Just an Opinion not an Insult

[Kanuni]

Hi,
I've been a reader of this forum for a long time since I've started playing this game but now I have decided to be an active member of it after being more involved in MP. So I'd like to say hi all first...

I think the developers of a game that is somehow related with history need to consider about historical accuracy as well as good game play. About being historically inaccurate, many other things can be found to say, but I want to just mention about one...

In this game the muslim armies are simply underpowered and are no match for European armies. They are either crap or cost a lot more compared with the European ones. Especially if you are playing MP as a Muslim faction you will be at a great disadvantage because of the high costs and impossibility to counter a European army. Of course if you are more skilled than your opponent you can win, but if 2 people of the same skill play the European player has a great advantage.

I believe this is definitely non-sense and historically inaccurate. If in medieval ages the army units and strengths were similiar, the Muslims would be swept out of the world. Consider the map we are playing medieval. And consider the percentage of area held by the Muslims and Christians, I don't know the exact value, but it is clear according to my history knowledge that the Muslims held more land. Also think about the battles (especially the Turks&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, except for one or two times, the Turks won all the wars against Europeans and crusader armies. Maybe not all the Muslim factions', but the Turks' military units are greatly underestimated in this game IMO, and many Europeans, especially the Byzantines are overpowered. Now I can't talk about other European countries such as England, France, Germany etc... because their armies except for the ones in crusaders did not meet the Turkish armies. But I can definitely talk about the Byzantine army in this game. After 1071 in Manzikert, Turks came to Anatolia and won EVERY SINGLE BATTLE against the Byzantines, and the empire became actually a city empire in the 13th century while the Turks held Balkans and defeated many Europeans. Think about the Kats, VG, Byzantine Infantry (lol V4)... If they existed this strong in history, the Turks' incapable armies would definitely be driven back to central Asia, or..eerrrmmm, hey c'mon they would at least win 1 battle. Or think about those lancers and wonder how Portugese standed up against their stats and chage value. lol

When I face a Byzantine Army in a 15k game full of V4 Byzantines, every time I think of how this non-sense.

I believe CA did a good job about the unit types and information about unit types, however the costs and the stats of the Muslim units should definitely be improved in the next series for the game to be more accurate. One example: The Mongol, Muslim or Turkish horse archers were not only horse archers who ran away like girls when it came to close combat. They did not kill those Kats with only bows, they were also skilled fighters in h2h combat and they could easily stand against Kats although they had less or no armor at all.

I don't know, maybe it is a correct marketing startegy to overpower European armies as 99% of this game's players will be ether European or American and some from far east. However this situation makes me think (as being genetically half European) were the europeans idiots in the medieval ages that they were less successful with cheaper and stronger armies than Muslims? Or are Muslims gifted people compared to Europeans (especially Turks) so that they were successful with crap armies???

Don't tell me otherwise, a person with decent history knowledge knows that The Turks are definitely the most successful faction among these in the game in the medieval ages and beyond.

[Mithrandir]

Welcome to The Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Perhaps numbers had something to do with it,or the money the warlords could spend back then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Anyway, look me up on GS and I'll play any Muslim faction vs any Catholic faction...

My name online is Glorfindel.:) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Kanuni]

Thanks for the welcome.
It definitely can't be about the numbers as we know the numbers in Turkish army's battles from European historians and they are usually outnumbered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Some people in this forum mentioned earlier about the numbers in Manzikert for example. Maybe we could take the average of the two if the Turks cared about history in the past and had more historians lol

And I believe it would also be odd for a tribe that migrated from central asia to outnumber.

Even the jannissaries started to be recruited in 1400's (most from christians) cannot chage the situation much.

[Kanuni]

Oh, and I'm Wolf_cub_Kanuni btw and I mostly play the Turks. I was Cavus earlier.

[cugel]

There are a large number of replies I could make, but . . . . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

First, the main point: MTW is somewhat unbalanced against the Muslim factions. If you want to correct this, download Wes's MedMod v.8.14 click here: http://wes.apolyton.net/. Download the Muslim_hordes mod from this site, it makes the muslim units 25% bigger than the european ones. Don't play with the size setting on huge though or I believe you will crash the game (units get too big). Just install it to your game and you will see a big difference.

Second, the Byzantines lost battles against the Turks after Manzikert largely because of political divisions and endless factional disputes that disapated their strength in internal in-fighting and prevented them from presenting a strong, united front against their external enemies. It had nothing to do with inherent weakness of their troops or lack of ability of their generals. See John Julius Norwich's multi-volume history Byzantium for extensive details. Hans Delbruck's
multi-volume History of the Art of War is also instructive (I believe volume 3).

[Kanuni]

Thanks for the info about the mod, but that's not about the topic here. I can change the stats to correct it, too. And also as I said in my earlier reply outnumbering was not the case in history and you cannot show me a dependable source (even a European one, which I think you agreee would be subjective) about this being in history. (Or at least about the wars in Turkish history against Europeans which I know very well of)

About your second paragraph... I'm sorry but I don't consider every book as a viable source for history. And doesn't the author's first name make you think? JuliUS (like a roman or greek name which makes this book WAY TOO subjective) Even if the author isn't Greek the reasons you give sound like excuses; excuses like a defeated MP boy can give (no offence to you, but to the author. And also do some research please before giving this reason. Don't you think the Turks had internal in-fighting as well? Let me enlighten you a bit. The Turks were torn apart in pieces becsaue of internal fighting believe me m8, many more pieces than Byzantines. They could only control the Turks in Anatolia united for a short period of time with the Anatolian Seljuks for a short period of time after the Great Seljuk Empire collapsed. And did you know for example when te Ottomans were established in 1299 they were very small only arround Bursa like a sity state and there were 15-20 other Turkish city states in Anatolia? And these small Turkish city states fought with each other a very very long time. Did you also know that the Ottomans could only unite the Turks in Anatolia way after the conquer of Istanbul in 1453? When the Turks captured Istanbul they were also fighting with each other. Even in 1453 Ottomans were not in control of all of Anatolia and were fighting other Turks in Anatolia.

So rather than considering novel-like books for history, I'd consider historical facts instead. If an internal in-fighting is going to be mentioned it should be mentioned instead. Even in the game the political instability of the Turks has been shown (with problematic low loyal generals) And don't forget, every loser finds an excuse or finds something to say. Listen to Saddam for example after the 1st gulf war.

I'm sorry but Turkish or Greek every loser produces excuses. If you read serious history sources you will see that the Turks were outnumbered but won because of better soldiers and better tactics. As simple as that.

[HindSight2020]

History is subjective. After you read book after book about a certain era of history, you realize that it is very difficult to ascertain what is truth. How can you decide? I've had some lively discussions at work with my co-workers about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. If you read some histories, Adams looks like he wanted Washington to be a king and the United States to rejoin England as colonies. All lies. Other books paint such a negative picture of Jefferson that you begin to wonder whether he should have even been the local postman. How can you read the author's mind decades and centuries later to find out what ax he was grinding. That's one reason I gave up attempting to get a doctorate.

Everyone has a limited amount of time to read, keep up on the news, play MTW, and do all the family related stuff. Just because someone doesn't quite agree with your point of view or hasn't read the same books as you doesn't mean that they deserve harsh rhetoric.

I understand that certain things about the game might frustrate you or annoy you. I didn't buy MTW or STW in order to get a history lesson. I didn't expect to find real historical accuracy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[eXistenZi]

You're making much too big of a deal of this. I think you're Turkish and you want your nation to be better represented (more historically accurate), but I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. You should just change the unit stats yourself.

[LeeJackson]

Quote[/b] ]About your second paragraph... I'm sorry but I don't consider every book as a viable source for history.

And I don't consider everyone who posts in a forum a viable source for history either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Relax take you time and get to know people. You will also need to constructively debate people where you intelligently respond to the information they provide, not just dismiss it as hearsay. DO this and you historical opinion will be respected among the forums greats. Don't and you'll just be considered a flamer.

Welcome and good luck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Gregoshi]

Hello Kanuni. Thanks for finding your voice here at the Org.

A couple of comments regarding your posts:

1) If you are going to label someone's sources as not viable, at least have the courtesy of providing the sources for your historical facts. You've expressed your rather harsh opinion of cugel's sources. Now you need to provide sources so he has the opportunity to express his opinion of yours. Fair is fair.

2) Judging a person's (author's) objectivity based on his name is grossly unfair.

3) CA cannot win in the eyes of MTW players, regardless of what they do. You are unhappy about how weak the Turks and other muslim factions are. Others are upset because their faction is in the game but not playable. Still others are offended that their faction is not represented in the game at all. Some are put off by the colour of their faction (Hungarians pink? Never&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. A few others are really peeved that a faction symbol is all wrong, or province A should really be two provinces, or there should be iron mines in province B, and so on and so on.

You don't seem to find modding the game as a satisfying solution to your issue. You appear to have fallen into the trap that others before you have: you have placed too high an importance on CA's representation of the Turks in MTW. Almost as if MTW is history's final judgement on the worthiness of your (or any other) faction. It isn't. It is just a game and nothing more.

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

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 03 2003,03:20)]I'm sorry but I don't consider every book as a viable source for history. And doesn't the author's first name make you think? JuliUS (like a roman or greek name which makes this book WAY TOO subjective)
I'm sorry but this is the worst excuse for rejecting someones point of view I've ever heard His middle name is Julius therefore everything he says is biased against the Turks? Seems to me that the one who has the problem with objectivity is you J.J.Norwich is English for the record. His Byzantium trilogy is not a novel as you say. Nor is it a piece of Academic history. It is a history book intended for the amateur historian and layman (99% of us then) and has received much critical praise and much praise on these boards also. I would not call it biased. He praises and criticises all sides as the circumstances dictate. Examples that spring to mind are his abhorrance of the Turkish practice of Fracticide (a new ruler killing every potential rival to the throne) and the Byzantine practice of Tonsuring (cutting off the nose of potential rivals to the throne). On the other hand he praises Mehmet II for stopping the looting and pillaging of Constantinople after less than a day when his troops were entitled to 3 days and points out his relative tolerance towards his new christian subjects. Don't criticise something you haven't read. And be very careful on these boards, there are patrons here who know A LOT more about history than you or I. Going round saying anything that doesn't say the Turks were the greatest warriors of all time and anyone who says otherwise is in denial or a liar as you seem to suggests that you need to learn a little bit about objectivity yourself.

[ErikJansen]

Heya Kanumi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

In a steppesinland battle, you'll struggle to do anything but a pass-the-missile-phase move unless someone brings extra pavs, or you use the x-bow line/turcoman sacrifices. Its not that hard to defend with turks on steppes as it is to assault... team tactics is the word http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

In terrain battles this changes somewhat, and in desert battles the turks and muslims rule supreme (personal opinion).

I'd take Mithrandir/Glorfindel's challenge were I you, and if you want to exchange some more info/tactics regarding the turks, seek out Louis Ste Colombe, Sinan or my humble self in the lobby http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Regards,

[kataphraktoi]

Pfffffffft just another person offended because everythings not favouring their side.

Turks are undersestimated

Byzantines are overpowered

Lets make Muslim factions stronger because everyone knows that Muslims should win win win and win

I've played Turks plenty of times and the Byzantines have always been defeated in SP same with other people who play the Turks, Byzantines are naturally more armoured and stronger offensively, Turks have always used mobility over brute strength, that is not say using brute strength was not used but mobility has always been the primary asset in defeating their western counterparts.

You expect a rollover or what????

The Turkish world encompasses a wide geographical expanses they can kill and fight each other as often as they want but the Byzantine world is one of strongly rooted locality, the nature of the ROman identity is such that it onyl exists within the borders of the empire, whereas Turks needed no such identity systems. Every loss to Byzantium is a big blow compared to the Turkish world.

