Not if enemy has Halbs combine with them. And Archers+Halbs is preaty common comp.
Well I am not going waste time explaining how to counter units.
Turks is good in late game that why many people wants to skip the castle age as fast as possible. And yes that is not an option. 
My suggestion is to give them chemistry in castle age and give them gunpowder units but no bomber cannons. Maybe slow down their production time a bit if that could be too strong.
Well, some people here will disagree with you. They say arbs + habls is unstoppable for turks.
At castle age, turks have crosbow, ca, knights, light cav, mangonels, camels, all them with full upgrades.
The reason turks want to skip castle and go imp early its because of all their imperial age bonuses, and not because their castle age is bad or weak.
If you are playing crosbow, you may want to switch into CA. If you play knight/light cav, you may want to add hand cannoneers or jenizaries in future.
1 Like
Hereâs my suggestions
1)Starting with 2 scoutsâŠYeah that makes them house caped at the beginning of game but could be very useful for scouting or laming. In professional hands this might be OP i must admit.
2)Turk houses be able to collect one of resources.Gold comes into mind first but it wouldnât be helpful in early game. Food or wood could be broken.
3)Destroyed enemy buildings provide gold for Turks. Itâs would be great for late game for Turks.
4)Turk scout line can generate gold from enemy eco buildings. I know a similar bonus already given to Keshiks but it can be arranged like switch Keshiks generating ability with something else(unique steppe lancer maybe). Or keeping both since Tatars and Turks share similarities in history.
Aside from all above I also think HCâs need a buff for firing rate or accuracy. According to aoestats most of gunpowder civs struggling in general.
Here our old discussion on Turks. We proposed several options.
I have to disagree on this. If we want to intentionally keep turks weak on trash (and as it appears, âweâ do), then their strong point needs to be addressed in return. If turks have a bad early game, their endgame needs to be improved. As with huns, they have a great early game, but at the very late game they become bad and selective in their options. (their only goods units are cavalry and accurate trebs with no siege engineers, no gunpowder units and also mediocre trash, bad defenses, their navy being very bad with no cannon galleons at all and no fast fire ship nor shipwright.)
Obviously making totally atrocious buffs (like trash siege, the heck?) is off the table, too. But buffing their strong point mildly should not be out of the question. For example making their gold last longer so they donât need to go for their most subpar trash at the same point that other civs do.
2 Likes
A few more ideas:
Cavalry gets +1 pierce Armor per age, but they loose the Last Armor Upgrade.
Attillery effects all siege, so their Mangos have the Same Range as other civs onagers with siege engeneers and their Scorpions becoming quite good, being able to better Deal with archers without giving them onagers
1 Like
Though it would be thematic to Turks, I always wanted Petards and Demo Ships to be considered Gunpowder units, and there is a serious lack of Petard bonii; I do not think it would solve the issues with Turks, currently.
I always thought that Ports, Mongols and Italians should have bonii to Petards too, specially the Mongols, which would be very fitting and historically relevant.
If we are talking about petards, I would like to suggest that make flaming camels available in the castle age without tech researching, then let the imperial unique tech can not only trebs +2 range but also improve both petards and flaming camels.
I agree on this. Giving Turks e-skirms is a very effective fix, but it is not the way the civ is designed. The fix would be trivial but not unique.
Turks do not have a terrible early game, but they are weak to archers. And this affects their play from the beginning of castle age. Almost every civ can do a archers into crossbowman strategy, which is deadly for Turks, until they are capable of using mangonels or knights. This should be compensated by not being the worst late game civ with no gold.
This is a good point, if Turks are a civ working with gold, letâs help them in doing that. I think this was the intention of the devs when they buffed the gold collection rate. Another proposal I would really like is some extra way to get gold, like a gold trickle (everyone knows that a trickle equal to 2 relics from castleageon is both usefuland balanced), helping them to produce more gold units even in low gold situations (this includes also limited access in castle age due bad gold mines).
I donât think so. I mean, if everyone keep forgetting that Chinese demos have +50% HP itâs for a good reason.
Bonus to Demo Ships, but not to Petards.
And yes, I do understand they are not great units, which is why it could be a minor bonus.
For example, if Petards were a Gunpowder unit, Italians would train them with a discount.
I never saw a reason why Turks lacked halberdiers or elite skirmishers in the first place. Historically they had quite well halberdiers and actually great skirmishers.
I mean especially on horseback skirmishing is a traditional game in Turkey.
I can tell you it is definitely more Turkish than many of the other civs that has skirmishers.
For the economy too, I think Turkish bonus is very irrelevant. They could have a trade bonus sure since they historically held silk road for centuries but the real traders were Arabs. I havent heard Turks being more advanced in alchemy this is a very orientalist view, Turks were never good at science.
It could be the Persians or Arabs that were good at alchemy not Turks. Turks were nomads so they could have a food bonus from sheeps just like other nomad civs.
Janissary is a poor uu choice by the devs too. Janissaries were famous in renaissance unit and they were just bodyguards of the sultan 5000 men in 1453. The backbone was cavalry. Turks should have been more based on Seljuks or Beyligs. They should have had a light cav or horse archer uu just like Mongols.
