Turks have several options. Scouts are solid (especially if you scout-rushed). Turks can also go for archers themselves (faster gold mining will help with massing archers, and the archers can be later transitioned into cav archers). Skirms might not be a great option long term, but they’d still be fine in feudal age. If you’re facing a lot of archers in feudal age, then you’ll want to get the relevant armor upgrade from the blacksmith. Turkish scouts with 2+2 pierce armor only take 1 damage/shot from 4+1 attack archers. And scouts can try to intercept any reinforcements or even try to counter-raid (if your opponent’s base is open).
MAAs are countered by archers - not really an especially great option for Turks, but you could still get value with a MAA rush. But it isn’t a good idea to switch into MAAs if you see enemy archers on the field.
If you’re having trouble with archer rushes as the Turks, then you’d probably have trouble with it regardless of what civ you’re playing.
Hand canoneer is a unit available 2 mins after reaching imperial age when you get chemistry researched (for other civs) while Janissary is available in castle age. The opponent will be having 100+ vills and can spam elite skirms with 8 range and 8 p.armor when you start producing hand canoneers. While when you start making Janissaries, you and the opponent will be having 40-50 vills in a closed map. So the difference is not about raw stats but the stage of the game.
You can say they’re less broken compared to Conqs but nowhere close to being useless or bad. Its ok to give +5 base hp, and reduce gold cost by 5 for +3 seconds training time but that’s about it.
@II.Selim Since you complain that Janissary is too weak, and that Turks can’t counterback elephants (in another topic), why not consider suggesting that Janissary gains attack bonus against cavalry, especially elephants? Like maybe +2 vs cavalry and additionally +10 vs elephants? Being an anti-cavalry foot cannoneer could be a new unique identity.
Until 2021, the Janissary had the same HP as the Turkish Hand Cannoneer, and the Elite Janissary had more HP than the Turk Hand Cannoneer. Now, the Janissary has less HP than the Turk Hand Cannoneer. And the Janissary used to have 8 range.
The Hand Cannoneer’s accuracy was also increased to 75%, and its attack dispersion was reduced from 0.75 to 0.5.
I’m fine with reducing the Janissary’s range to 7, but it should have been compensated. Because it’s now clearly an underpowered unit.
Would you go with Scout + Skirmisher or Scout + Archer in Feudal against Italians, Vietnamese, or Ethiopians? Scout + Archer synergizes better with their bonuses.
I’m not sure if it’s worth going with Cavalry Archers against the Italians. Maybe it’s one of those cases where you should go with Crossbows instead.
Janissary is just bad—really bad—especially when you compare them with Conquistadors, other Castle Age gunpowder units, or Hindustani/Italian Hand Cannoneers. Having only 50% accuracy and even higher attack dispersion than Hand Cannoneers is a deal-breaker for me.
+10% more accuracy, +5 HP, and reducing the attack dispersion from 0.75 to 0.5 would make them viable again. I’d test them first against Hindustani/Italian Hand Cannoneers to evaluate the effect—if I could open the Advanced Genie Editor.
I’d prefer to keep the Janissaries’ intended design, which is being a generalist hand cannoneer.
Unlike the spearline, the eskirm upgrade are alot less important up to post imp. Vs regular foot archers you gotta just swallow that pill and make your cr*ppy counter units.
Vs italians and ethiopians in particular that can shut down your best comp (ca) … yeah, its bad. Those civs have all the tools to smoke anything you put out.
@JasuniSmith
Turks arent a rush civ by any measure off that 1 extra pierce armor. To do what you propose, it takes an early bonus to food or cut to unit costs - numbers are alot more important in these cases. Aside from the gold bonus, everything needs age3 at least to get going.
You have a point about using skirms up to age 3 - the eskirm upgrage is less impactful than the spearline upgrades and really only matters in post imp.
That being said, you may see that this is a losing struggle if there’s no real follow up - civs like ethiopians and recently italians can shut down the best comp turks have with a single tech/unit respectively. After that, you’re left with jans/hc - given the lack of pikes or onagers to support them this falls apart against the broad category of not infantry.
The lack of these support units made sense in AoK when the janissary was strong enough on its own, amongst those simpler civs…but now it really cant plug the gaps.
@Pulikesi25
Jans are also scaled down to age 3 in stats - less range, damage, hp, etc. All thats fine - the issue is that the low accuracy makes it unviable for backine dps.
Compared to xbow or hca, jans give less dps per cost. In age 4, you might as well just use the regular hc and skip the elite upgrade for artillery.
So it becomes that jans are either outcompeted by the alternatives and whatever beats those wont struggle with jans.
The Janissaries are still decent against other units except for the a larger group of archers which is supposed to be able to countback them naturally and reasonably.
Or in other words, having bonuses against cavalry and elephants allows the Janissaries kill them with almost the same efficiency as they kill infantry, thus literally making the Janissary even more generally useful.
And that can also deal the Turks’ problem you crying for.
I think it’s better to go with either Scout + Archer or Man-at-Arms + Archer. Scout + Skirmisher is not good because it’s food-intensive and doesn’t benefit from the gold mining bonus.
