Funny from you when you keep comparing jan and hc while only one civ has access to them in castle age.
4 Likes
It’s a bonus only if you have early access to exactly the same unit. That’s why having Eagle Scouts is a feature and not a bonus. Because they are nowhere near as good as Eagle Warriors. And unlike Janissaries, they don’t require a castle, don’t occupy the UU slot, and aren’t more expensive than Eagle Warriors.
Janissaries’ combat stats and price were created accordingly when Hand Cannoneers had 35 HP, 65% accuracy, and 0.75 attack dispersion. But Hand Cannoneers got buffed in all three stats, while Janissaries got two nerfs without any compensation, and that’s how the problem emerged.
In order to reestablish the previous Janissary–Hand Cannoneer balance without buffing Janissaries, you’d not only need to revert all those Hand Cannoneer buffs, you’d also need to reduce their range to 6 too. But then almost nobody would train Hand Cannoneers anymore, right? That’s what happened to the Janissaries.
Because you just can’t give a triple buff to a unit, a double nerf to its UU counterpart without compensation, and call it a day.
Hindustanis have been at the top of Arabia for years now. So I would not be surprised if there are many who believe that they are overpowered. My guess is why many people don’t complain is because they have become used to seeing Hindustanis at the top, similar to how Franks were for the longest time.
I think the recent patch with the huge buff to infantry is the first time they have fallen out of the top #3 on Arabia, aside from the time when their Food discount was nerfed to 5%.
But Selim is properly the only one who believes Hindustanis are OP because of Shatagni.
1 Like
I currently ban only the Hindustanis, Gurjaras, and the Italians. The first and second ones have always been banned. After receiving a proper mod, the other elephant civs are allowed.
Their camels cancel Turk’s only remaining good units. No proper counter to strong camels due to lack of pikes/halbs, and you can’t even go with xbows because of Ghulams. And Shatagni Hand Cannoneers counter basically everything, including the Elite Janissaries. Plus, Hindustanis have better eco, so it’s pretty much a one-sided matchup.
But each civ has few bad matchup. Try to play vs Goths as Mayans, it’s gonna be hard if Goths reach Castle age.
Try Hindustanis vs Italians, it’s also hard (even if it’s easier than Mayans vs Goths).
Be ready for some response that talks over you.
1 Like
@Jeanpaulmanas some people refuse to understand that civs aren’t supposed to be good at everything. There was also vinifrss for AoE3 Ottomans and there’s also someone on the AoM sub-forum complaining about Norse not having a ranged answer to archers (idk what happened to that last one).
4 Likes
Just curious, Have you actually played any other civilizations other than Turks? You seem to be so obsessed with Turks, and how many matchups have you played against elephant civs?
4 Likes
Turks design has been bothering me for quite some time. Like some other OG civs, they seem very outdated and one-sided to me. They have obsolete civ bonuses like 50% off gunpowder tech, etc. And they basically represent only Ottomans of Oghuz Turks which makes me think that they can be a candidate of a well-deserved civ split into Ottomans, Seljuks and Turkmens -Azerbaijanis- (Eldiguzids, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu till Safavids)
If that feels too luxury (I bet it is not after seeing last civ splits), at least Turks needs some kind of rework to be more inclusive of Seljuks period.
Here is my 2 cents of a reworked Turks;
First thing first; give a God damn campaign to Turks where we can conquer Constantinople.
CIV CHANGES
Already existing elements from the game.
-accessing to caravanserai (It is not only because it has a historical connection with Turks, it is to minimize teammates sending Gold continuously to players who control Turks in order to manage gold-heavy economy requirements)
-enabling steppe lancers with either the sipahi card and/or with the hussar +1 PA bonus (we can minimize one and only scout, light cavalry game of Turks with another cav variation)
Buff
-Early eco bonus; Unique town center tech; TURKMEN MIGRATION.
Trains x amount of villagers in batch for a half price of the total amount of villager cost.
-Elite Janissaries get +5HP since the tech is reasonably expensive and 50% discount civ bonus isn’t applicable there) or apply the tech discount for elite janissaries
-Elite Janissaries have 75%+ accuracy instead of 65% (Lets be honest, why do they have a worse accuracy than hand cannoneers? Should be at least same.)
Nerf
-Losing access to cavalier. (No use in open or close maps, no role in any Turks gameplay)
-Removing the civ bonus of Gunpowder technologies are 50% cheaper. (Again let’s be honest here, this civ bonus is obsolete since it is only applicable to bombard tower and elite cannon galleon. It is a legacy bonus where there were hand cannon, bombard cannon, cannon galleon techs. If it was applicable to Elite Janissaries, I would say it can remain or if Turks had siege engineers)
Tweaks
-Sipahi card will be renamed Akinji
-Instead of (Winged) Hussars, this line will have a unique upgrade named Sipahi (something like 50% extra resistance against anti-cav or camel units can be something to give a specific role)
-Spearman gets a unique upgrade which might either relate to the Ottomans period (like azaps in AoE3) or Seljuks period (Ghazi warriors, Turcoman warriors) where the unit has a hybrid role of anti-skirmisher, anti-pike)
Bonus
-Castle age janissaries get a headwear as well (unused and existing Royal Janissary model). 
1 Like
Adding Seljuks to the game would be problematic since “Turks” in the game already represent Seljuks too.
I wouldn’t want a Turk split either, since they are the only civ in the game with both gunpowder and HCA + Hussar emphasis, which is very unique.
1 Like
Wait, what? How in the earth Turks represent Seljuks in game? Lol
1 Like
You play with the Turks in Manzikert scenario;
1 Like
This is the exact reason why Turks do not represent Seljuks in the game. It is a perfect example of a misuse of a civ, like many other examples which were corrected by having more civs in the game.
Care to elaborate on this statement?
On what statement exactly?
Why dont turks represent seljuks and who else got corrected.
Guys its a game chill
Civs in AoE2 are very plain design-wise so obviously if someone thinks ‘x civ represents y and z’ it is totally fine but details say otherwise. Gunpowder focus, unit like janissary (although without a hat), tech name like sipahi are clearly there from the Ottoman influence. One can relate cav-archer focus to Seljuks but that’s there for early Ottomans with Akinji cavarly from 13th till the beginning of 16th
century.
I am neither fighting nor demanding split like a fanatic player. I am just observing where the game is going with new DLCs and I see this split as an opportunity to see more central asian architectural set, more nomadic style of civ design which is underrepresented in the game.
1100 resource savings from the cheaper gunpowder techs is still useful. But they diluted the usefulness of this niche bonus even further through wrong decisions.
Siege Engineers benefiting Cannon Galleons was one of them. This means Cannon Galleons now outrange Turk Bombard Towers without even needing the elite upgrade. These Bombard Towers were supposed to be outranged only by Elite Cannon Galleons. This decision was the one I’ve hated the most right after the decisions to nerfing Janissaries. It also diluted the Artillery’s +2 range advantage for Cannon Galleons.
Cancel, just cancel this horrendous decision and put someone in charge instead who has better understanding of gameplay and isn’t obsessed with nerfing the Turks into the ground.
You have yet to show proof that they’re deliberately targetting Turks, and that they’re doing it for a bad reason.
Gurjaras seem to have been hurt a lot more in this patch than Turks were.
2 Likes