Current Turks civ is very irrelevant to Turks in medieval and yes I am aware this applies to many civs. Just like how Huns speak Mongolian or Chinese dont have gunpowder.
1 Like
Turkish armies were mostly composed by very few elite troops, surrounded by a much larger host of rabble.
Turk Trash is bad to compensate for their Free Scout line upgrades, and their OP Janissaries. It is also historically fitting, since the vast majoritry of turkish troops would be inexperienced volunteers hoping to survive the war with enough plunder.
As far as Skirmishing goes, Turks were never great Foot Archers, the best in the era were the Arabs and the English, and everyone else was way behind in this aspect.
The only actually good Turk troops were the Cavalry contingents, and the Janissaries which employed the newest weapons.
Actual Turk foot soldiers were woefully underequipped and undisciplined, often even breaking easily.
The Turks even to this day say that whenever the Sultan fought, they won, but whenever a Pasha fought, it was a coin toss. That is because only the Sultan had access to troops of good quality, while the Pashas often had only local militias and mass conscriptions of peasants.
Turks had Pikes and a few other weapons only when they invaded Europe too. It was not the traditional Turk fighting style, and mostly it was locals that employed them.
Traditional Turk warfare was a lot like the Mongols, Mass Horse Archers to taunt and harrass the enemy, and then move in to saber range for the final blow.
This is a game, not a simulation. In any case, Turks are one of the best represented civs in the game.
2 Likes
You obviously dont know anything regarding Turkish history.
âTurkish armies were mostly composed by very few elite troops, surrounded by a much larger host of rabble.â
Are you kidding me ? Turks along with Mongols were probably the most depended on quality nation in the medieval times !
Turks formed the military elite in almost all the islamic world ! In Egypt they became Mamluks, in India they formed Delhi Sultanate, in Iran they formed Ghaznavids, in Central Asia they formed Khwarezmians. They were the primary and almost exclusive choice in Ghulam and Mamluk system of caliphates. Mamluk Sultanate was called ed dewlet-ĂŒ Turkiyya âstate of the Turksâ in Arabic.
Turks did what Normans did in 11-12th centuries since 6th century to 16th century. Founding many empires in foreign geographies as military elite. Only they were better at it and better at warfare. Europe was a village until 15th century.
Look at the battles between Seljuks and crusaders. Historians say Seljuk Empireâs army barely surpassed 20.000 men. In crusade of 1101 Kilijarslan defeated 3 bigger crusader armies in a row.
In 2nd crusade his son Mesut I defeated German king Conrad and one year later the Frankish king Louis in a row both wer outnumbering his army. Crusaders only field victory against Seljuks was in 1st crusade Doryleum at which
when 6-8000 Seljuk Turks attacked 50.000 crusaders. Kilijarslan dared this because he just annihiliated peoples crusade and he expected a similiar peasant army. Still lost 3000 men while crusaders lost 4000 despite being 5 times more outnumbered. Mamluks in egypt defeated crusaders in 7th crusade so bad that even Frankishing Louis IX fell prisoner.
In battle of Al-Mansurah 10600 Mamluks(6000 of which were Arab peasants only 4600 were Mamluks) defeated 25.000 Franks.
If anyone, Franks were the one relying on trash peasants more. Among 25.000 men only several hundred were knights.
In Manzikert 1071 25.000 Seljuks defeated 80.000 strong Byzantine army. Sources sometimes give lesser numbers but actually Byzantines started the campaign with 100.000 men composing the BEST medieval world could offer Franks, Varangians, Turkic mercenaries, Italian crossbowmen etc. 20.000 never reached the battle due to logistic problems. Then Emperor sent 30.000 to a chokepoint to cut the advancement of Seljuks from Syria(Alparslan was fighting against Fatimids) but Alparslan was aware due to superior recon and he outrunned that 30.000 and hit them from the side they didnt expect and routed all of them. Then he faced the remaining 50.000 with his 25.000 men. He did the typical steppe tactics and Byzantine army lost cohesion and started plundering the Seljuk camp. Over this he charged back and destroyed them, Emperor fled to left flank, completely surrounded him, killed his Varangian guards and at this point the right flank thought Emperor was already dead so they started routing and his general Dukas abondoned the battle. When the battle was already lost.
The defecting of the Turkic mercenaries are largely exaggerated. Most stayed loyal and Dukas only betrayed when the Emperor was completely surrounded.
Early 14th century Ottomans were also reliant on Turkic armies. Later on they got degenerated and adopted a more imperial system relying on quantity but that was not in medieval era but renaissence era. The army wasnt even Turkic anymore. In 14th century however there were two major battles that destroyed Serbia who were about to become an empire themselves.
In 1364, 5000 Turkmen akinji defeated 30.000 Serbs and when 7 years later Serbs came with 70.000 men 800 Turkmen akinji annihiliated them using very advanced tactics and superior discipline. The numbers are given by the Byzantine scholar Laonikos Chalkokondyles.