So what is an unbiased author? A pro-Turkish one? An author who makes the Turks look favourable?

This is nothing but pathetic ethnocentric purist nationalistic sentiment, we don;t need that in MTW.

Facts are constructed and selective, it may be that the facts aren;'t constructed in your favour.

There is a consensus that Muslim armies are larger and weaker but their victories are due to superior military strategum over simplistic western strategem before the 15th century. If you had a modicum or an inkling of any military ability like the Muslim military leaders of the times you'll find the Muslim factions are very very powerful under good leaders. By your complaints it seems you are a very poor one.

The Muslim factions are fine as they are. what they lack in brute force, they make up for in other departments.

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ May 03 2003,07:25)]I'm sorry but this is the worst excuse for rejecting someones point of view I've ever heard
Actually, I'm revising that. Its the second worst excuse I've ever heard. The worst was by an egyptian over at .com who refused to accept that muslims had ever done anything wrong, ever. To which one of the history buffs quoted a mountain of primary sources describing muslim atrocities over a 1000 year period to rebuff that. Some of these were rejected by our Egyptian friend because they were written by Jews, and everyone knows, all Jews are liars. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Kanuni]

Well first of all I'd like to say sorry if my poor English sounded like I'm very harsh towards this or making a big deal out of it. I don't feel offended or annoyed at all. I still enjoy playing medieval and will continue doing so. Because of my English I feel I am misunderstood, so I'll try to be mre clear now.


Quote[/b] ]Everyone has a limited amount of time to read, keep up on the news, play MTW, and do all the family related stuff. Just because someone doesn't quite agree with your point of view or hasn't read the same books as you doesn't mean that they deserve harsh rhetoric.

I didn't intend to sound like that to any replier at all, or to any specefic author. I have not read the book that is mentioned here, I tried to say I don't like novel-like books about history in general and don't consider them about viable sources. For example I think in this book the author writes about a heroic and sad last speech made by Byz. Emporor telling his people let's all fight and die. Does he have a source for that? Did a historian write about this when he heard the emporor's speech? Or is this a modern Greek historian's idea to make their ancestors sound hero? Every nation looks at history subjectively, so I always require sources.


Quote[/b] ]You're making much too big of a deal of this. I think you're Turkish and you want your nation to be better represented (more historically accurate), but I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. You should just change the unit stats yourself.

Go back to my first sentence in this post. I'm sorry if I sound like making a big deal about it. And yes I want the Turks and Muslims to be better represented. The MP game would be more fun. Wouldn't you want to see more vets playing as Muslims? I think the game would be more fun and colorful.


Quote[/b] ]And I don't consider everyone who posts in a forum a viable source for history either

Relax take you time and get to know people. You will also need to constructively debate people where you intelligently respond to the information they provide, not just dismiss it as hearsay. DO this and you historical opinion will be respected among the forums greats. Don't and you'll just be considered a flamer.

What have I said about history that needs a source? The Turks having internal in-fights as well, and 15-20 Turkish city states fighting with each other? You can look at any medieval Atlas and see it for yourself.
Btw I have not dismissed anything. I just said if that book sees the internal-infights as an excuse to Byzantine defeats that would be non-sense because the Turks were also having internal in-fights. If you are interested I can show you European originated sources. This isn't an issue that historians disagree about, so I can show you souces easily.


Quote[/b] ]1) If you are going to label someone's sources as not viable, at least have the courtesy of providing the sources for your historical facts. You've expressed your rather harsh opinion of cugel's sources. Now you need to provide sources so he has the opportunity to express his opinion of yours. Fair is fair.

As I said in my previous replies, I tried to mean novel-like books in general. What cugel said about Byzantines having internal in-fights is true. But I'm just saying this is not an excuse, the Turks had greater internal-infights. And again as I said before this is a no doubt fact. If you are interested and can't find sources yourself, I can show you sources just like Lee Jackson.


Quote[/b] ]2) Judging a person's (author's) objectivity based on his name is grossly unfair.

I disagree in general. Maybe this author IS objective, but usually I don't prefer to read Turkish authors about Turkish history nor Greek authors about Greek history. I always find subjectivity in these books.


Quote[/b] ]3) CA cannot win in the eyes of MTW players, regardless of what they do. You are unhappy about how weak the Turks and other muslim factions are. Others are upset because their faction is in the game but not playable. Still others are offended that their faction is not represented in the game at all. Some are put off by the colour of their faction (Hungarians pink? Never. A few others are really peeved that a faction symbol is all wrong, or province A should really be two provinces, or there should be iron mines in province B, and so on and so on.

You don't seem to find modding the game as a satisfying solution to your issue. You appear to have fallen into the trap that others before you have: you have placed too high an importance on CA's representation of the Turks in MTW. Almost as if MTW is history's final judgement on the worthiness of your (or any other) faction. It isn't. It is just a game and nothing more.

Once more I'd like to repeat myself... I'm not making a big deal out of this. I just expressed an opinion. I still love the game and I will continue playing it.


Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry but this is the worst excuse for rejecting someones point of view I've ever heard His middle name is Julius therefore everything he says is biased against the Turks? Seems to me that the one who has the problem with objectivity is you J.J.Norwich is English for the record. His Byzantium trilogy is not a novel as you say. Nor is it a piece of Academic history. It is a history book intended for the amateur historian and layman (99% of us then) and has received much critical praise and much praise on these boards also. I would not call it biased. He praises and criticises all sides as the circumstances dictate. Examples that spring to mind are his abhorrance of the Turkish practice of Fracticide (a new ruler killing every potential rival to the throne) and the Byzantine practice of Tonsuring (cutting off the nose of potential rivals to the throne). On the other hand he praises Mehmet II for stopping the looting and pillaging of Constantinople after less than a day when his troops were entitled to 3 days and points out his relative tolerance towards his new christian subjects. Don't criticise something you haven't read. And be very careful on these boards, there are patrons here who know A LOT more about history than you or I. Going round saying anything that doesn't say the Turks were the greatest warriors of all time and anyone who says otherwise is in denial or a liar as you seem to suggests that you need to learn a little bit about objectivity yourself.
I guess I have replied some parts of this in my earlier quotes. And no I have no problem with objectivity. I just said the Turks internal in-fightings were at least same as Byzantines. And no I don't like books that overpower Turks either. And I'm not saying the Turks are greatest warriors, but it's clear in history that their military was superior compared to Byzantines eventhough they were most of the time outnumbered, they won all battles. Now which is more objective? Pointing out excuses for te loss of Byzantine or accepting this simple fact?

Hehe now the most harsh critisize comes from kataphraktoi lol. I wonder where he comes from http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]Lets make Muslim factions stronger because everyone knows that Muslims should win win win and win
No I don't think they should win win win. I just think they shouldn't have crap units.


Quote[/b] ]I've played Turks plenty of times and the Byzantines have always been defeated in SP same with other people who play the Turks, Byzantines are naturally more armoured and stronger offensively, Turks have always used mobility over brute strength, that is not say using brute strength was not used but mobility has always been the primary asset in defeating their western counterparts.
Oh please don't talk about SP. Anyone who gets some experience in this game can achieve full domination with any faction as human is always better than AI. My point is improving the Muslim stats would make the MP games more fun.
Mobility was important for Turkish armies yes, but their units were at least as good as Byzantine armies. Don't tell me the Byzantines didn't have foot archers or horse archers to counter Turkish horse archers. Or were they not wise enough to use them? Other than out manuevering the Byzantine army, the Turks had tough h2h battles with Byzantines as well and won. More armor doesn't always been stronger offense, as the unit becomes slower. I guess you can't tell me the Turkish bows killed all the Kats. The medium armored Turkish sipahi found it easy to face the Kats in the past.


Quote[/b] ]The Turkish world encompasses a wide geographical expanses they can kill and fight each other as often as they want but the Byzantine world is one of strongly rooted locality, the nature of the ROman identity is such that it onyl exists within the borders of the empire, whereas Turks needed no such identity systems. Every loss to Byzantium is a big blow compared to the Turkish world.
You need to simply see that the Anatolian Seljuks or the Ottomans at start were not in a wide geographical area, and the Turks were minority in Anatolia which were way too far away from central asia Turks. Why should having a Roman identity (which only they thought at that age) mean having a stronger rooted locality than Turks? That's subjective. And I can't compare the big blow from loss because Turks simply didn't lose a single battle against the Byzantines http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif But when they did in history the blow was no less than Byzantines.


Quote[/b] ]So what is an unbiased author? A pro-Turkish one? An author who makes the Turks look favourable?

This is nothing but pathetic ethnocentric purist nationalistic sentiment, we don;t need that in MTW.

Facts are constructed and selective, it may be that the facts aren;'t constructed in your favour.


Read my posts carefully, I'm not a nationalist nor I'm looking for facts in my favor. I just want facts. And I'm sorry but the facts are just aren't like this as you accept: The Byzantines are great, the Turks are crap. Only if the Byzantines didn't have internal in-fights... The crap Turks would then see. Sorry but I just LMAO to such funny facts.


Quote[/b] ]There is a consensus that Muslim armies are larger and weaker but their victories are due to superior military strategum over simplistic western strategem before the 15th century. If you had a modicum or an inkling of any military ability like the Muslim military leaders of the times you'll find the Muslim factions are very very powerful under good leaders. By your complaints it seems you are a very poor one.

If this is the fact you want to believe it's fine with me, I don't care. If you look at the wars before 15th century, the Muslims were OUTNUMBERED instead. You're right about the strategies though, and that was how they could win against larger numbers. But their victories were not with crap units in this game. Keep thinking I'm poor, I don't really care.


Last words in this post will be to clarify myself more about the idea of the topic...
I don't want superior Turkish troops. Although my personal opinion is that the Turkish troops were superior, for a game the troops of factions should be almost equal.
Beating Germans with the Almohads in MP for example shouldn't be a big challenge. The troops should differ of course, they should have different weaknesses and strengths, but the overall strength should at least be equal for historical accuracy. Of course we cannot expect a perfect accurate game, but at least improving the stats of Muslim armies will make it more accurate. And the game will be more fun. Think about AMP taking his Byz rush army. Another vet. for example should be able to get Egyptians to face it. But I guess a vet equally skilled as AMP loses badly with an Egyptian army against AMP's Byz rush army.

This is my opinion. And I'd like CA to make Muslim armies stronger. And if it doesn't? I'll still play this game, have fun, and think that how inaccurate historically it is. That's all.

PS. Sorry for my English also in this post as I had to write it very fast.

[KukriKhan]

Go easy fellas. Some of this is a Turk-to-English translation issue.

When I was stationed in Germany, I met Turks who seemed very abrupt and inappropriately direct in their English. Luckily, before I had a chance to take offense, a German friend (who spoke both Turkish & English) explained that the subtler nuances of Turkish had little or no translation to English, so they were stuck with our 'harsher' words to express themselves. That resolved, we all got drunk & traded bawdy stories through the night, my German pal working out the language kinks.

All that said...in the MTW game the Turks' less-than-ideal starting position seems, to me, to be no harder than Poland's or Denmark's. Some factions are easier to play than others. No sense getting too worked up about any suspected bias on the part of the developers; I don't see it. What are there: 10 factions? A couple had to be hard-to-play to keep the player (me) interested/challanged.

[kataphraktoi]

I never said Turkish troops were crap, weak units don;t equate to crap, weak units simply means that they are not as good in one area but able and better in another aspect of fighting.

Ummmm Kanuni the Turkish world is beyond Anatolia, this includes the Central Asian region, Xinjiang in China and at one stage through conquest Iran, India, etc.

