Ottoman Sipahi

[Kristaps]

Hey, can anyone hint what are these cavalry units for?

Here is a short comparison of Ottoman Sipahi (as in the M:TW game, not history) versus Armenian Heavy Cavalry and Gulams

Stat: Ottoman Sipahi, Armenian Heavy, Ghulam Cavalry
Charge: 4, 8, 6
Melee: 2, 3, 3
Defence: 3, 3, 3
Armor: 4, 4, 4
Base Morale: 2, 4, 4
Speed: all 3 the same
All other stats: all 3 the same

Note, Ottoman Sipahi have higher upkeep than Armenian Heavy Cavalry.

Looking at these numbers Ottoman Sipahi appear to be obsolete (especially taking into consideration they are LATE and Armenians are EARLY) / useless. The same applies to Ghulam cavalary - the only stat that is different between them and Armenians is the charge bonus and the Armenians win in this aspect.

So, question still remains: why would one care about building Ottoman Sipahi or Ghulam Cavalry as Turks? Is there anything that the stats are not telling? Developer?

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

[Houston]

In my first Turkish campaign, I was excited to finally get these guys late in the game. I really started cranking them out and made them the back bone of my army. When I finally got aroung to using them, I was very dissapointed. They seemd to route easier than my other Cav units and lacked any real punch. In the end, I just used them to harass and break up AI formations, but horse archers seem better suited for this role.

[Loras]

i didn't use them much in my turk campaign, i used ghulam cav instead. they do seem pretty useless.

[LRossaLordJimi]

Ottoman Siphai have different cost comparin other units:
200 florins Ottoman Siphai
275 Cav Ghulam
300 Armenian Heavy Cav

But i'm agree to prefer Ghulam cav or Armenian cav
Ave

[kaaskop]

if they were availeble in early the low cost/infrastructure
would matter but in current form they are useless .
Both the late ottoman units suck.
That's why i modded the siphai to fast speed and increased
the infantery size to 100

[pdoan8]

Some units are pretty useless for player in SP. Those unit may have higher value in MP or they just there for the AI to use (like Foot Knight).

[Alrowan]

they are a good substitute if you need cash

[A.Saturnus]

Not sure but it seems to me like Ottoman units have a pretty high chance to have good generals. I produced a few Sipahi up to now and they had all at least one star. Values that are not shown in the the stats are unit cohesion and discipline, maybe there is something about it??
Ghulam cav can be usefull. The Turks usually have easy access to Armenia, so the AHC are the better choice, but if you play Egypt and you only have Lesser Armenia, Ghulams are better.

[Mr Frost]

I like Armenian Heavies , and Ghullam Cavalry also {though I only really use Ghullam Cavalry when Alamohad , With upgrades in Castiel etc they hold up rather well against Catholic Knights} , but the stock standard Ottoman Sipahi seem to be the result {considering what is written in the Parchment when you left-click a unit in S.P.} of someone deciding the Turks should not have a large unit of true heavies .
I mod them {4 melee , 4 defense {5$ with sheild} and 5 defense {6$ with sheild} and I think I will up Honour to 4 . Wes , in Medmod_IV_1.5} made them like Chivalric Knights it seems {after a peruse of the build_11.txt in the mod} which is interesting . Chivalrics teamed with 40 man Sipahi of the Porte {I raise my Sipahi of the Porte to 40 also but raised their melee by one as they were rather well trained with very high quality equiptment} ; interesting .
I modded Ottoman Infantry to moe closely match the Parchment {still not happy with the result , yet} by upping their melee {they were well trained} , defense and armour {well armoured} and honour {well trained and motivated} . It is the only viable solution if you want Ottoman specific troops to have any great impact on the feild . I ballance {for other factions} this with several measures , including Lancers {which I made a Late period unit for several reasons} available to all Catholic Factions and getting a +1 Valour in Aquitaine {to keep the historical French advantage in quality of Knights - I have Normandy as the Feudals "Famous" province} , an increase of 1 Melee for Billmen {it just felt more accurate to me like that} , +1 melee though -1 defense to ballance for Halberdiers {It irked me they had a weaker melee than Urban Milita yet such a high Defense despite low quality training and no sheild} and an Honour increase {of 2} for Chivalric Sergents . {there is much more , but duh , I'm a modder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif}

I feel this works nicely .

[kaaskop]

altough by upping the Sipahi of the Porte you made
the boyars inferior and thus making the russians even weaker ,I too made their unit size 40 but kept their combat stats the same and made them a hell lot more expensive to train

[Kristaps]

To those who think the cost is the answer for using sipahi: in SP, the training cost is a minor factor. The "true" cost of the unit comes from its upkeep and the upkeep cost of sipahi is higher than the upkeep cost of Armenian heavy cavalry units. Thus, at least in SP, sipahi have no advantage over Armenian heavies.

To those who prefer Ghulam cavalry over Armenian heavy cavalry: the stats for both units appear to be the same except the Armenian heavy cavalry has a higher charge bonus and the upkeep of Ghulams is more expensive. Conclusion: use Armenian heavy cavalry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Mr Frost]

Quote[/b] (kaaskop @ Jan. 29 2003,09:15)]altough by upping the Sipahi of the Porte you made
the boyars inferior and thus making the russians even weaker ,I too made their unit size 40 but kept their combat stats the same and made them a hell lot more expensive to train


I made them 750 to build {might change that oneday , but it fits for now} and modded Boyars also . I made Boyars build requirements Horsebreeders' Guild {code seems to require this precise building for them} , a Royal Palace {made sense to me} and an Armourer {the code doesn't like it apparantly if there is not some sort of armourer involved with Boyars} , lowered their cost to 500 , raised melee to 4 {made sense to me , they act like Feudal Knights and locals used the same basic types of swords as Western Europe at that time : Early Period} and though I lowered defense by one to compensate , they still seem the better for it .
I really want to change the Novgorod Royal unit to Pronoai Allegion {which I modded Novgorod to have , I gave them Varangians too ... the Varangian type fits the culture of that time well enough for me to want it thus} as they did not start using such a unit type untill the Mongols {apparantly} though Boyars are so cool and so Very "Russian" that I could never bring myself to actually delete them from Novgorods' Early Period lineup} .
Since I made the changes , A.I. Novgorod seems to do better , and I certainly find it make a nice difference when I play as them .
I also made Khazar +1 Valour for Steppe Cavalry , Volga-Bulgaria +1 for Horse Archers , lowered Bugarian Brigand build requirements to a Bowers Workshop and a Swordsmith {and modded Compositebows to have performance halfway between Shortbows and Longbows - Russians used composite bows from a rather early stage , and both Boyars and Bulgarian Brigands have them} .

[A.Saturnus]

Usually AHC are better than Ghulam, but Ghulam get a valour bonus in Lesser Armenia and that makes them better, as long as they are trained there. In every other province AHC is better.

Edit: Spelling

[Kristaps]

To Saturnus: AHC get valor bonus in Armenia which makes them even better than Ghulam http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif even the ones from Lesser Armenia. And, with Master Horse Breeder they roll out with +2 valor in Armenia...

[Basileus]

I only train armenian and sipahi in armenia and eddessa where they get their valor..never train either one anywhere else and they do quite good..in SP that is

[Hakonarson]

"Vanilla" Sipahis were not supposed to stand up to western knights and other heavily armed and armoured cavalry historically - they seem about right to me.