Turks have always been admired and hired by foreign countries. Byzantines had Pechenegs and Avars, even crusaders heavily relied on Turkopoles. In 3rd crusade for example some historians debate Turkopoles were the decisive unit. Frankish chronicles like Gesta Francorum always praise the military capabilities of Turks.
As far as Skirmishing goes, Turks were never great Foot Archers, the best in the era were the Arabs and the English, and everyone else was way behind in this aspect.
Is this a joke ? Turks and Mongols were the best archers of medieval times. Franks especially were admired by the âdropping arrows on enemyâ in their Gesta Francorum.
Arabs ? Arabs learnt archery from their Turkic mercenaries. Thumb ring, composite bows etc.
Franks used crossbows, cheaper and faster to train but less efficient compared to archery. Everything you say actually apply to Europeans.
What you call British bow is made of wood. Turkish composite bows were the best of their era. Even today if you check youtube people use either Korean or Mongolian or Turkish bows.
You are thinking really Ottoman centric. But if Ottomans preserved anything from Turkic warfare it was their efficiency in bows. Late Ottoman warfare was an imperial warfare more similiar to Byzantine system. AOE 2 Turks are based on Seljuks, early Turkish beyligs and also early Ottomans.
Thats what I criticise. They say this 9/10 of Turkish AI names in skirmish are Seljuk sultans or beylig leader names but the faction itself is almost exclusively Ottoman and that is late Ottoman. It was a renaissance power at that point not medieval. In AOE3 Ottoman leader is Suleiman(1520-1566) but AOE2 has a Lepanto campaign(1571). I mean it outdates even Suleiman, the Ottoman leader in AOE3.
You know what ? In beta version of AOE2 janissaries were an archer unit and thats how it should have stayed ! Janissaries made their fame as elite archer units first and foremost. They adopted firearms in 16th century. In fact janissaries shouldnt have been the unique unit.
In 1389 there were 500 janissaries.
In 1402 there were 1000 janissaries.
In 1453 there were 6000 janissaries.
In 1528 there were 12.000 janissaries.
They werent the most elite troops neither. The most elite were the Qapıkulu sipahis. Household cavalry. They were chosen among Turkmen children. They were both heavy cav and also heavy horse archers.
Janissaries shined as they adopted muskets and muskets got more important over time.
Blockquote Actual Turk foot soldiers were woefully underequipped and undisciplined, often even breaking easily.
Most elite foot soldiers were archers. There were elite melee ones too. Number three: https://images.app.goo.gl/PbvZ3M4CdWgDYBj5A
Blockquote Turks had Pikes and a few other weapons only when they invaded Europe too. It was not the traditional Turk fighting style, and mostly it was locals that employed them.
Traditional Turk warfare was a lot like the Mongols, Mass Horse Archers to taunt and harrass the enemy, and then move in to saber range for the final blow.
You know this and you still defend Turks mediocrity due to late Ottoman imperial mentality ?
Javelin throwing is a Turkish traditional support.
So you actually want Turks to have all the setbacks of both periods but not the advantages of them ?
Janissary, muskets, bombard cannons arent the traditional Turkic warfare neither.
If Ottomans were going to be influenced, it should have been 14th century Ottomans when they were still somewhat Turks.
Blockquote This is a game, not a simulation. In any case, Turks are one of the best represented civs in the game.
I dont know if they are the worst or not. I dont know every civ in game. But they clearly arent the best represented, far from it. Though the game is overall very bad at representing majority of civs.
1 Like
I think Turk must be have early bombard canon in castle age but it have same range mangonel but more damage and low aoe than mangonel.
Itâs only Arena and arena-like maps where they are âbrokenâ, no?
In most other settings Turks are just âdifferentâ. And I actually like that.
I could imagine a small nerf for the castle age Jans but in exchange a small buff to their cavalry (actually/mostly camels). Donât have values here, but this could solve that âbrokennessâ, no?
Edit, insert from a different thread:
I really like this idea. I think this could help fitting turks more into the standard meta maps. Allowing to play the civ more âmetaâ style without pushing that. (Can also apply to camels, not only knights)
Donât see that. Why? To make them even more oprressive on Arena?
depends on your use of the word broken. they are below average on open maps, and some of the suggestions to nerf them on arena would hurt them on open maps.
are Jans what really makes them broken on arena style maps though? frankly, I think itâs their ability to win the scout/monk wars in early castle age giving them a significant advantage.
I have actually no idea.
I think itâs a mix of everything.
But I rarely play that civ and even more rarely arena, soâŠ
Turks is one of the most unique civs out there, so itâs really hard to tell⊠why thay actually feel balanced in so many settings and matchups despite missing so many important toolsâŠ
Jans is just a good, safe way to account for the spezifical Arena brokenness, as this is such a common theme on arena - castle drop into UU. On other maps like nomad where this is a viable strat turks have other disadvatages.
So itâs just an easy leverage. I donât claim to know wether itâs the biggest reason for the brokenness. But imo itâs definetely a part and a change there wouldnât impact other maps and settings as much.
Itâs an idea, not a definitive âbalance turksâ conclusion.
Maybe some turks arena players can leave a statement (?)