Giving Turks scouts 2 pierce armor might sound insane on paper. However when you consider the Malian infantry get plus 3 pierce armor in the Imperial Age, it does not sound as insane. It even could be plus 1 in the Feudal Age, and another plus 1 in the Imperial Age. They may indeed have very strong scouts, but outside of that their trash with spears and skirmishers are awful. I don’t think giving them these new insane scouts would make the Turks unstoppable.
They would be extremely resilient to archers, which are the Turks main weakness. But outside of that, not much would be changed. Turk Scouts would be nice arrow sponges for them to protect their Janissaries and bombard cannons.
The Italian unique unit counters both Hussars and Heavy Cavalry Archers, which are the Turks’ only viable options against archers. At least Malians actually get just +2 more pierce armor since they lack Gambesons.
Turks are supposed to counter archers with Cavalry Archers (which doesn’t work against the Italians). And if the Turks still need another pierce armor for their Scouts, that’s just an acknowledgment of the power creep.
Due to most ranged units dealing a comparable small amount of pierce armor every additional pierce armor is extremely valuable.
Malians miss Gambesons and the last melee attack upgrade. So their Champions end up with just 7 pierce armor and two less attack.
Turks have a full Blacksmith, so their Hussars end with 7 pierce armor. With +2 pierce armor they would have 8. That would make them nigh invulnerable to TC fire, and extremely good at raiding.
At most you can give another unit +1 pierce armor…
Turks are fine in most cases, its really just that niche civs that have a particularly strong cavalry/CA counter shut down the civ as a whole. Te civ needs a viable comp that isnt cavalry - gunpowder is a crapshoot in aoe2.
More annoying that the turj thread span is this kneejerk into any kind of bs in the opposite direction.
Like, ok. Lets go fast imp against the civ that gets there faster for that 2 range on a counter unit. Only gotta survive two ages through an archer push that already counters my best comps! Unless italians naturally transition into their UU, smokes the single counter unit turks can feasibly field against it…
Then I can disable the single unit gen. xbow monocomp that shuts down every single comp my civ has because someone things artillery turns BBC into Houfnice. Nice.
Next, do we dig the potential of the mighty turk scorpion/huss ball???
The civ needs a foot archer backline dps that doesnt suck - and barring 2 cases ALL hcs/variants suck compared to arbs. Or it could be simple onagers. Or even pikes to have a viable meat wall for when the huss isnt enough.
I’d still go with Cavalry Archers against archers unless the opponent is Italians. In that case, Scorpions are obviously better. In Imperial, I’m not sure if it would be worth upgrading Scorpions—I’d likely go with BBC + Janissary + Hussar. As underwhelming as Janissaries are, the elite ones outrange Genoese Xbows, which is very valuable.
Scorpions, in most cases, do not work against elephants on open maps on their own. Elephants are faster and benefit from their civilization bonuses. The ideal composition would be Scorpion + Pike (if the Turks had them). Camel + Scorpion works, but they are very gold-intensive, and Turks have no bonuses for either of these units. Investing in this combo is just playing to the elephant civilization’s strengths.
If both civilisations do not go for UU, the Turks win. If both civilisations go for UU, the Turks win. If both civilisations go for the late game, the Turks win. It is not difficult to understand. On a practical level, the only thing you can do with the Italians is to reach a critical mass of crossbows before it is too late.
My own experience with Italians vs Turks has been that the matchup favors the Turks (despite the compositions seeming to favor Italians). Of course, that’s based on pre-update experience and data, so things may have changed after the buffs Italians have received.
Janissaries are a strong unit for the Turks, and in my own experience do well against condos. Condos might deal with Janissaries quickly if they can reach them, but sometimes that’s a pretty big if. Especially if the Turks have a meat shield in front (usually hussars). Gen bows can take care of the meat shield, but Gen bows aren’t cheap and will lose to Janissaries (especially once the janissaries are elite). Janissaries are also available in castle age, while condos are limited to imperial age (which is still expensive, even with a discount).
Both civs also like their BBCs, but a range advantage is pretty significant. Italians might be able to afford more, but that doesn’t matter if they lose them before they can fire off a single shot against the Turkish BBCs. On the other hand, BBCs are especially vulnerable to condos (but again, only if the condos can get close).
