about opening with Crossbowmen in castle Age. What you are saying is opening with Archers in Feudal Age, upgrading them to Crossbowmen, and if they do not have a future in Imperial Age (like Teutons), transition to something else. If the Turks have to start a rush from scratch, I won’t prefer Crossbowmen. Rather Cavalry archers or Knights.
Both Gunpowder units = Hand Cannons and Bombard Cannons. Cannon Galleons and Bombard Towers require another research while Janissaries do not even need Chemistry.
Of course. That’s the whole point. Buffing Turks, without changing their Imperial Age and Gunpowder.
Could work, let’s hope that this gets enaugh attention.
turks are a good civ if you can play them right, let’s not make them the new goths
I like both the dark age chemistry and buffed light-cavalry ideas.
I would go for giving LC pierce armor in some kind of way to help them with archers, though I may not be seeing the side effects of it.
Tatars already have Silk Armor which gives extra PA to Light Cavalry.
Silk armour affects 3 different unit lines.
Vietnamese CA have additional HP, so do turks.
Byz camels are cheaper so are berbers
Italian HC are cheaper so are porto
Korean archers are cheaper so are mayans
Etc etc
The turk PA could be a civ bonus as opposed to a UT and only affect scout line, it would thereby overlap in the same way MANY other bonuses in aoe overlap…
What I am thinking is Sipahi also giving Camel Riders +1/+1 armor. Camels already counter cavalry. With this they will become slightly more efficient at countering archers (just like Cataphracts though), partially negating their weakness of not having Elite Skirmisher and Pikemen, but not giving them a trash option.
Camels event with more PA won’t ever be a counter to archers, so no, I disagree on this.
Archery Range unit, the other is with focus on cavalry archers as whole.
Defensive bonus vs stable discount.
Whole price cheaper vs just gold price cheaper.
Wood discount vs whole price as an archer civ.
The civ theme really makes that, Turks aren’t that focused on Cavalry like the Tatars, not to mention that they already have their upgrades for free and extra PA can bring Balance problems on them, without even touching their clear weakness in early games on open maps.
Indians had that but they lost the extra melee armor.
Further Turk option:
They get extra gold every time they sell food/wood in castle/imp
It can be like +4 or 5 gold every time you sell.
This makes the turk market better than Saracens when training f/w per gold, while the market from Saracens is stronger in all the other cases (when buying f,w or everytime stone is involved)
This helps in trash wars…
that one sounds interesting
Free to say how much gold is fine, +3,4,5 or whatever
To be fair 5, for a gold hungry civ is a must.
Haha so you really didn’t get my point…
Those things i pointed out all have overlap. You can’t deny it. The point is using an argument like "there is overlap so we can’t use it " is moot.
“+1PA to scout line only” is as specific/overlaps as much as “scouts are cheaper” compared to “all stable units are cheaper”
Now if you start talking about balance that’s a whole different story…