Watch some of the pros learn how they are dealing with it.In team games if the enemy has mass bombards best option is to squize it and dont foget to put your units in spread formation(C button).
Otto’s only problem is those great bombards they need some nerf and everything is fine maybe they can deal minus bonus damage to anti siege.
2 Likes
Spread formation is X (if I remember well).
I also think they have to do something with the antisiege. If they want to let the GBs be that powerful, it’s ok but they have to revert the nerf to springalds, or give them shield to siege, or something like that. As I said, right now GBs can act as a springald, as a bombard, and as a mangonel, it’s too much for a unit…
So, In my opinion there are two options to GBs:
- Reducing their AoE damage, so they can’t delete an army in a few shots. This way, archers can be more feasible vs jans, because they won’t be one shot deleted by the GBs.
- Keep them as powerful as they are, but buff anti-siege (springalds).
If I had to make a decission, I would reduce their AoE damage, this way battles would be more tactic, and not about who one shot who the first. I don’t like siege meta, where someone is just massing siege to one shot the other.
I have never declared you an enemy, in some cases in the past we have concorded, but in this, let’s just say that I disagree “Completely” with everything you published in that message. If I had to say where I disagree with you, it would be very long and would become personal; and since the Moderation has already called attention to lowering the tone, I leave it there and do not respond further.
I also disagree with “Joanka93val”: More than 90% of what he wrote seems meaningless to me. I could discuss why, but anyway, at the request of Moderation, and in order not to create more conflict, I’ll leave it there.
Well, the only two antisiege units at the moment are the Culverin and the Springald, and they don’t have a special type of unit.
Should the “Antisiege” subclass be invented? It could be tried, and if not as another user suggested, to give a Percentage Resistance to Siege Damage to these two units (Springald, Culverin), so that they are not destroyed in one hit by the Bombards and Great Bombards.
1 Like
Zhu xi has area effect bombards too but they dont make a impact like great bombard.They can took as example while nerfing great bombard.
1 Like
Playing against Ottomans is genuinely unfun, to the point that I think I’d rather quit a match than deal with fighting them.
2 Likes
Thats means you should train at least 8 springalds if you wanna destory a full upgraded Great Bombard in 1 shot.
Well, springald is the only choice as always, damn thats a bit boring.
1 Like
Janissaries shouldn’t counter cavalry. It makes no sense both for the game and historically. Janissaries were vulnerable to cavalry charges and flanking. They completely break the game’s rock, paper, scissor mechanic. Cavalry are the only way to counter the Great Bombards since springalds need to come in the dozen to even scratch a Great Bombard but you just surround your bombards with janissaries and Sipahi and they are literally untouchable. It’s ridiculous. I am starting to surrender Ottoman games beforehand, I am totally against queue dodging but if I see an Ottoman player these days, I’m out. It’s a complete waste of my time.
2 Likes
Agreed with this, i was really hoping for a Janissary rework. Cavalry is supposed to be strong against ranged. And Janissary ranged weakness of 50% is so arbitrary and not related to any game mechanics.
What i suggested before is to have janissaries have toggle ability like the desert raider to switch weapons (historically janissaries used all kind of weapon).
In ranged mode they would have no bonus against cavalry . Same gun attack otherwise. In melee mode (scimitar) they would attack faster, less base damage, but good bonus against cavalry. This would force janissaries to actually move on cavalry or protect siege instead of just shooting all cavalry from the distance.
3 Likes
Everyone knows that cavalry countering siege properly would make for a much more enjoyable gameplay, but the devs are going to continue ignoring the idea because they are completely disconnected from the playerbase. Last patch sucked, this one is still gonna suck. And yeah the janissaries anti-cav bonus is just nuts. You simply can’t build cav against them. But they also get the best horsemen in the game so they definitely building cavalry. Yay.
1 Like
I think it is one of the best patches of the last 2 years.
It is true that the “anti-siege” siege mechanics or siege wars are not very enjoyable, but at least you can deal better with the GB by having less HP (you need less Springalds).
Maybe MAA in Split mode and cornering are also useful sometimes against janissaries, Sipahi and GB in the next patch.
What is clear is that the Ottomans will get their deserved nerf in this patch.
4 Likes
Yes but they reworked the siege, just to a few months later realise that GBs whas freaking overtuned and now just do what they should have done at the moment of the last patch.
Also the mangonel change, before the last patch it was 2 shots, then goes to 3 shots, now another time to 2 shots…
It suggests that many of the changes they introduce are not always well thought through. They should test what they introduce and think of the meta they want to create.
Personally, I dislike so much the siege meta. It creates situations where a player can just one shot the army of the other, and of course all the strategy involved into an attack or a defense is left aside. In my ideal game siege is situational, and infantry got the whole attention, whereas cavalry acts as a support by flanking ranged, siege, or raiding the economy.
Yea 6 regular jannis kills 29 elite knights .
So jans attack should be nerfed to 5 for regular and 8 for elite.
Their attack bonus vs cav should be removed and maybe their HP should be reduced to 40 or 50 so that they are complately useless as they were before 
Also Jans should be 400g 1000f 200s to create right ?
And finally we can reduce Otto’s win rate to %0.00001 again
3 Likes
They want devs to delete Ottomans from the game man. If Ottomans are too bad, they will be so happy.