Byzantium had Anatolia, once lost it was a heavier blow, Turks have the luxury of roaming space.

Byzantines are Great, Turks are crap, never implied and I never though that byz should have advantages over the Turks, it is all balanced it jsut depends on your military thinking. Turkish units are great, i've used crap units with success. The byz are powerful in terms of armour and melee but they are slow, that can be crucial in battle.
Byz units are expensive, handicapped with unique units but not a very big range compared to the Turks.

u want historically accuracy?? NO SUCH THING

HISTORICAL ACCURACY IS A PROCESS OF SELECTION.

Look just adjust the stats as u see them, Ive done so myself especially with the Muslim units.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ May 03 2003,08:13)]u want historically accuracy?? NO SUCH THING

HISTORICAL ACCURACY IS A PROCESS OF SELECTION.
I agree totally with this, History has been revised and changed over the years to suit governments and factions that have came and went over time... so sadly its all very much open to interpretation.

As for the game, I am happy with things the way they are. You have to remember that every unit has a counter in this game as you can see below.

Spearmen Beat Cavalry
Swordsmen beat Spearmen
Cavalry beat Swordsmen, (everyone can beat Archers if they can get close enough) etc.

Turkish and other Muslim troops have desert warfare in mind and suffer badly in the temperate zones of Europe, (just as English and other Catholic factions are better at fighting in Western europe, and are easy pickings in the desert), remember the enemy always has the advantage on their home ground.

Superior tactics though can always make you victorious.

Good luck playing the Turks

[Kanuni]

Thank you KukriKhan,
You seem to be the only one to understand my actual attitude. I don't intend to be rude or aggressive to any user, the Turkish-English translation issue seems to be why some people misunderstand me.

Kataphroki,
What I tried to explain in my posts is that the Turkish units were not crap nor weak in history, just less armor. That doesn't mean weak. If you are interested, make a research about jannissaries, sipahis or other Turkish units (in non-Greek sources of course). They could at least match Kats in h2h combat.

Have no doubt that I know much more about where the Turkish world lies as I am half Turkish. My point was the Turks in Anatolia had no connection and communication with other parts in the world that the Turks lived in, and as you know the Turkish tribes lived in different places were fighting with each other to claim land. As they were in control of different empires lost land meant a lot to them as well. For example when they lost against Mongols they did not sit and think Oh never mind guys, we have other Turks in asia that have so much land. This is a small loss for the Turkish world lol. So I don't think it is logical to think that loss of land for one country is a bigger blow than another.

Oh and please don't compare Byz units with the Turks in gameplay. In 15k MP games Byz inf v4 are almost unbeatable because of their unit size 100, they cost much much less compared to its strength, it is simply THE BEST unit in 15k at v4, so the player who picks it has a great advantage. Play with FearofAMP and his Byz. rush army if you don't know what I'm talking about. Also VG are cheaper compared to the Turkish counters the JHI. Byz units are NEVER expensive in the game compared to Turkish units. I guess you haven't played MP much.
And yes, I'm quite succesfull with my Turkish army too, I have beaten many vets many times even if they chose a Cath faction or Byz, or Turkish. What I'm saying is (please don't make me repeat it once more) a vet. which is equally skilled as FearofAMP WON'T STAND A CHANCE AGAINST AMP'S BYZ RUSH ARMY if they pick Turks. AMP and many other vets accept this unbalance and hope it will be more balanced in the future expansions.
Eventhough you might think that there are many excuses for the Byzantines losing against Turks, I guess you will at least accept that the Byz army did not have such an advantage over the Turks in past (or maybe you don't agree, then would you say Byz generals were fools?). This is the historical innacurracy I'm talking about. I'm not talking about SP game as I can get 100% dommination ezly with any faction.

[Kanuni]

I'd also like to remind you that the Turks borders reached to Austria in Europe even before Istanbul was conquered, so seeing the Turkish troops as desert troops would be wrong. The Ottomans for example lost only 2 battles in medieval ages that took place in non-desert areas. (Maybe I'm wrong about the number 2 if I can't remember some defeats, but it can maybe be 3 or 4 but not 5)

I did not understand why I have been critisized so much for just expressing an opinion about hşstorical accuracy.

[Mount Suribachi]

Its the way you did it mate. You wrote in a somewhat aggressive tone, accepting of course that English is your 2nd language (and a damn sight better than my Turkish&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. But in the 18 months that I've been treading the org and .com, I've seen a lot of people come and go who's first post is along the lines of I'm from England/Scotland/Spain/Wherever. Our empire was the greatest ever. We kicked everyones butt *Insert name of ruthless general* was the greatest and whose national pride clouds their historical objectivity. They are usually slapped down by the much more informed history buffs on the boards, and your first post was in danger of falling into that category. Then you criticised a book you hadn't even read and generally took everything a little too personally, including the apparent weakness of the Turkish faction in the game (can't comment on this one, don't play gane enough). To be fair, you have explained yourself in later posts, tho I find your general mind-set a bit of an enigma. You are obviously very proud of your Turkish heritage and are keen to promote the Ottoman Empire. Of course, no one here would dispute their greatness, they were the dominant military power of their day, the Roman Emporer was the Sultans vassal and they conquered the greatest city in the world. But it seems that you are reluctant to accept *any* sources of info, Greek, Turkish or even English. I'm confused http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Regarding *that* Byzantium book again, throughout the book, the author tells us who his main sources are, where information is dubious or diisputed or contradictory he says so. There is an extensive list of Primary and Secondary sources and a large bibliography at the back of the book. Regarding the sources for the last chapter, the main source of info regarding the last movements of Constantine XI comes from his personal secretary who was dismissed from his duties just before dawn and managed to escape to Italy. Many refugees who escaped to the west also provided accounts and of course there are the Turkish accounts of events too. I'm afraid I can't give you the names cos I lent the book out as soon as I finished it, maybe someone else could post them here. Honestly mate, I found his books to be very fair - tho of course I accept that we all writers have a tendacy to bias, whether they intend to or not, but it certainly isn't pro-Greek, anti-Turkish propoganda if thats what you think.

Regarding the excuses for the defeat of Byz. by the Turks, you need to realise there is a difference between reasons and excuses. To say the Turks were victorious cos the Turkish military were superior. Is at best, an over-simplification. There are numerous, intertwined, sometimes complex, *reasons* why the Turks were militarily superior to the Byz. As far as I am aware, no-one has offered excuses for the fall of Byz. but they have put forward reasons, one of which was the incessant rebellions, plots, civil wars, murders and exiles that slowly, inexorably weakened the empire - a weakening which the Turks were around to take advantage of. You can't read the history of Byz. without wanting to bang your head on the table at the way they constantly shot themselves in the foot and were generally their own worst enemies. I don't know if you have it in Turkish, but Byzantine is a word in the English language, describing what they were best at.

byzantine

Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: “a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements” (New York).
Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure

Finally, I think your English is excellent BTW - I wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't your 1st language if you hadn't made it obvious.

[Kanuni]

Thank you for your last post Mount Suribachi, I feel I am better understood. I'd like to point out once more that the Turkish language and the way of speaking are a little strait forward as KukriKhan pointed. As this can be misunderstood by the Europeans I'll try to be more careful from now on.

From cugel's first post, my poor English understood that that book is finding excuses for Byz defeat pointing out their internal problems. Thinking that book maybe one of them, I critisized some of the subjective approaches to history by some authors, but as I read your post I have understood that that book is rather objective. You seem to have an objective approach, so I trust you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Of course I am proud of my ancestors but I'm never a racist and I don't like subjective approaches favoring the Turks either. Sometimes author's have different comments about sources or they precieve those sources differently. I find it hard to find real facts about specific events such as Emporor's last statement. Anyway my point is not that either.

But some of the events in history are accepted by all the world and historians. For example one is Byz. having infights. But also another is Turks having such problems. So I believe if such a reason is said about the loss of Byzantine, it rather becomes an excuse and I don't accept that. Other people may have other opinions I really don't care. The Turkish empires are destroyed by other Turkish empires many times in history, and almost in all eras including medieval age they fought with other Turkish empires. From the start of the Ottomans until they captured whole Anatolia (which is later than Istanbul) they fought in many fronts with the Turks which weakened them as well, and I can guarantee you their casualties were quite high.

As a result the Turks and Byzantines fought almost on equal terms, both having inside problems, so I can only consider this as an excuse just like the Turks'excuses for the defeats after 1700's.

IMO the people that really believe the Byzantines could defeat Turks if this didn't happen, if that didn't happen can believe how they wish. As for some, many issues that they call facts are actually beliefs which are far from trooth.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 02 2003,21:20)]I'm sorry but Turkish or Greek every loser produces excuses. If you read serious history sources you will see that the Turks were outnumbered but won because of better soldiers and better tactics. As simple as that.
I would strongly disagree with that statement. The political infighting and instability during the waning of the Byzantine empire is a well documented fact.

Battles that were fought between the Turks and Byzantines often featured generals who either refused to obey orders or misinterpreted orders in hopes that a politically disagreeable general might overextend himself and be killed. Whenever a strong leader faced the Turks on the field, the Byzantines acquitted themselves quite well.

Despite the voracious tenacity and advantageous speed of the Turkish forces, I still argue that the single greatest threat the Byzantines faced came from within. Their inability to stop the political infighting resulted in the need to rely on large numbers of mercenaries. Arguing that the Turks were simply the better soldiers bar none is some what ridiculous since the mercenaries utilized by the Byzantines were quite often Turks themselves.

But as they say, history is written by the victors. Since the Turks clearly won, they can continue to propagate whatever theories they desire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

PS: I was really saddened to hear about the recent earthquake. My condolences and sympathies are with your people.

[Kanuni]

Quote[/b] ]I would strongly disagree with that statement. The political infighting and instability during the waning of the Byzantine empire is a well documented fact.

I agreed with that earlier, but so was the Turks as I mentioned earlier.


Quote[/b] ]Battles that were fought between the Turks and Byzantines often featured generals who either refused to obey orders or misinterpreted orders in hopes that a politically disagreeable general might overextend himself and be killed. Whenever a strong leader faced the Turks on the field, the Byzantines acquitted themselves quite well.
Exactly these are the statement that I consider as excuses. Except for several documents on only 1 or 2 Byzantine generals, there isn't a single proof that all Byzantine generals are like this. I believe this is a terrible offense to the Greeks' accusing all of their ancestor generals as narrow minded treacherous fools that could not see te ceonsequences of their acts.


Quote[/b] ]Their inability to stop the political infighting resulted in the need to rely on large numbers of mercenaries. Arguing that the Turks were simply the better soldiers bar none is some what ridiculous since the mercenaries utilized by the Byzantines were quite often Turks themselves.
I agree about the first sentence, but not the second. The mercenaries that were Turkish were actually rare. I need a reliable source to believe otherwise because my knowledge tells me there were Turkish mercenaries in the Byz army, but they were rare. Therefore I do think that compared to the Byz the Turks armies and strat. were superior. That is my opinion, you can think otherwise. However I guess you don't think that Byzantine armies had great advantage over the Turks as shown in this game. This is the issue I'm discussing here.


Quote[/b] ]But as they say, history is written by the victors. Since the Turks clearly won, they can continue to propagate whatever theories they desire.
No no no. The Turks only had a handful of historians throughout history. And we know everything about Turks, its wars etc... from foreign sources. Including the wars with Byzantines you can only find 1 or 2 Turkish documents. And those are not from historians. They are Mehmed II's written orders for example which are still being kept in Istanbul.

Thanks for the condolences and sympathies about the earthquake. Any bad words or swears to the people that built those weak buildings are also welcome.