I always use the market to buy food in order to go Fast Castle Age as soon as possible. And Janissaries are preferred over Cavalry Archers in some cases, and that’s why “yeah, Janissary is weak, don’t question why a gunpowder civilization’s unique unit has only 50% accuracy, meanwhile there are Hand Cannoneers with 9 range, 75% accuracy, and less attack dispersion—just go with Cav Archer then ehe” doesn’t work.
To me there’s never really a need; in age 2 I just go as nuts as I can on massing archers and go into xbow. If need more damage, HCA is usually enough.
Even when I do get jans, they feel worse than xbows with thumbing and scorpions since the ballistics change. Even worse in age 4 when I see the eleite upgrade cost while having HC’s comparable to elite jans rin the archery range.
Janissaries are weak, but at least they require almost no upgrades, train quickly, and don’t stall the production of Stable or Archery Range units. I just train a small number of them in the Castle Age immediately to supplement Cavalry Archers/Xbows and Hussars.
In Imperial, Elite Janissaries still have a few advantages over Xbows, like being better against Heavy Cavalry + Skirmishers, and being more pop-efficient. The elite version actually isn’t as bad as the non-elite one because the 8 range + zero frame delay can come in handy in some situations. The problem is the elite upgrade is too expensive and not worth it in most cases.
That makes sense - xbows are also very easy to dodge unit ballistics kicks in so I guess the low accuracy might not feel so bad.
You think they would make a nice backline for longswords? They dont get archer attack/range upgrades, thumbring or ballistics so you can focus all on the melee units.
Milita line is more viable to tech into in the early ages these days and should be able to hold pressure in age 2/3 with some scout support. An advantage longswords have over knights is that they dont take bonus damage from anything and are close to knights in strength at even res - a backline of jans might tip alot scales against common age 3 comps.
It’s fine for Castle Age Janissaries to have lower accuracy than Hand Cannoneers for balance reasons. But the elite version still having 10% less accuracy than Hand Cannoneers is a dealbreaker. Especially when Elite Janissaries are more expensive, have worse attack dispersion, and a worse cost/HP ratio.
The idea was that Janissaries were supposed to be strong Castle Age units (which they were with 8 range), and then become less effective in Imperial Age with an underwhelming elite upgrade. Even then, non-elite Janissaries were still serviceable in Imperial because they had longer range and the same HP as Turkish Hand Cannoneers. And the accuracy difference was just 15%, not 25%. Plus, the elite upgrade was optional.
Then they ruined the balance by buffing Hand Cannoneers and nerfing the Janissary’s range without any compensation. Making the elite upgrade mandatory in Imperial. This isn’t how the Janissary–Hand Cannoneer balance worked before.
Making Janissary’s accuracy %60 and reducing their attack dispersion from 0.75 to 0.5 the only and correct step. And if the elite one ends up with %75 accuracy and 55 HP, then the elite upgrade would pretty much worth it. Because elite Janissaries had more HP than Turk hand cannoneers previously.
In the Castle Age, I’d still go with Cavalry Archers + Hussars and add some Janissaries in most cases, because the Sipahi tech is too good to pass up. Plus, Turks lack Arbalesters, and they don’t get any bonuses for either Crossbows or Longswordsmen. So Janissaries are just a supplement for me in Castle Age.
In close combat, Janissaries are probably better against Knights than Crossbows if there’s a meatshield.
Conqs cost 15 more gold and produce slower for that reason. Organ guns and Hussite wagons are slower, more vulnerable to melee units and weaker against mangonels. Rest of them are imp units. 50% accuracy is only an issue when you always try to kill something at full range. Like if you’re trying to fight skirms or xbows at full range. If you move a bit closer, the 7.5 projectile speed is quite solid.
With proper cost and training time changes, its ok to improve base accuracy and give +5 hp but they’re perfectly viable even today. Neither Turks nor Janissaries are an open map meta, they’re a gold rich semi-open/closed map civ. So if you’re probably trying to make castle drop Janissaries work in Arabia, you might not get expected results and its not because Janissaries are weak.
What’s the attack dispersion of gunpowder units other than Hand Cannoneers? Did they just decrease the Hand Cannoneer’s attack dispersion from 0.75 to 0.5 and leave the others at 0.75?
Janissaries were supposed to be a good Castle Age unit and definitely not supposed to be 25% less accurate than Castle Age Bohemian Hand Cannoneers. The range nerf also indirectly affected their accuracy, since they used to be more accurate at 7 range previously.
If Janissaries are not going to be buffed, then they should revert the Hand Cannoneer buff by reducing their HP by 5, lowering their accuracy by 10%, and increasing their attack dispersion from 0.5 to 0.75. Because that was the previous Hand Cannoneer–Janissary balance.
But perhaps the current Hand Cannoneers are fine, apart from the Hindustani and Italian ones. I’d like to test Elite Janissaries with the buffs I mentioned, and I’d share the results if I were able to open the Genie Editor.
