Mild relief from CA’s nerfing of the Turks. V1.1

[Praylak]

I would first like to say hi to everyone.

With all due respect to history and all it’s authority that I do acknowledge, I find it quite unacceptable that the Ottoman units are not available until the late era. An obvious slam in the groin for a Turkish player such as myself, thanks to the latest patch.

I will accept the Ottoman dynasty did not come about till then, but IMHO some compensation is in order here. Or, a fair compromise which I’ve done to my game file. I can’t believe CA would intentionally handicap what I believe is already a very challenging faction to play. Now for some of you this may be of no concern, but a closer look at the Turks reveals some interesting points in which to consider.

The units in question are of course the Ottoman Sipahi and the Ottoman Infantry. In M:TW the Sipahi are medium cavalry, no special deal, normal of what you would expect of other factions medium cavalry common in early era’s and up. Still, it’s worth mentioning statically these cavalry are not quite up to par as several other medium units.

The Ottoman Infantry on the other hand, have the armor attack bonus. Besides this and being a hybrid archer/infantry, they are statically inferior to Janissary Infantry. Janissaries are available in the High era. In fact the Turks only other Armor attack bonus unit is the Heavy Infantry, Ghazi and the urban turban, run of the mill militia. Egypt seems almost blessed with unit’s in comparison. You Egyptians have no grounds to bitch.

My point is, what is the reason in introducing statically speaking, early era units in the late period for a faction starving for them hundreds of years prior? Comparatively to almost every other faction, these Ottoman units don’t cut the cheese. Egypt gets their famed Mamluk cavalry and Abyssian Guards in the high era. By the time the Turks can produce Ottoman units, Catholic factions are producing things like Lancers, Gothic Knights, etc. Am I coming through on this one? Can anyone else see this vile discrepancy, or does CA think the Turks are a Frankenstein that should have never made it into the game. Then why in world would they partially neuter a faction without compensating it?

I personally could not stand for this. I have edited my files so that the Ottoman appear in the High period. Also I have made a minimal, I mean one digit adjustment in their stats.
They are still below par when you look at what everyone else is getting at that time. Technology moves forward, not backwards. You shouldn’t see early era units appearing in the late era. It also begs the question, why are the Ottoman comparatively so lame? From my reading’s they were a force to feared, exceptionally skilled warriors. What’s the deal here CA?

Reply, criticism, corrections are all welcome. What do you think?

[and another thing....]

I agree Praylak

It was hard enough to play as the Turks pre-patch but now its very difficult - only played it twice post-patch and both times got wiped out as troops were inferior to all the cmaa etc and Byz units.

The ottoman inf look really good at first due to being both missile and axe armed. Janissary troops look even better especially the heavy Jan Inf but what really gripes me is that you can only produce the Janissaries in the region where the militiary academy is - although you can only produce pikemen in Switz etc, every province can produce CMAA, chivalric knights, halbediers.

Its a shame as the Turks had some of the best and most effective troops around.

I`m still trying to figure out the stats etc so for the time being I`m not going to play as the Turks again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Praylak]

That’s right. Janissaries are great, but again, they suffer from a handicap. Not even considering cost, but the fact they can only be created in one province does result in some loss of accessing the troop type.

I had just wrapped up a Turk vs Byzantine battle when I first realized I had no Ottoman Infantry. No they are not the cream of the crop, but that armor attack bonus does help when hitting those blasted Kataphractoi in the rear. I mean it’s something, where as I had nothing for this one battle. I generally don’t include Ghazi in my Kings army, and I definitely don’t include militia. But what’s left? I’m no where near able to produce Janissary Heavy Infantry at this point. Anyhow the result of that battle was horrendous.

I think the worst time for them is starting in the high Period. You got what 25 years before the Horde and it’s million troops appear in your rear. It’s a rough deal being a Turk. I’m going to test my changes and see what results I get. I never edit files for an advantage, but this was just totally unfair.