Malian infantry do get +3 PA, but that is staggered. Even with it, Malian pikes still die to ranged units (too much bonus damage) and they’re missing the halberdier upgrade. Malian champskarls are much more potent with their effective +2 PA (missing gambesons), but are still hard-countered by hand cannons (which don’t counter hussars), don’t have any bonuses to help them deal with other champions (and Malians miss blast furnace, making that matchup worse), and lose to heavy cavalry. Malian champskarls are also a gold unit, while hussars are a trash unit, though champions are spammable enough to make that a minor factor. Hussars have base 2 PA, while champions have base 1.
Also note that hussars are a better raiding unit than champions.
Wow cool! I sure hope the changes over the past few days are an accurate summary of the topic at hand! /s
*civilizations
If it feels easy to understand, be sure that the guy that threw out ‘BBC’ without any other context, in total neglect of the recent changes, just missed something obvious.
Such as the recent +1/+1 armor the italians get for free out the gates. The previous win condition for turks vs italians of winning by archer numbers in age 2/3 is no longer as viable. Extra gold is nice, but turks aren’t exactly an eco powerhouse.
@9:10. Genoese xbow vs Janissary, full upgrades
@9:30 Genoese xbow vs HCA, full upgrades
@2:30 Janissary vs Italian HC, pre pirotechnia
Its inane to even indulge this since italians can just send normal xbows or support with eskirms against either comp,Turks like to go for but just to highlight how far out of the loop we are.
Lastly, you said turks beat italian late game yes? Bruh, turks themselves do have a generally stronger late game due to HCA/huss being so dominant, but head on itallians are a hard counter to those kinds of comps.
Like, italians beat the likes of bulgarians, saracens, and spanish in the late game - all of those bring something stronger than what the turks have. Yet, they lose via hardcounter.
Turks vs italians in the in the late game is the same - its only the late feudal/early castle where there’s a window of opportunity. After that, its as you see in the videos.
It’s awkward that in 1000–1200 Elo in Arabia, the Italians’ second-worst win rate is against the Turks, with a 37.80% win rate currently.
But in 1200+ Elo, the Italians hard counter the Tatars on both Arabia and other maps, which is a similar civilization to the Turks.
But I think it might change soon, and there aren’t enough samples yet.
Italians are one of the few civilizations I’m not sure which compositions to use against. In Castle Age, I’d go with Scorpions maybe? In Imperial, probably BBC + Elite Janissary + Two-Handed Swordsman. Even Spearmen are an option as a meatshield for me because Genoese Xbows do not deal extra damage to them. Yeah, it will make the gold run out quickly, but the best bet looks like taking a gambit and trying to end the game in early Imperial.
I think what Khanattila said is that Italians should mass xbow instead of Turks mass xbow for the win.
Actually, Genoese xbow can beat paladin cost effectively. But in fact, cavalry civs like Franks are unfavorable matchups for Italians. Do you know why?
You missed the point. To lay it out - I answered his question; turks won vs italians due to being able to mass archers faster then italians could in early ages. NOT because jans/CA/whatever is actually a comp that can stand up what italians can put out
Yes. The entire post was a detail of just that. Reread it if you missed that.
One important point you ignore is that Genoese crossbowmen only counter cavalry when they reach critical mass. And massing GC and maintaining GC mass are not easy for Italians. In low number, GC can be murdered by xbow, janissaries and knights. GC range is also capped at 7, which makes them more vulnerable. Transition of xbow to GC is difficult unless you are playing hybrid maps.
One of the misconception is that Condottiero beat Janissaries in mass battle. Actually, the relation is often likely reversed as Janissaries have high raw damage and Condottiero is infantry after all.
In late games, BBC+Janissaries+Hussar destroy Italians actually.
In open maps, if Italians go for Knight, Turks can also go for knight+camels. If Italians go for xbow, Turks can go for 1TC Janissaries+Rams. The match favors Turks more.
“Civilisations” is totally acceptable in proper English.
It’s too early to talk about the changes in the latest patch, let’s wait at least two months.
Historically, the Italians play to survive in Arabia until they achieve their ideal composition of Hussars, Genoese crossbowmen and BBC. Which is very difficult to do in practice. And besides, as others have explained, it is useless against compositions that have more range than yours, such as the Turks.
When playing the Turks, you always want to spend your gold on Janissaries or CA. Knights, Camels and other gold units are very situational. For example, if you are playing against the Gurjara, you probably want to play Camels + Crossbowmen. But this is extremely rare as a situation.