[Heraclius]

I don't think I can add very much more to this topic but as a Greek it is nice to see a Turk browsing the .org. you have my sincerest sympathies about the recent earthquake. it really is horrible about the corruption and bribery that caused those shaky buildings to be put up.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ May 03 2003,13:59)]I don't think I can add very much more to this topic but as a Greek it is nice to see a Turk browsing the .org. you have my sincerest sympathies about the recent earthquake. it really is horrible about the corruption and bribery that caused those shaky buildings to be put up.
My condolencies as well, given that we have never have earthquakes here in the UK I can only imagine what people must be going through over there.

Turkey will soon be in the EU won't it?

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 03 2003,14:09)]Turkey will soon be in the EU won't it?
I'm not sure about that. Some human rights violations, the continuation of the death penalty and the military's interference in major foreign policy decisions may delay Turkey's entry for some time.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ May 03 2003,14:16)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 03 2003,14:09)]Turkey will soon be in the EU won't it?
I'm not sure about that. Some human rights violations, the continuation of the death penalty and the military's interference in major foreign policy decisions may delay Turkey's entry for some time.
True but lots of noises have been made about this happening for some time now...

Anyway I'll leave that to the politicians.

[Kanuni]

Thanks for all the condolencies m8s.
Btw, I'd like to say that just as in the EU there's no death penalty in the law anymore (since 2002). Also human right violations have declined. And personally I don't believe that the military interfere the politics anymore.

I'd also like to add that under these circumstances and double standards the EU is implenenting to the Turks I'm against trying for a full membership for the EU. I believe Turkey has other options in which it can act more honorable. Of course this issue is another long story and different discussion and I feel too tired to discuss it at the moment any further http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 03 2003,15:46)] And personally I don't believe that the military interfere the politics anymore.
But didn't they make some noise a few years ago when Greece and Turkey were finally close to establishing good relations?

[Kanuni]

Well m8, I swear to God that I do not know such thing eventhough I live in Turkey. I'd suggest not to believe in anything you see in the media.

The only thing I know military interfering in something about Greece is the Cyprus issue and it was this year with the new government elected. When prime minister Erdoğan stated that they have a different approach to Cyprus problem, some general stated disagreeing with the prime minister. Well some people say commenting is not interfering, and some people say the generals sent a message. I don't know if that's interfering because 90% of the population agrees with the military on this anyway.

[KukriKhan]

From the land of bi-weekly earthquakes (California, USA), I send sincere condolences. We have spent billions of dollars over the past 15 years to better prepare structures for earthquakes (to try to ride the wave instead of fight it rigidly) - and we've made considerable progress, but buildings still fall when the ground shakes. And people still die.

Our universities are trying to better predict the temblors, and that research seems about ready to bear fruit. If we could tell when and where the 'shakers' will happen - even a half-hour ahead of time - countless thousands of lives could be saved.

My son builds homes and commercial buildings for a living (not a boss, just a worker). Sometimes he complains about the extra things he has to do to make his buildings earthquake-safe, since it slows him down from finishing the project. But when we discuss this, even he agrees that it is better to be safe now, than sorry later; especially when I point out that quake-proofing may add 10-15% to the construction costs today, but court judgments against his company next year by bereaved relatives of quake victims who died because of shoddy work could break the company. That usually brings him around http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Gregoshi]

They say you learn something everyday. Today was one of those good lessons. Kukri, thanks for shedding some light on the difficulties of Turkish/English translation. My apologies to Kanuni if my response came across as harsh. It was intended to inform and prevent difficulties with other patrons, but if you felt attacked by it then that is my failure in communications. I would like to commend you for responding in a rational and constructive manner to all the commentary your first posts generated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

I'll also add my condolences to you and your countrymen on the loses suffered during the earthquake.

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 03 2003,17:36)]Well m8, I swear to God that I do not know such thing eventhough I live in Turkey. I'd suggest not to believe in anything you see in the media.
well you're probably right. The greek media is quite biased and I should've known to take everything i hear from them with a grain (or a pound) of salt. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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

As Erik pointed out I also mainly play Turk... Welcome fellow Turk general... But due to general lack of good leadership from my part, I can't tell that I am overwhelmingly successfull.

Still, I beg to disagree with your statement that Turkish army are underpowered.

On top of being a losing Turk general, I am also French (...), and let me tell you, if a faction s**** big time this is France. Beside Turcopole (yeah you read correctly), I see no reason whatsoever to choose France as a faction, all other cath faction have a better selection. Wonder how they won 100 years war.

Turks infantry is one of the finest. Compared to byz, they have great polearm (byz is weak on anticav), and better morale... If you can't kill them, rout them.

Play on your strenght.

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Kanuni,

The Turks should gain considerably in Viking Invasion high era battles. The pav arb and lancer are moved to late era and the Byz inf will be more expensive. If Byz are knocked from the top spot in early era by the price increase, the Turks may well replace them there as top faction. You're right that when top players like AMP utilize the game's imbalances to their fullest extent it will force you to do the same to stay competitive.

When questioned about historical accuracy one of the CA programmers responded that MTW was a game with an historical flavor. I take that to mean they are not really trying to stay historically accurate to any great degree. It seems to me that desert battles are where the muslim factions are designed to do better than the christian factions.

[Knight_Yellow]

the turks would do well by the pavs moving to late


ive been trying to play them in MP games and lost 20 times 1 time i nearly won it was sweet vs a respectable member but the pizza guy came and i had to pay him.

i couldve have won but alas my pepperoni had other ideas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif


if i had my way id get rid of pavs alltogether they ruin the game but ill probably play the VI campaign more than the original for a good while depending on how good the scotts and picts are.

[Kanuni]

Gregoshi,
No problem m8, because it is my fault as I should have been more careful because I'm not discussing with Turks here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,
I'll have to disagree with you about JHI being better than Byz inf in MP games. In 15k games u'd have to spend like 3000 florins for a JHI unit to be only equivalent to Byz Inf V4 that cost only about 1400 florins. Run some tests to see what I'm talking about m8. So actually in a cost effective manner the JI is the only inf u can use against European inf. at 15k games.

And one last innaccuracy opinion which actually CA proves in the game:) ...
I believe CA did a good job about researching different units and I think the descriptions of the units are somewhat accurate. But... If you read the description about Ottoman Infantry it writes as if it is a superb unit and also something like it can stand against European Infantry which is true actually. But can it in the game? For the ones that are more familiar with the game know what I'm talking about. For other people I can explain it like this: Ottoman Infantry's stats shows that it is one of the worst infantry in the game who most of the time run away screaming like little girls. And they also cost much more than European inf. to counter them.

Actually only improved Ottoman Inf to be the same like CMAA (and costing same to upgrade as well) and Sipahi that can be upgraded without adding up too much valor (they have a morale problem too) to counter knights would satisfy me for the Turks. Eventhough I believe Turkish armies in the past were much better, this is a game, I wouldn't want them to be better, I'd just want them not to have disadvantages against European armies.

Btw I'm quite succesful with the Turks in MP as well. My unit selection and tactic is different though. Many vets learned about me and my patented Turkish army now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ( Oh yes it is patented, do not copy it :P )

Note: Once again thank you for all the condolences, but please also do not hesitate to wish for the worst for some thieves who steal from the material of the buildings for them to cost less http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Alrowan]

well its time for my two cents

going back to the original post, you say that muslims are grossly underpowered compared to europeans.. that is extremely true, but what the muslims all lack in shher power, they more than make up for with speed. A Turk Jan army is one of the most manouverable on the filed, and will contantly flank any european army, and that is a fact. All muslim units actuall pack a heavy punch, A VERY HEAVY PUNCH, thier core troops all have high morale and high attack, but the also have low armour due to being desert dwellers.

In my time i have seen many muslims win gainst european factions, and it brings up me debate of skill over army. Take Erik Jansen for example, he is one of the finest turk players i have seen, and he consistently beats europeans. The style of a eropean army is that of the tank, raw power, but its a cost, and that is manouverability. Never use play as a muslim the same way you play as a eatholic, then you will learn the true power of the muslim armies

[Dimeola]

Units have their strengths and weaknesses. When employed to their strengths on favorable terrain to exploit the enemies` weaknesses you have a good chance of winning. There is so much more to warfare and battles than what we have in MTW. MP often comes down to a European style slugfest. And in that type of fight the Muslim troops were not favorable. But used correvtly in their own lands the Muslim troops under good command could prevail. The key is not to use them like a european but to try and emulate successfull tactics.
The early Byzantine army was excellent. They were well trained and well led and at that time were a match for anyone. But the later periods saw decay in troop quality and number of quality troops. And esp. after Manzikert they never recovered.
The tactic of the knight was the charge to contact and carry everything in their way. The muslim troops weren`t affective against this. Thus they often harried with mounted bow, and used false retreat to lure out and isloate units.
So I think the company got it pretty well. It`s just up to us to use the units properly.
Dimeolas

[Mount Suribachi]

Earthquake = bad
Corruption = bad
Earthquake + corruption = awful

Kanuni, what will happen to the people who built those buildings? what are the laws for that like in Turkey? Maybe you should keep the death penalty long enough to kncok off the scumbags who built those buildings?

And don't stress too much about the EU...in the long run Turkey will benefit, you just have to put up with being told by France and Germany what to do

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 03 2003,22:33)]Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,
I'll have to disagree with you about JHI being better than Byz inf in MP games. In 15k games u'd have to spend like 3000 florins for a JHI unit to be only equivalent to Byz Inf V4 that cost only about 1400 florins. Run some tests to see what I'm talking about m8. So actually in a cost effective manner the JI is the only inf u can use against European inf. at 15k games.
Kanuni,

Sorry, I was not clear. I was speaking of Turk inf in general vs byz inf in general, meaning not only Turk JHI, but also, JI, Futu, ghazi, etc. Byz is mainly well byz inf + VG.

I think Turk inf (JHI+JI+Futu+Otto inf+Ghazi, etc) is one of the finest, with many complementary units which can fullfil a whole range of purposes. The only missing thing is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif PAV ARB http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif . But I would be annoyed to have them in my army anyway...

Byz inf has a better cost ratio, you have more for your fl on sheer sword ability. But anticav is weak. Schock is not great (no gallow, or ghazi or this kind of expendable cool units).

JHI vs byz inf is a losing fight. JHI are polearms guy, they shall not go after inf sword. Target is heavy cav.

Properly boosted JI/Futu can have similar stat as biz inf... they still lack in number, but they can pull a fight.