[Phalanx]

Quote[/b] (Praylak @ Jan. 21 2003,15:40)]Reply, criticism, corrections are all welcome. What do you think?
Well, I think not having those units is part of the reason that the Turkish are rated as hard when compared to your chosen difficulty setting. So playing the Turks on Expert, is the same as playing them on Expert+. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The only thing I find disappointing is the requirements to build the Janissary units. First you need a citadel (20 years), then a Grand Mosque (16 years), Military Academy (10 years), Master SpearMaker (10 years IIRC). So to be able to be ready to build Janissary Infantry as soon as it is available, you need to start building in 1260 or so. Compared to other heavy infanty (and most heavy cavalry) that seems excessive. I'm not sure why the Grand Mosque is tied to that particular tech tree. The Janissary were professional and hightly trained ... not overly religeous. Rather than tweeking their arrival, the removal of the Grand Mosque requirement would make more sense.

If you have an interest in my Turkish strategies ... keep reading, otherwise my direct anser is complete ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

My current campaign is an Early, Expert, Turk. It is the late 1300's (maybe 1380 or so). The game has boiled down to me against the French. He has a huge lead in GA, most likely due to collecting alot more conquest points than myself. I can send you the saved game if you have any interest in who is doing what.

I started out making peace with both the Egyptians and the Byzantines. I built Rum up until it made Saracen Infantry, and had a +1 Armor Bonus. Armenia was my Cavalry capital and Edessa my Missile HQ.

The strategy I used to defeat the Egyptians and any Crusader army thrown at me was based on a default army comprised of the following:

5 Saracen Infantry, 4 Futawaa Archers, 3 Turcoman Horse, 2 Armenian Heavy Cav/Camels depending on location, 1 Mercenary Light Cav (Hobilars) or a fourth Turcoman Horse and my General's Unit.

I would deply the Saracen Infantry in a line, with the Archers behind them. Regardless of attack or defense, we ALWAYS took high ground and waited. I then deployed the Turcoman horse to skirmish with the enemy. If they were attacking, I tried to shred their cavalry unit with missile fire. If on defense, I tried to get on their flank and work on the melee unit on the end of the line.

Results: Arrows can kill Camels with surprising ease. The best Egyptian unit in the Early period, IMHO, Nubian Spear, since they are disciplined and do not break easily. However, they too are suceptible to arrows and the Futawaas would shred them before they got too close to the Saracen Infanty. Finally, nothing seems to break formations like 500 reinforced armored spearmen running down a hill. In most cased, the initial contact would break Peasants and Milita, leaving depleted Nubians, depleted Camels and Ghulam Bodyguards to contend with. Once they have engaged the Saracens, send the Armenian/Camels into their backs (prepositions them on the flanks in wedge formation). The Turcoman Horse and Light Cav are great at running down routing units so you don't need to fight them later.

Turcoman Horse are superior to Horse Archers (again MHO) because they have a decent melee capability after their arrows are expended. Futawwaas beat regular archers due to their discipline, having a smaller battlefield footprint and the fact that they have shields, good morale and can melee if needed.

The one thing I'm regretting is not locating the Military Academy in a costal province. In order to my JHI to the front takes two years. One to move to a port and then one to move from port to port. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Gregoshi]

Interesting topic (as I'm contemplating the Turks as my next campaign), but it is better suited for the Main Hall. I'm moving it there for the enjoyment of a wider audience.

[Shahed]

Playing this game it is blatantly obvious that all the Muslim factions are intentionally weakened. This game was going to be called Crusader: Total War, pre 9/11.

Turks are severly misrepresented.

[Kraxis]

Where you would have wanted the Ottomans put in Futuwwas, you get a powerful unit in that plce and it is available in Early. It might not have AP but it has a good punch and should be regarded as infantry with bows rather than archers with good melee (unlike Trebz). I actually consider them Ghazi with bows, so when I can train them I begin to replace the Ghazi with Futuwwas (keeps the Ghazi as reinforcements and in the army should the enemy come with many armoured troops).
As archers keep those Turcoman Foot around, their large footprint, great armour and shields makes for superior archers. And should it come to melee, don't worry too much they have good defense as well and should be able to hold out untill help cam arrive.

The Grand Mosque is not a requirement for the Jannisaries, it is a requirement for the Military Academy. So you can actually tear down the GM and build it and the Military Academy in another place, giving you two provinces to train Jannisaries in. I would use Georgia and Bulgaria as they give bonusses to Jannisary Bows and Heavies respectively.

[A.Saturnus]

That about the Grand Mosque is very interesting, thx for the tip.