No I think they want ottos but for their vision ottos should be punching bag to other civs.
When Otto’s have %15-20 winrate ( at release ) they were all extremely happy about it.
Who cares ? Devs know what it is. They check stats. Ottos were so weak and they’ve been buffed.
Now they are bit overperforming and got nerfed. Stats are most important measure to be taken.
3 Likes
Haha, I understand the sarcasm, but also you are right:
There is a lot of bad talk about the Janissary anti-cavalry bonus, although other civs also have their special units with broken bonuses. Say:
-
The English have their absurdly powerful longbow archers: But normal, it is representative of their civ.
-
The French have early heavy cavalry with a special ability that allows them to kill villagers in 2 hits just by building a blacksmith shop, but Normal: is representative of their civ.
-
The Palace Guards with the Yuan upgrade have surprising speed, and normal, since they are the Embroidered Uniform Guard so they had to be fast.
-
Oh, but the Ottomans have Janissaries with a big anti-cavalry bonus “EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR MIND”.
It is best not to listen to these people. If you remove “special abilities” from unique units, they CEASE to be unique units.
Weakness to Archers and Infantry.- The Janissaries already have a very large weakness to compensate for their anti-cavalry bonus: They receive 50% more range damage. That’s actually quite a lot and they have -15 HP than the normal gunpowder unit. Another thing is that people don’t know this and think they are like other hand gunners.
- I think the weakness is a nod to AoE III, where musketeers and Janissaries (Heavy Gunpowder Infantry) are also weak to archers and crossbowmen, who historically had more reload time and that is why they were effective.
Anti-Cavalry Bonus: On the other hand there is a “Historical Reason” for them to have the anti-cavalry bonus: The Ottomans were the main enemy of the Eastern Roman Empire (Aka: Byzantines), and their most characteristic Unique Unit, since AoE2, is “The Cataphract”, cavalry that in AoE IV, has an absurd amount of HP, and only occupies 1 population. The Janissaries, who defeated the Byzantines, are the perfect combo for these units, that’s the joke of the matter.
Another thing is that there are people who prefer another way of representing unity, but personally “I like it a lot”.
Don’t even tell me, in this post they have gone to great lengths to justify the Win-rate thing to nerf the Ottomans. Although you don’t think it’s all of them, it’s just Porter and joanka93val, but they repeat their comments so much that it seems like there are more of them.
The worst thing is that it ignores the list of changes that had been made in 4 seasons to make them “at least decent”, but the most drastics: The changes to make people use the ottomans unique units again (There was a dark time when no one used Janissaries or even Great Bombards).
- Improved the attack speed of the Janizaro (now profitable)
- Great Bombard crafting cost and speed reduced (now cost-effective)
- Improved Observatory Bonus (IV) from 60->100%, now profitable
- Improved the effect of Caravanseria (II) 2/6 merchants > 3/10, it is now profitable.
I suppose that positive changes that allowed a positive win-rate of the civ should not be touched.
These new Vizier Point nerf changes are new, and may greatly affect the way Ottomans play.
If the nerf is too strong, perhaps in the future it would be necessary to request its reversal, and perhaps another way to buff them that was already requested before, when they had a low win-rate: "More unique units or technologies for Vizier points. "
But hey, that’s better for Another topic, because this topic has ALREADY LOST ITS MEANING:
- Since the nerf is done, and we will have to test the Ottomans in the new season to see how they go.
1 Like
Lol we’ve found the ottoman player.
The problem isn’t janissaries by themselves, it’s the jan+sipahi+GB trinity. Strongest horsemen, strongest (and unique) anti-cav ranged, and strongest siege. It’s not balanced. There is no way to deal with that combo.
If anyone should complain it’s the byzantines, getting their only good unique unit nerfed once again (the limitanei) despite their abysmal winrates. Besides you can’t compare the catas which become good merely due to their cost efficiency in very very late game, to the unbalanced strength at all stages of the game that the ottomans have been for the last few patches. An early game advantage is much more advantageous than one that rarely ever happens due to games ending before that.
1 Like
Just Otto players crying, ignore them.
“They are not that strong you just need to learn to play”
Devs also think they are too strong, that’s because they got a nerf.
Maybe their winrate is that high for a reason, and not for the divine grace, as some people seems to claim here.
They got nerfed, so this post right now has no more sense.
1 Like
Any more questions?
I believe that, along with a lower HP in this patch, the population should be 5.
In that video without a good positioning with the cavalry or some Springalds without micromanagement, it was normal the result, as the GB is very pop efficient.
Yep, 4 pop is too low for the GB.
As you say, it should be at least 5, if not 6 or 7, considering its power and cost.
A Bombard costs 850 ressources and a Great Bombard costs 1250 ressources (1.47 times as much!) and has WAY more firepower, can ONESHOT springalds AND heavy aoe damage.
I think 6 pop would be more than fair, in favour for the Great Bombard, considering the regular Bombard already takes 4 pop and a springald/culv takes 3 pop…
But yeah, I could never understand either why Knights only take 1 pop.
They should take 2, or at least 1.5 pop.
Before someone writes: 1.5 pop? that doesn’t work!!!
It did work in age of empires 1, in year 1997. 27 years ago.
So it should be technically possible today 