The target when figthing byz is their low morale... hold those byz inf, and rout those pav arb nearby, and Lo byz inf is routing charge them with some cav

Louis,

To keep the rant on the French unit selection; not only does it s*** bad, but on top of that, forums are FULL of english generals complaining their longbow are underpowered
Argh

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

Guys the game was originally called CRUSADER:TOTAL WAR .
It would be a pity if in such a game the holy christian crusaders....blessed by their greater than god pope were to ever lose wouldnt it?
A simple remedy is to distort history .....claim to nto be historically accurate and underpower the muslims.
No offence to anyone.
Enuff said.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[PrithviRaj Chauhan]

BTW I am KFW_Turkish_X so dont go telling me how to use turks better.....rely on speed blah blah blah ...
as the East Indian fella said....Binder Dundat.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Some people in the foyer have happened to offer to show me sum new tricks .....but they have learnt sum instead.
No Offence but i dont appreciate when sumbody refuses to acknowledge the facts adn tell sumone to go use them better...
At least to me u cant say that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
If so challenege me in a Turkish fight in foyer
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Dimeola]

So let me plain in my opinion....firstly nothing you could say would be offensive, it is your opinion. Next, the folks who made this game did not skew it in a conspiracy for the `crusaders`. That is absurd. What I posted earlier is a truth of warfare and business and life. It holds true at all eras of history. As it applies here. The european and muslim armies of the period had similarities and many differences. The differences came about in response to political, geographical, tactical, and strategic and climate factors. The units are not like units in the old board wargames that have an attack and defense factor. There are many factors that go into each unit`s strengths and weaknesses.
It is perhaps a failing of playing games like this that people think this or any game is like `life`. This game by the nature of the beast (limited area, playability, etc) favors more the european style of warfare....line up and slug...heavy knights charge to break the foe. The muslim armies when brought to bear such a charge suffered badly. The muslim armies thusly sought maneuver and startegic advantage creating battles of tactical advantage. Two different styles of fighters. If you want to use the Turks (for example) in a straight charge against heavier troops then you will loose more often than not. The `fault` is not in the game. It is because you play to the enemies strength and put your forces at a disadvantage.
I think you`re watching too many Xfiles reruns. There is not a conspiracy here bro. If you want a straight charging slugfest go with a european army.
Dimeolas

[Dimeola]

Oops sorry, I just got it....you seem to have some issues. And not to be rude but read up on the history of the battles and see how the muslim commanders handled their troops. Thats all needs be said really. Hope to resolve things. I have fought next to you on the field and you were a good ally. I dont know you, but as a friend you`re seeing wraiths.
Dimeolas

[LeeJackson]

My favorite thing in listening to people talk about RTS is that they want everything to be balanced when in real life the aim and desire is to make things as unbalanced as possible. In real life you always want more/better/large/stronger etc troops you never if it all want things to be fair when you go into battle.

[Mount Suribachi]

To put it in fighter pilots parlance kill the other guy before he even knows you're there

And PC, there is no anti-muslim conspiracy here. Yeah, the game was called Crusader. But you know what? They changed it Because it was felt to be an inappropriate name. Maybe the muslim factions aren't strong enough (so how come the Almohads seem to always take over the map?), and CA didn't spend enough time on them becos they were focusing on the european factions, but hey, they'll sell a lot more games in Europe than N Africa, so they would have spent more time on their core market, as it were.

[Kanuni]

I'm enjoying to see the opinions of people that I know from GS as well.

Notice that I was mentioning about having the disadvantage for picking the Turks in MP if the opponent was equally skilled. A manueverable Jan Turk army cannot constantly flank any European army if the opponent is equally skilled. It is true that the Turk inf has more speed, however it ain't enoguh to flank the inf of a skilled player. And it is always difficult to catch cav. with JHI as the cav. has more speed.

I have my ways of countering European armies as well and I believe I'm quite succesful about this, but the army I need to pick and the tactics I need to use need to be quite ahistorical.

Let me tell you about the strat. of the Turkish in the past. In the beginning it was Mongol-like style, as Turks and Mongols of the Asia relied heavily on horse archers, their speed and manuevers. However, with the development of Jannisarries it became similiar to the tank style of the Europeans. The heavy infantry destroying all that comes in its way. However, against the lance charge of the opponent they did not counter it with a cav. lance charge but instead they countered it with spears or weapons similiar to pole-arms. Or they countered it with the manueverability of its fast cav. When they countered it with cav, they always retreated backwards and backwards watching out that strong first punch created by those lances. They always retreated the center to the sides. Definitely after some point slower knights stopped, and this was the time when the Turkish cav. attacked. Knights needed to drop their lances and fight with swords often lost to the sword skills of sipahis. And because of this fact that I know I have one more objection about historical accuracy. I somewhat agree to the charge bonuses of those knights, however their attack and defence values need to be decreased in the game. Or they need to suffer much more fatigue because of heavy armor and because of carrying heavy lances. Or they should drop their heavy lances as happenned in history and lose their charge bonus for other engagements.
I guess this is not true for other Muslim empires, but the Turks with the jannissaries did start to use similiar tactics as the Europeans, relying on heavy punch, raw power. The only difference was the lance charge.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,
I completely agree that the target when facing the Byz should be their low morale. However I don't agree that the Turkish inf is better than Byz inf. Yes the Turks have a variety of inf in this game, futtu, Ottomans, ji, jhi... but still they will hardly counter 4 byz inf, 4 vg which is more than enough inf. for any army. At least in high period they are a tough army to beat as you have to hold against their inf. when your inf. will lose and rout if you don't do something quickly. You need to either flank their inf with cav, or you need to rout their cav. or pavs hoping for a massive rout. I guess you'll agree that this is quite hard when facing an equally skilled opponent.

LeeJackson,
I agree with you about your last statement. And there were definitely inbalances between some factions in the past that were succesful and that were not. However don't you agree that if such an inbalance should be reflected in this game, it should be for the succesful factions in the past that actually had inbalances? Take my Turk-Byz example.. In what logic should this inbalance be in favor of Byz according to accuracy? That is the question this topic is asking.

And finally I don't know sbout the anti-muslim conspiracy in this game. I just know that IMO this game is underpowering the Muslims, or at least the Turks.

Btw, hi Turkish-X, I hope we can practise our Turk armies once more today http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KukriKhan]

I know this thread is primarily about force-imbalance issues...but we did also have a small tangent on earthquake predictions. I just found this article from Scientific American magazine, that speaks about progress in that field, for those interested:

http://www.sciam.com/article....588EEDF (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000979AF-9092-1EB2-BDC0809EC588EEDF)

[Aleborg]

mmmmm, Turks unbalanced???


And u say that, Kanuni??

Well, i pray VI will make Turks weaker than now, if not u will be unbeatable... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


HoooooooooooooowwwwwooooWWLL

Ale

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

[kataphraktoi]

Kanuni again u misunderstand me.

The Turkish world was quite expansive and large more so than the Byzantine world, the way the Turkish world was structured it did not collapse like the Byzantines, first of all the turkish world was porous and mercurial with the ability to survive disasters. Whereas the Byzantines were entrenched in a small part of the world, the way they were structured it made it hard for them to be mercurial and porous in their existence.

I said Turkish units were weak and u refered to the elite Turkish units like the Janissaries, tell my is the whole Turkish army made up of elite units???? I think not. When I said the Turkish were weak it meant the general character of the army. Obviously u misunderstood and became very selective in your response. Maybe next time I will remember that all Turkish armies are elite troops and the best in world, if I contradict this I msut be in error and Inshallah save from shirk.

Why Turkey will find it hard to get into EU.

CYPRUS.

Cyprus was basically a Greek island until the Ottomans made it their policy to transmigrate Turks to the island, now u have ethnic nationalist problems.

Turkey has appalling human rights abuses, eg, Kurds no brainer, no recognition of Kurds as a unique and separate ethnic people with their own history.

Condolensces to the victims of the earthquake but facts are facts Turkey does not meet the EU criteria.

[Kanuni]

Howl Aleborg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kataphroki,
I did not only mean the elite Turkish units. I don't also think that the cav. (mainly horse archers) that are mainly non-elite troops of the Turkish army were not weak as you say, or as te game points. As I said earlier they were not only horse archers, but were also skilled fighters that did well against Kats. I'm not trying to implement to everyone that the Turkish armies were the best, but I'm trying to argue here how reasonable it is to say Turkish units are weak, Byz units are strong.

Once more I have to add that you are wrong to think that Turkish have more ability to stand against disasters. I'd like to repeat once more that the Turkish world was fighting with each other and were not a combined empire, so it would be wrong to say that they were large except for the peak periods of some of the great empires.


Quote[/b] ]Why Turkey will find it hard to get into EU.

CYPRUS.

Cyprus was basically a Greek island until the Ottomans made it their policy to transmigrate Turks to the island, now u have ethnic nationalist problems.
I really don't wish to argue with a Greek about Cyprus problem because most of teh time arguements between a Greek and a Turk about Cyprus turns out to be ugly. Therefor I'll not express my points about the Turks having a rightful cause in Cyprus. I just want to say that saying Cyprus was Greek until Ottomans took it... is not logical because Anatolia as well was Greek before Turks captured it. So do you think land of Turkey should also be accepted as Greek? There are international agreements about Cyprus earlier, these are what we should be discussing, not the Ottomans time because Anatolia was Greek too as I said. (but I really don't want to get into a long Cyprus discussion, let's stop it here)

Lastly thanks for your condolensces, and I'd like to add that we agree about one thing. I don't want Turkey to get into EU either as I believe it would benefit EU countries more (Turkey big market, its population will reach 100 million soon, young population, great pottential ...etc ...etc)

[Swoosh So]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif kanuni just think we might have a long posting wolf in the future http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Popeye]

Don't get too hung up on historical accuracy.

Years ago, Avalon Hill published a wargame called Storm Over Arnhem which was Operation Market Garden.

Historically, it was accurate as far as I know. Since it was painfully accurate, the challenge they faced in making it playable was redefining victory so that the British and Germans had an equal chance of winning, even though the likelihood of the game ending with any British units in Arnhem was very low. It's just a question of how long they hold out.

It wasn't fun for very long. The German player couldn't take satisfaction in crushing a weaker opponent, and the British player could never quite taste the victory in what was in reality a failed operation.

My point is, if you get total historical accuracy, you already know how it is going to end. There's no point to it. Just give me a semi-historical setting, and balance it so that the outcome is in doubt.

As far as the game's balance, I simply don't agree. The game's balance is proven by the fact that the question of whether Turkey, Novgorod, Byzantine or Hungary occupies Constantinople in 1200 is entirely dependent on the question of which one I play. In fact, on Easy, I did this with Denmark.

If you want historical accuracy, read a book. If you think the game balance favors any given faction, adjust the difficulty level to suit your skills, or learn some of the game cheats. (not that I look down on cheating - if you need it to balance play, DO IT. Cheats that make it easier are not morally different from cheats to make it harder; the point is to make it FUN.)

It's a game. That's all it is.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 05 2003,06:18)]I completely agree that the target when facing the Byz should be their low morale. However I don't agree that the Turkish inf is better than Byz inf. Yes the Turks have a variety of inf in this game, futtu, Ottomans, ji, jhi... but still they will hardly counter 4 byz inf, 4 vg which is more than enough inf. for any army. At least in high period they are a tough army to beat as you have to hold against their inf. when your inf. will lose and rout if you don't do something quickly. You need to either flank their inf with cav, or you need to rout their cav. or pavs hoping for a massive rout. I guess you'll agree that this is quite hard when facing an equally skilled opponent.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Kanuni,

OK, I'll try to write it right this time.

I really think that Turk inf (JHI + JI + ...) is better than byz inf (byz inf + VG). What I mean by that is; Turk inf is more polyvalent than byz inf and has a much wider range on unit / function, so overall, you would be better off with Turk inf than byz inf. Turk inf army can handle more different situation... A byz inf army would suffer vs any catholic heavy cav army (and I think that any Spanish general facing byz is not going to show up with 4 orders foot and 4 mil sergeant... they go heavy cav all the way); a Turk inf army can deal effectively with that.
Now, there is one situation where the Turk inf has an issue, it is h2h with byz inf... Yes, you are right, with skilled byz general, it is going to be very very tough with a mainly turk inf army.
So if I have to face a byz army with turks in 1v1, I cheat, I don't take a balanced turk set up (whatever that is). 2 main options; I take a lot more cav and cav HA, or I bring lot of naphta and pray they will rout the byz... (depend on map, weather condition etc...).

I was not speaking Turk vs Byz, but how Turk and Byz inf compare in all the different situations we face in MTW.

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

Louis,

[Portuguese Rebel]

How would you guys feel if your faction wasn't there at all?

I know i have at least the scotish with me on this... and others too.