Well, Turks are a difficult faction, but you can always play on a lower setting. I play them on normal and it`s to be done. Haven`t used Ottoman inf yet but from the stats, I would say I wouldn`t use them if I could get them in high. The Turks already have good skirmishers. Futuwwas are a bit weaker version of Nizari but I prefer Turcoman foot. They are well armored and fast. Ok, the have low attack and poor morale, but if you produce them in Anatolia, they should be better than Futuwwa. When you have a Master bowyer, you can have them v2, so they have enough attack and morale. And due to their loose formation they suffer less from ranged attacks. And of course, they are cheaper. So Ottoman inf is just a useless unit in my eyes. Still the Turks have other good units. AHC is a very good cav and you can get them nearly from the beginning. Produced in Armenia and considered their price, they are a good match against most Western knights. And Persian (Kwarazmiam) cav is as good as Katas if not better. And Saracens are a great unit too.
I don`t think that the Muslim factions are weak. Egypt has some very effective units too and a very strong position. In my pre-patch campaigns, the Almos usually conquered Europe and that nearly without AUM
The Muslim units are not worse than Catholic units, they are just different to play. That`s actually the reason why I like Muslim factions.

[DojoRat]

Just an historical note. The Janissaries were special units. They were taken from an early age from christian villages and raised to serve the Sultan. In addition to their rigorous martial training they received thorough religious instruction. So it does make sense to need the Mosque to be able to produce them.

What is odd is that the Ottomans start the late period in Rum, which is way too far east. Nicaea would be better though they started with just a small piece in the NW corner.

[Lord of the Isles]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 22 2003,13:07)]The Muslim units are not worse than Catholic units, they are just different to play. That`s actually the reason why I like Muslim factions.

I'll second everything A.Saturnus says above. The specific point about Ottoman troops may well be valid but overall the Turks get many unique units and most of them are pretty good. They are tough to play in Early but that's down to their starting position (both geography and dangerous neighbours).

I found a (lucky) way to speed up getting Jannisaries in my current game. I took Constantinople in the early 1100s to discover it was already up to a Citadel (are AI building times reduced?). Great; I had a Military Academy and the other requirements there by the start of the High period and could crank out enough Jannisary Heavy Inf before 1230 to see off the Horde with minimal casualties.

Not to mention that the Muslim factions don't have to worry about the Pope. I know they get lots of Crusades to deal with but once you have decent armies available, I much prefer fighting Crusades off than being a Christian nation and only being able to fight wandering Crusades at the cost of excommunication.

[Kraxis]

Yeah, they are not weaker... Which factions are always becoming too strong??? Egypt and Almohads, sometimes with the Turks too... No underpowering there.

About Turcomans being better than Futuwwas, I have to differ. They cost the same, 300 florins, but the Futuwwas have better Morale and a large shield. The Turcomans have the great defense, the two units are fundamentally different and should not be considered the same. In fact they work wonders together, I have used them as a combo in MP to great effect. Also the Futuwwas get a Valour from the Master Bowyer.

[Captain Fishpants]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Jan. 22 2003,06:19)]Playing this game it is blatantly obvious that all the Muslim factions are intentionally weakened. This game was going to be called Crusader: Total War, pre 9/11.

Turks are severly misrepresented.
The Muslim factions are not weaker than any others, as anyone who has faced the Almohads will agree Compare to the Catholic and Orthodix factions they have a distinct units, require different tactics, and can't do some of the sneaky things with agents that the Catholics can (Inquisitors, for example), but that's half the fun of the game, IMHO. They have other abilities.

As to the Turks being "severely misrepresented" well, it depends on your viewpoint. I think the Turks are hard to play, but their position can be turned into a winner at any start date. Then again, if all the factions were the same the game would be the lesser for it.

"Crusader" was dropped as a title well before the World Trade Centre event, as we realised that the game had broadened out to cover all of Europe. As a matter of fact, there was another working title for Medieval: Total War before "Crusader", and that was dropped for similar reasons as the game changed during development.

MikeB ~ CA

[Swoosh So]

I find the turks very very easy to play they have a great position right in the corner only 2 sides to worry about once you take out the egyptians, and they have trade rich inland provinces, Also the early builing capability of armenian h cav makes them strong early on.