Come on dude, modding unit stats is dead easy, making a new faction is a pain in the behind... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Gregoshi]

Oh yeah Well, I think CA has a conspiracy going that they are purposefully only doing TW games in eras in which the USA does not yet exist. At least Portugal and Scotland have shot at being in the game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Anatolia and Cyprus were both Greek but what happened to each was a different historical experience, Anatolia as it happened bore the brunt of Turkicisation more than Cyprus, what the Turks did in Anatolia does not make what happened in Cyprus the same neither right at all.
What happened in Anatolia has been debated by scholars (not all of them are Greek) and classed as a practical holocaust to the extent that the Greek presence in Anatolia never recovered. Primary sources attest to the transmigration of Greeks to the mainland well before that between Greece and Turkey in the 1920's.

Cyprus when compared to Anatolia is of insignificance, Anatolia as an important part of the Ottoman Empire was valued above Cyprus and so the Turkicisation of it would be common sense. True there were Greeks in Anatolia but not to the levels of the Byzantines.

With the EU application for entry would the EU ideology and standards impinge and contrast to Turkey's own values??

COnsider this Southeast Asian countries resent the inference that Western liberal democracy is the only way to go in sOUTHEAST aSIA. To this day there is stilla resnetment of
Western values imposed upon them.

WOuld this same scenario apply to Turkey if it joins a European organisation, one that also has insitutionalised not a supranational character but has also institutionalised values that don;t match Turkish ones.???

[Kanuni]

Popeye,
Please read my posts carefully. I did not ask for a complete historical accuracy, I just want a more fun and colorful MP game. That would be done by increasing the power of Muslim factions, and this would also be more accurate. Believe me if this were the situation in the past, there wouldn't be any Muslim land left. The Muslims held more land than Christians in the are of this game's map, and it wasn't because of outnumbering as the Muslims were outnumbered in most battles.

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,
I'll still have to disagree with you. I suggest you to run a custom battle with Byz Inf v4 (possible best inf in 15k, more would cost too much) vs v1 Lancers (possible best cav. in 15k, and again more would cost too much), u'll see that Lancers will kill a lot in the first charge bonus, but after that byz will kill lancers. v2 lancers has 7 att and 7 def, byz inf v4 has 8 att, 7def (or 7 att 8 def, I don't remember). This means Byz inf is better than Lancers in h2h, yes lots of Byz inf will die in the charge, but they will win after all. Because their att of 8 and def. of 7 is the same against cav too. So I'd like to repeat, if you can't flank'em you lose. And an equally skilled Byz opponent has more chance to flank you instead as 4 Byz inf. will cover 5-6 of your inf ( of course if u don't face them with sacarens, but I believe too few good Turk players use 4 crap sacarens). Even against Spanish armythey will do well if not flanked. I suggest you should play with AMP to see exactly what I mean, or do some custom battle tests.

kataphraktoi,
Well, I didn't want to go into this, but I guess I'll have to answer shortly. Yes the Turks did try to Turkicise (or what ever the right word is) Anatolia, Tracia and Cyprus. They were succesful for Anatolia and Tracia. You know the borders that were drawn in history were not all about population. As you know it pretty well, when Turks agreed to give away west Tracia to Greece, the Turks were a majority all the way including Salonika.

I agree there were always more Greeks living in Cyprus, however I guess you won't deny that the Greek government also migrated thousands of Greek from your mainland to Cyprus. But the reason of this situation is Greeks themselves. A united Cyprus was agreed in earlier agreements with 40% of the parliament being Turks ...etc ...etc... The Turkish and Greek communites started to fight in Cyprus after they saw that they cannot live next to each other in piece. (I guess you have seen photos of Greek guerillas slaughtering Turkish women and children, btw) Your military government at that time (1974) instead of trying to maintain order in the island decided to add Cyprus to Greek country and declared so, without caring about international agreements and the Republic of Turkey that was behind the Turks in Cyprus. Naturally Turkey invaded Cyprus, occupied half and saved its citizens. Practically that war brought peace to the island as the conflicts between communites stopped. What can I say? I guess the Greeks asked for it. Oh btw I guess some Greeks are thankful to the Turkish military as your military government in Greece collapsed after the defeat in Cyprus and democracy was re-established in Greece.

And about EU, as I said earlier I do not wish Turkey to be a part of EU, and also I do not think our values match with Europe.

Oh btw, I forgot to answer 1 earlier question, sorry. I think that the responsible people of those weak buildings are sentenced to jail for about 20 years.

[Popeye]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 07 2003,12:48)]I did not ask for a complete historical accuracy, I just want a more fun and colorful MP game. That would be done by increasing the power of Muslim factions, and this would also be more accurate.
It's quite obvious that you just want the Muslims to be unbeatable.

Personally, I'm satisfied that the status quo is that they can win if I play them, and can be beaten if I don't, and that neither one is a sure thing. I don't see the need to alter anything, and think that alteration will upset balance and ruin the game for all other factions.

How about you get yourself a modification that choosing a Muslim faction brings up a screen that shows the Earth from outer space and says you win in big colorful letters?

I'm pretty sure that would be easy to program, and it sounds like what you want.

[Mount Suribachi]

Well, I spent the early years of my life in Cyprus as my dad was posted there with the RAF. My parents loved Cyprus, adored it. They both maintain that they never saw a problem between the Greeks and the Turks who they felt got along fine. They said it all changed when the Turks invaded, and suddenly the communities became polarised as they chose sides, their sides. Very sad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

As far as Turkey joining the EU - you say Turkeys values don't match with Europe? Crikey Britains values don't match with Europe So you're not alone there mate And trust me, Turkey will get a lot more out of the EU than the EU gets out of Turkey. The real big winners in the EU are the small countries like Ireland who have had their entire economic infrastructure rebuilt by EU (ie French, German and British) money. Turkey, just like all the other new countries will receive billions in grants and investment if they join the EU.

[Kanuni]

Popeye,
I started to think your posts are quite offensive against me and especially from your last post I have been irritated. For people that cannot understand easily, I'm repeating: I do not wish unbeatable Muslim armies. I'm just expressing my OPINION about Muslim armies being underpowered. Your opinion may be different, I really don't care.

Mount Suribachi,
There has been conflicts starting from the 50's m8. The war was in 1974. There may be some peaceful areas one which your parents lived in, actually there still are even today (although very few) places where Turks and Greeks live happily. After a few hours I'll search for some photos in the internet of these conflicts and post them.

[Kanuni]

I found a site with tons of photos about Cyprus. Starting from 60's to 80's showing the photos of some important events. There are a couple of pictures about the slaughter as well. http://www.pubinfo.gov.nc.tr/sergi/sergi.htm
Sorry it takes way too long time to load for dial-up users because there are many small photos there.

It's funny in Turkey, people critisize the foreign ministry a lot because of not being able to explain the rightful cause to the world. Your post is a perfect example about how world lacks knowledge about some facts in Cyprus. One generation actually lived there thinks like this and the son, the next generation thinks the same. I'd understand if people said Turks are wrong, but saying the people were getting along well, there were no conflicts ...etc is a complete lack of knowledge (no offence m8) about this case. Even the Greeks accept that there were conflicts and problems before 1974.

[Heraclius]

why wouldn't we accept there were problems? The Cyprus incident was one of the most wretched in the history of modern Greece. Remember though that was an invasion by the US supported military junta that ruled Greece at the time and not the wishes (for the most part) of the people. I don't understand why Turkey still insists on occupying part of Cyprus. they should just pull out the troops and let the country finally be united. i have a question: is this supported by the Turkish people in general or is it a stubborn government policy?

[Shahed]

Merhaba Kanuni

WELCOME TO THE ORG

It's really been a great pleasure reading your first posts on these forums. I think the org is extremely fortunate to have a member as you, who despite blatantly obvious personal attacks, has maintained an honorable, decent and respectful stance. The Org is fortunate as well, that another member brings with him another culture and another sense of conscience, another school of thought. Essential ingredients for constructive discussion and mutual learning.

I'm sure that your future posts will be just as thoughtful and logically presented as your first post.

As a clan, the Wolves have adopted a cub that will bring them much pride and great honor to the Clan. It is a great loss for us ronin out there to have lost you to a clan.

I wish you the very best of luck and all success with the Wolves.

ABOUT THE HISTORICAL IMPERFECTIONS OF MTW
Historical accuracy is a must for a game as MTW, which touches not only different Eras in history but touches on the history of nations themselves. A history possessed by the people of these nations. Needless to say those who play the game from these different regions, and cultures would wish for the game to accurately represent their history. This is not too much to ask, and indeed makes total moral, marketing and business sense. The days when the masses were easily mobilized by Xenophobia, are not yet gone. What remain in terms of political correctness and social etiquette demands that representations of other cultures be accurate. Failing to do so would cost a game such as MTW the repercussions of correct observations and accusations such as yours, of the historical inaccuracy of the game, and of it's perceived bias towards one culture over another.

This game is programmed by mostly Occidentals (imagine so), therefore a natural and absolutely innocent observation by Orientals would be that this game is obviously biased. I would assume that a realistic view would show that being a game for the West, who favor their own culture and are proud of it would do what they can to represent their culture favorably (as all nations). Whether this is actually true is another story. It is also the making of a mostly futile debate, without supporting facts and evidence.

I believe, as I have since the very first day I played this game, that the game is lacking in research. The project itself is a huge undertaking worthy of a lot of time. The game had to have been correctly researched. It is evident that the Catholic faction has gotten the lion's share of the R&D budget (time and/or money). Although to my knowledge a scholar was hired to provide information on Islamic culture, clearly the information acquired does not go deep enough, and is not adequately represented in the game.

The Islamic factions had to be given much more research time since obviously the game falls short of correctly representing the Islamic states of the time. The Islamic factions also deserved a lot more attention due to the sensitivity of the Muslim faith towards centuries of public propaganda, distortion of facts, and misrepresentation. Lastly, but certainly not least the Islamic nations had to be well researched in order to achieve a good game play and representative balance of the nations of the ages.

It is not enough for a successor of Shogun Total War to claim to be historically inaccurate. It must be historically accurate, and it must be a work of art, as it's predecessor.

THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE
If you go to the center of Brussels, a capital of Europe, you will come across a square with a statue of Goedfroy de Bouillon. The Flemish nation had more Crusaders as a percentage of population than anywhere else in Europe. The word Europa itself means Christendom. Where in a capital of Europa, a Crusader is honored with a statue and seen as a hero, the same person is the object of disgust and a human representation of the dark past of Europe across the Muslim world.

In Palestine, across the Maghreb and among the Arab nations. Goedfroy is known as a person who slaughtered the Jews, Christians and Muslim of Palestine. This knowledge however is not common in Europe where crusaders are a thing of glory to some people. To some Crusading knights are still heroes of Europe, it is irrelevant what deeds they committed in order to achieve their status as legends. The imagery of chivalrous knights is something of a staple for any European person. Whereas the common knowledge of the Orient indicates that the Crusading Knights were not all they are made out to be in Europe. Their deeds are documented and presented to the population and it is the common knowledge that these were people who rode for power, financial and human wealth as they rode to the Holy Lands.

What is common knowledge in the Arab and Muslim world is not common knowledge in the European world and vice versa. No one can be held accountable for this, it is a question of individual research, which will lead one to the most accurate conclusions about the history of Islam & Christianity.

MUSLIM UNITS IN MTW
In your previous posts you correctly pointed out that the Muslim military units are mis-represented. You put forward your facts, which are common knowledge to anyone of the Muslim world as far as Indonesia. In the Muslim world everyone knows that the Turks and Arabs were great martial societies in their time.

However in the West this is not common knowledge. This I believe is the reason (among others) why you encounter hostility when you disclose facts that are not known to the general public. Also it is noble of you to point out these facts, but the truth is that some people are not interested in the truth they just want their knights to rule the filed, never mind the battles against the Hungarians where the Knights were decimated not only by light cavalry but also by Sipahi.

It takes not time for anyone to realize that armor was not something unique to Europeans. Any military museum in the Islamic world, or in the West, has multiple suits of armor worn by Islamic warriors.

The Janissaries had different attire for different fighting conditions. This is not exclusive to the Janissaries either, most Muslim armies like any sensible army, modified their armor to suit the conditions of battle and their environment.

In MTW the presentation of most Muslim troops as desert troops is totally inaccurate. Again, the Turks, the Almohads had armored troops capable of fighting in European environments. After all the objectives of both these nations was European land. If you give it some research you will arrive to the conclusion that the majority of the battles the Turks fought in this Era were West of Anatolia. There are no deserts in those regions and it made no sense for the Turks to go into battle wearing padded cotton armor or simply a shirt as is suggested by some Turkish units in MTW.

As to the fighting capability of the Turks. Again this sis something that is so obvious and known. In MTW the fighting ability of the Turkish units is again misrepresented in most units. The Turkish Sipahi are absolutely hopeless in comparison the actual history we have of the Sipahi. The game does differ from SP to MP. In SP the Turkish units are better balanced with the rest of the game. the weaknesses and the misrepresentation of the Turkish units is by far more obvious in MP. The Janissaries were warriors, which made Europe tremble. They did have heavy armor, unlike European armor, but nevertheless they did fight in armor when needed. In MTW the Janissaries are powerful in the context of the game, but in reality they have to be much more powerful in order to correctly represent the potential of such an elite force, which was a model for European armies of the future. The Janissaries were created as one of the first non feudal troops. The European contemporaries of the Turkish state, were in the same time frame still almost exclusively relying on feudal warlords for a supply of troops.

There are also gross generalizations of troops types, which are understandable due to time constraints. However on a whole the Muslim troops are grossly misrepresented in MTW.

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

[Kanuni]

Hi Heraclius,
You seem to have a reasonable and logical approach to any topic, so I'd like to first start by saying how much I appreciate that.

Well here it is believed that it is difficult after all these incidents that a peaceful united country can re-establish. It is feared that the terrorism caused by ENOSIS* can restart. After all a reasonable agreement will be accepted, but it seems there are a lot of differences for the idea of reasonable between the Turks and Greeks. And also the strategical importance of the island make both countries eager to control the island. The Turks believe just withdrawing troops and agreeing without any circumstances is like giving away this strategically important island (which is very near to Turkey's south coast) to the Greeks, which I must say I also agree. The 90% of the population support the government's policy. We request that if we will unite, the Turks should have rights to govern the island as well. It should not be accepted as a minority only.

*It is defined as a terrorist group here. I don't know how Greeks define it.

[Kanuni]

Merhaba Sinan,
Thanks for the welcome, and thank you about the good things you said about me. I feel very honored to hear such things from a great vet. of this game and a very nice person as well.

IMO, your post is brilliantly written and I agree with every single word you said. Both your historical points and your opinions about this game shows knowledge, reasonability, logic and objectivity (unlike some other people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif )

I look forward to seeing you in GS to practise some Turk armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Shahed]

My pleasure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Something my favorite Kendo Sensei said when I first met him:

There are no masters, when you hear someone say this is a master, be sure that the person being referred to is a beginner.

He is 7th Dan (7th degree black belt if you like)

As such I follow the true Kendo philosophy.
I'm a noob, always was, alwasy will be. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
On the field you may come to your own judgement on this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I would like to play with you again, anytime. I'd also like to draw your attention (everyone is welcome) to the following thread:

Objective Based Multiplayer Games (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=6410;st=50)

Please have a look at this thread as in these objective based games with guidelines, we can create any tactic and use any army with great fun . We can also have battles VERY different from standard win/lose MP games. For example we can recreate similar conditions to that famous battle in Hungary with the 30,000 Hungarian knights (can't recall the name).

Check it out. It may interest you.

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

[Heraclius]

thank you kannuni. its nice to talk to a Turk as your persepective is quite new. also thank you for not lashing out at some violent personal attacks that have been directed at you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

I guess the real problem between our countries is the distrusts and centuries of utter hatred. The Greeks are afraid that the Turks will invade Cyprus from the North, the Turks are afraid the Greeks will control a unified Cyprus and invade Turkey. Both are unfounded in my opinion. If only we could work out a solution, involving shared control of the government with fair representation of the Turkish minority. A Greek Prime Minister and a Turkish President (with power unlike the figure-head position that President is in Greece) and a Parliament with a required percent of Turkish deputies perhaps? I don't know, I'm not a diplomat but I sincerely hope that our two countries can put aside our centuries of conflict and become friends. In Greece a general ignorance and inherent racism block this at the moment. Is is the same in Turkey?

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 07 2003,18:51)]*It is defined as a terrorist group here. I don't know how Greeks define it.
an organization of heroes in most parts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif really many of them are complete fascists who want to relive the Great Idea. I am ashamed so many of my country men agree with them although it is getting much better and you should've hearn the stories my father used to tell me.

[RisingSun]

Hi everyone, Rising Sun here, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif this would be my first post, even though i just really wanna post in the collosseum, you nazis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I fail to see how you can say the muslim armies are underpowered between equal opponents. Let me tell you this. The AI in single player would no doubt be equal to itself, correct? When i play as the English, after my easy conquests of France and the HRE, and noticing casually that the Almohads have conveiently taen over the Iberian Peninsula, what do i run into? thats right, one of three things.

1. A Horde of Almohads that have decimated the Egyptians and Byzantines

2. Egyptians that control basicaly, the Eastern world.

3. Turks, who have blown through Anatolia, dominated th Mid-East and are now knocking on my doorstep. You find this balanced? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

On the other topic, me, being a typical arrogant, ignorant American, really don't have a clear idea about the whole Cyprus thing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

PS- Please excuse typos in my posts, my keyboard seems to not pick up some keystokes in certain text boxes.

[kataphraktoi]

Greek slaughtered Turks, Turks slaughtered, massacres no longer serve as a moral currency anymore in the modern context so i guess that rules each other out.

IN Cyprus trhere was an ENosis movement(Union) to unite with Greece, it wasn't just a mainland initiative but really a nationalist one between Greece and Cyprus, the nationalist ideology inevitably would have encouraged such an idea anyway. Cyprus was in limbo between independence and union, the overriding issue was security, it cannot be denied that there were oppression of Turks but consider it a paradox when the oppressed become the oppressors. Although this is never and never will be a justification for oppression.

Thrace was indeed a Turkish majority area and has been so since the Turks acquired it in the 1300's when they depopulated it as one of many powers fighting over it. The Turks acquired Adrianople(Edirne) and made it their capital and it makes sense to transmigrate Turks, no use having a hostile population around a Turkish captial and besides the area was depopulated beforehand anyway. Just like Gallipoli originally a Greek city, the Turks repopulated it with Turks and made it a Turkish and Muslim city.

I am not Greek. I am Chinese.

The only way to solve this is intermarriage, this will become a domestic issue and they'll cancel each other out.
That means this won;t becomoe an international one. simple. easy.
We'll keep it nice and clean and on the streets.

Demetri will get his first cousin Yanni to get his second cousin Democratikos to join him to beat up Baltoglu but incidentally Baltoglu calls upon Mehmed the Mace and his distant relative Arslan, they'll fight with hardened Pita bread and dried lamb's meat.

Whoever wins gets a seat in a unified Cypriot Parliament and also a year's supply of quality Goat's cheese and quality Turkish flat bread.

[Popeye]

You know, here's an outsider's observation on the Cyprus issue.

First of all, I'm an American, and while I was an Army officer, I served with a small number of Turkish and Greek officers. I got to know both as human beings, and nobody ever mentioned Cyprus. My conclusion from that fact is that Cyprus isn't really very important to most mainland Greeks and Turks, it's sort of like a family feud that no one really knows for sure what started it or quite how to end it.

Based on that and what I see in this thread is that the real problem in Cyprus between Turkey and Greece is......Turkey and Greece.

All government is based on force. The issue is whether that force will be Greek, or Turkish. Obviously everyone on the island has a preference. Nobody wants to be ruled, but everyone can play the lesser of two evils game, and the Greeks will find Greece the obvious choice, and the Turks will find the Turks the obvious choice, and there you are.

The solution is to get both Greece and Turkey out of Cyprus. Bring in a couple of consultants from Andorra, and I'm pretty sure that whatever keeps them independent without an army while perched between Spain and France could be duplicated on an island.

This isn't a historical, ethnic, racial, or cultural problem. It's just politics. For the average Cypriot to get involved in it is analogous to a horse picking who gets to hold the whip. They'd be better off independent. Odd that the two countries so interested in the welfare of the island don't see that, isn't it?

Just my two cents.

[Kanuni]

Quote[/b] ]There are no masters, when you hear someone say this is a master, be sure that the person being referred to is a beginner.

There is a similiar saying in Turkish which I also appreciate very much.


Quote[/b] ]thank you kannuni. its nice to talk to a Turk as your persepective is quite new. also thank you for not lashing out at some violent personal attacks that have been directed at you.

I guess the real problem between our countries is the distrusts and centuries of utter hatred. The Greeks are afraid that the Turks will invade Cyprus from the North, the Turks are afraid the Greeks will control a unified Cyprus and invade Turkey. Both are unfounded in my opinion. If only we could work out a solution, involving shared control of the government with fair representation of the Turkish minority. A Greek Prime Minister and a Turkish President (with power unlike the figure-head position that President is in Greece) and a Parliament with a required percent of Turkish deputies perhaps? I don't know, I'm not a diplomat but I sincerely hope that our two countries can put aside our centuries of conflict and become friends. In Greece a general ignorance and inherent racism block this at the moment. Is is the same in Turkey?

I totally agree with you and I would want such a solution to Cyprus problem. However I believe supporters of these nice thoughts of ours would be like the silent minority in a football match between Greece and Turkey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif and sadly they are really very few to be even a minority and they will be hardly even noticed. Though I believe Cyprus will be united someday in the future and I hope that that future is not long enough.
One big threat to the Cyprus peace is getting nearer though. Some people who are against EU membership of Turkey or who think EU is applying double standards to the candidate countries or who think that EU will never make Turkey a full member are raising their voices more everyday. After the south becomes a full member representing whole Cyprus the north will be seen as even more illegal and these people in Turkey suggest that North Cyprus should be joined with Turkey and Turkey should look for other alternatives for economic alliances. I'm against this but nothing much can be said if EU does not make Turkey a full member eventhough it reaches the EU standards of the Copenhagen Criterias. Well I hope such a thing won't happen eventhough I'm against to be a full member for EU under these circumstances (As I mentioned earlier I believe it is dishonorable)

RisingSun m8, I'm really tired of repeating that I'm talking about MP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

kataphraktoi,
You seem to know too much about Greece for a Chinese. Do you also have such knowledge for Turkey too, or do you have a special interest in Greek history? Or maybe you live in Greece I don't know.

[Heraclius]

while we're on the subject of football, did you see the match where Panathinaikos crushed Fenerbache (sp) ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Kanuni]

Eventhough I'm a fan of Besiktas I supported Fenerbahce against Panathinaikos like every Turk and was frustrated with Rustu again like every Turk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Heraclius]

yes, I'm an AEK fan but I root for all Greek teams in foreign competition. (except for Olympiakos whom I hate more than anything in the world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif GAH

I watched almost all the world cup games and found myself rooting for Turkey against Brazil for the upset victory. Turkey played very well even if they lost. Rustu is a superb goalie. Why did he collapse against Panthinaikos?