I think the scottish are severely misrepresented we only have 1 unit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Shahed]

Thx Kraxis, Mike for your insight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Jan. 22 2003,08:07)]Haven`t used Ottoman inf yet but from the stats, I would say I wouldn`t use them if I could get them in high. The Turks already have good skirmishers. Futuwwas are a bit weaker version of Nizari but I prefer Turcoman foot. They are well armored and fast
I don't really see Ottoman infantry as skirmisher.

Real skirmisher are HA, Kerns, Nizari, futuwwa... Ottoman is more of a militia sergant with a bow.

If you think you have a use for a militia sergeant with a bow in your army, use them, but they are not in the same slot as the skirmisher;
They are not fast,
They don't have a high moral to stand some lonely 'behind the line' action (OK, so does HA... But HA can recover from routing... Not Ottoman)
They don't have a high charge bonus (not a skirmicher skill, but I usually like it when they do).

It's more of a second line troop with some melee ability... the kind you can expand vs tough ennemy warrior to wear them down wo regret before your real elite comes into play.

Now, who needs a militian sergeant with a bow in Late?


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif


Louis,

[Mr Frost]

If your not happy with the units , then do what I do : mod

The game was apparantly engineered to be easily modifyed {and we do appreciate it Gil , thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} and the proof of just how easy it is : I am not only dyslexic {I keep several dictonarys next to my computer by necessity {had to use it then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} but know bugger-all about computers {my current computer -a Falcon Mach V- is also my first . I don't count the Apple compatible my mother bought in the 80s upon which I only played Load Runner and frustrated Mum in her efferts to teach me how to type http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} .

For example : I like units to match their parchment descriptions . The Ottoman Inantry parchment says they were not only well armed {yes , I paraphrase , but It is the true gist I seek to present and I can't be bothered looking at the moment} but well armoured . So I uped their defense {they were also well trained so would have had good defense from both skill and armour} and armour rating and give they are described as well trained I upped their melee {with a high level of training they *should* be as good with their axes as the Vikings I feel} .
Now they are more like low moral FMAA with Viking axes and bows {they are described as being able to handle most infantry in melee} . I did not give them the composite bows I modded {from Ninjastars} as I felt they would have {and should} had less ability with bows than dedicated archers {or hybrids who train obsessivly with bows like I imagine the Futawaas or Hash-eaters} .

I also modded Syria iron deposits for a Metalsmith to represent advanced metalurgy available historically in Damascus and that's where my Jannisarys production gets centred .


The point to this post is this :
If you want something changed , you can easily do it yourselves folks , and thanks to CA for making it so easy to do {please tell me Rome Total War will have this mod-freindly aspect} .

[A.Saturnus]

Kraxis, well, about Turcoman-cost, I`m speaking of upkeep since this is a SP discussion. But you`re right, Futuwwas are far from being useless and they are a different type of unit than Turcoman. Futuwwas are more shock troops whereas Turcoman are a "real" inf with bows. I also use them both but if have a some more success with Turcoman.

[Praylak]

Some good replies here and I do enjoy reading everyone’s take whichever their position may be.

I suppose you could replace the Ottoman with whatever as they have a loaded unit roster. Or one could edit the game files, which I have done but with some very mixed results. Same as for the Ottoman Siphai, as we can easily replace them with what’s already been suggested. One can re-adapt his/her strategy to match whatever troops he has. But I’m not satisfied with that at all and really no Turk player should be. Consider this….

I may have emphasized too much on difficulty, but that is far from the point really. The issue I’m concerned with the most is the Ottomans place as it is now in a Turk army has been omitted by making them arrive in the last period of the game. Futuwwa’s or Turcoman Infantry may be better for some, but Ottoman infantry are a distinctly different unit. So how is it better to just ignore their existence in the game and use only the previously mentioned troops??

Like the Turcoman, the Ottoman has a cavalry and troop type, which to me states some sort of significance for the Turks. Yet they are vastly different so they are obviously not a replacement for one another. As challenging as they are, I think the Turks have an advantage in their own way. Who else has this sort of archer/infantry selection? This versatility and diversity is what the Turks are all about. I believe this is what CA intended of the Turks and it suits them quite well. Restricting use of the Ottoman arms, which is what the patch has done, to some degree diminishes the Turks greatest advantage. Hence my original statement, CA nerfed my Turks.