[kataphraktoi]

Kanuni I like Middle Eastern in particular, I consider Byzantium a middle eastern empire rather than a European one even though it is based in Europe, if not a Middle Eastern country than at least a Near East one according to the old language.

Byzantine and Ottoman art in particular is an area of interest, Byzantine and Ottoman military as well.

Illuminated manuscripts from both are something I am interested in.

At the moment there is a project o make available the whole Madrid Skylitzes Manuscript online.

I do know a fair bit about Turkish history but only after 1298 the foundation fo the Osmanli dynasty, before that only some stuff bout the Seljuks.

Hey Heraclius do u root for teams in Australia as well/??


There are full of Greeks over here.....

Sydney Olympic..definitely Greek..

Sydney Macedonian---definitely Greek...just kidding

[Heraclius]

no, I don't follow Australian teams even though it has a big Greek population. I believe either Melbourne or Sidney has either the second or third largest Greek speaking population. Interesting fact but I picked it up a long time ago and the more important details escape me at the moment.

this may be a long shot but if you're interested in illuminated manuscripts and medieval weapons and the like and you're in New York you should go to the Cloisters, an authentic medieval monastery moved brick by brick to New York and owned and operated by the Metropolitan Museum. I've been there once and it was absolutely superb. So if for some reason you have to leave Australia come to the Cloisters.

[kataphraktoi]

Unfortunately for you the team I support has no Greeks, all Italians, Serbians and Whities and they happen to be on top of the ladder.

You ever heard of Mark Viduka or Harry Kewell they started their careers in the NSl league in Australia.

Oh yeah forgot one thing.........I'd like to get a nice collection of byzantine gold coins one day.

[Heraclius]

yeah I've heard of Viduka and Kewell. they play for Newcastle don't they?

Ummm, why is the New in New York red in my previous post? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Yo Herac.

You know where I can get some bootlegs of LIVE?

[Heraclius]

if you mean the band i'm not a fan but my guess would be to do a yahoo or google search. something will turn up.

[Shahed]

I'm afraid I can't comment much on Greek & Turkish football, even though I have watched some. So I'll come back to the topic of Muslim troops, and in particular the Turkish troops in MTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hope that CA on the forthcoming Rome Total War takes some notes. Although I do not have the VI xpack yet, from what I hear the Muslim units are not vastly improved.

There are some changes, which would allow the Turkish units to be more powerful in the MP & specially SP context. Moving Pav Arbs to Late Era, the move of Ottoman Infantry to High Era. I think there is one spearman unit, which is new, and the Turks share this unit with Egypt (correct me if I'm wrong). I will get the game in the next two days so I will repost a confirmation of improvements to the Turk and restructuring improvements, which allow the Muslim armies to be more balanced. The changes made are welcome, however I'm wondering why another opportunity may have been missed to more authentically represent the Turkish troops in MTW.

As I mentioned in my earlier post:

Earlier post ---> scroll down 3/4ths of the page (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=6420;st=50)

there are gross generalizations regarding the Muslim troops. For example when you say Ghazi Infantry which Ghazi are we talking about? My own family name is a South Asian variant of the word Ghazi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. The Futuwwas are also in the same boat, which Futuwaas are we talking about? I understand however, that for time and game play reasons some units have been generalized. This is necessary for some units, but IMHO not for all. The Turks had many units, which would fir very nicely into the Turk armies in MTW, and would help more accurately represent the Turks in MTW.

Some examples of units, which could have been included in the xpack, or in the original game. I'd like to start with cavalry units, moving to artillery and infantry later on.

My apologies for any mispronunciation, or inaccuracies. This is to the best of my knowledge. My apologies for not being able to offer this information earlier, as I only visited The Guild after I started playing MTW.

Silahtar Guardsmen
The Janissary Cops were the elite of Turkish armies after their inception. They formed the center of the Turkish military forces. The Silahtar were Janissary. These were men who had already proved their worth in the Janissary Corps, were battle hardened and could be considered the elite of the elite. They fought mostly on horseback and were of course elite foot soldiers, as well. There were never more than 2,500 of these troops according to my knowledge. They used very fast Arab horses. Their attire was red Janissary cap with a blue plume, red tunic, and yellow trousers and boots. The Silahtar were replaced later by the Sipahi Oglan

The inclusion of Silahtar Guardsmen after the High Era, as the elite mounted Janissary would significantly improve Turkish representation in the game.

Suvarileri
These were the elite Sipahi, professional soldiers. They used lance & shield as well as a sword. They were, like most Sipahi renowned for swordsmanship and horsemanship. However the Suvarileri used lance & shield like European knights in the charge, but once the charge had resulted in hand to hand, the lances were discarded for swords. They were divided into Ortas (battalions) of 2,000 -> 3,000 cavalrymen. Each Orta was divided into 12 Odas (squadrons).

The Suvarileri were exceptional for Turkish cavalrymen as they used lances for charge. The inclusion of Suvarileri in the game would have allowed a Turkish mounted unit with lances, capable of charge equivalent to those of European knights. The current Sipahi units in the game should have had much better hand to hand capacity in order to compensate for their poor charge, which was never the objective of the common Sipahi.

Serden Geckti or, earlier the Sipahi of the Porte

General Comments
The current Sipahi cavalry in the game. The Sipahi cavalry in the game, is again almost never used in MP because of its poor performance. The current Sipahi of the Porte is never used in MP, since they are completely incapable of offering any resistance to the European Knights in the game. All Sipahi were not elite, however one thing that is undisputed is that the Sipahi were master swordsmen, capable of defeating any Western knight in hand-to-hand combat. The Sipahi also used faster horses than Feudal Western knights, on average. Therefore they could evade the charge before closing in for hand to hand combat with swords. They used these tactics all the way till the siege of Vienna. In MTW the Sipahi of the Porte, or the Ottoman Sipahi are absolutely no match for European Knights as is plainly evident from their unit stats. This clearly has no basis in history, and questions emerge as to why the Sipahi are so poorly represented.

Specifics
The Serden Geckti and the Sipahi of the Porte were fanatic warriors. There was no fear of death, and these men were known to fight to the last breath. There is not one instance in history (to my knowledge) where either of these units retreated from battle, or one of their men was captured. They considered only two options when going into battle. One was victory, the other, death. They formed part of Suleyman's (not you Kanuni http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) guard during the golden age of the Turkish Empire. They were ever prepared to die defending the Sultan and their religion. Their battle cry indicated a combat to the death to the enemy. They would always choose to be slaughtered rather than be taken prisoner or flee from battle. they were over trained and were selected for their valor in difficult combat situations, and were highly decorated soldiers.

They were different to the other Sipahi, in that they rode heavier steeds, and wore heavier armor. Their armor comprised plate and mail armor, complete with helmet and face protection. Their steeds were completely covered with a caparaçon of mail and metal scales which could itself be covered with a skirt of fabric with yellow and red vertical bands. The head of the horse had a complete plate metal protection. Although the Sipahi of the Porte is reasonably well represented in terms of armor, again the shortcoming is on hand-to-hand combat and morale. In these two factors the Sipahi of the Porte in MTW are poor.

[Leet Eriksson]

this messenger thingy is pretty awkward but i got your message sinan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.as far as i know the egyptians and almohads had a few units missing from MTW:

Bedioun Cavalry(egyptians):

Simply put,bediouns on horses,faster than saharan cavalry and armed with axes and light shields.these were pretty effective in harrasing other rival muslim and arab factions and especially good against the hashimites,who found the bediouns a thorn in their neck until they defeated the bedioun army led by Abu Firas al Hamadani near Akaba.These could be quite effective against light cavalry and archers but should not be commited to a frontal assualt against knights.

Murabitin Cavalry(Al Mohads):

The terrible Moravid got their name from the mosques that were built especially for jihads(Ribat,also notice Moravid in arabic is actually Murabiteen or Murabitoon)and their black scarves they covered their faces with.Much like the spanish jintettes but better speed and less armour.one difference though was they used their swords in H2H Combat instead,the Javelins were kept for throwing.

Andalucian Armoured Infantry(Almohads,Region Specific:Valencia,Early and High Era only):

Much like the Saracen Infantry,but with more armour,better morale and very good attack.These were proffesionals they could halt cavalry charges and deal with infantry of comparable quality,they also carried swords besides their spears to melee it out.

Its pretty late now,so thats all for now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif,i'll complete my list when i wake up.

[Shahed]

Thanks for your post Faisal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I was sure that, knowledgeable as you are, you could shed some light on the Arab military. Be sure to read this thread from the start http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif as there are some interesting points along the way, when you have time.

It's late here too so I better crash out, look forward to your responses tomorrow.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kataphraktoi]

Arab javelin cavalry....

after all weren't Spanish Jinettes once moorish soldiery?

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ May 12 2003,00:18)]Arab javelin cavalry....

after all weren't Spanish Jinettes once moorish soldiery?
it could be modded to make them for the almohads too(name and discription change and also less armour and speedier movement),but as far as my modding skills go i can only change stats http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Kanuni]

Sorry I wasn't able to visit .org for a couple of days so I couldn't reply.

Quote[/b] ] watched almost all the world cup games and found myself rooting for Turkey against Brazil for the upset victory. Turkey played very well even if they lost. Rustu is a superb goalie. Why did he collapse against Panthinaikos?
I personally have never trusted Rustu even in national matches and in World Cup. Look at the goals he conceeded. In the semi-final match vs Brazil he made some superb saves like a top class goal keeper keeping Turkey's hopes alive. But look at the goal he conceeded http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
Even 99% of amatuer goalkeepers wouldn't conceede that goal and that goal costed maybe the cup to Turkey. So eventhough Rustu can play very well in some matches I never trusted him and never saw him as a dependable player, he becomes too silly sometimes.

SeljukSinan,
I can say with no doubt that you clearly have more knowledge than most Turks about Ottoman Military. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, those are valuable information to some people that want to learn more about Ottoman Military.

[Shahed]

Thx Kanuni, my knowledge is limited, I have read some books and done some research. The military, modern and historical is of inetrest to me.

I was hoping to show that there could be a lot more to Muslim units in MTW. I have got VI now, and so far I see the addition of two Muslim units: Arab Infantry, and Faris cavalry.

Faisal do you anything about Faris, were they really bow armed, or pure swordsmen ? Does anyone else know ? IIRC have heard the name and I read somewhere ages ago that the Faris, were a religious warrior cult. That's the best I can remember.

The Arab Infantry seems to be a more generalised unit. Will post more on further testing, also more to follow on a brach of the military essential to any Ottoman army: artillery.

[Shahed]

By the way, do you guys not agree that the Sipahi in MTW are hopelessly underpowered ?

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ May 13 2003,09:32)]By the way, do you guys not agree that the Sipahi in MTW are hopelessly underpowered ?
you're very right. the first battle i had against Sipahis of the Porte I was quaking in fear practically and in the end I just hid in trees, lured them in and attacked them with Byzantine infantry before they could escape. It was a slaughter. I thought it would be a tough fight against extremely heavy cavalry with bows but they turned out to be little more than simple horse archers that can put up little fight in the open field.

[Kanuni]

Yeah, Sipahis of the Porte are underpowered IMO too. At least their size should be increased to 40 if their stats won't be improved.

Oh and btw, I kept forgetting writing about something from the beginning of this thread, I'm glad I remembered it now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif I agree to some of the comments pointing that the Turks in MP should play differently and use the strengths of the faction most efficiently. But you still need a decent swordsmen to face MAA or Militia Seargents. And while European units can be upgraded very cheaply why do the Muslim units have to be extremely expensive to match up??? For example in a 15k game the weakest infantry of a good player will be CMAA v3, FMAA v3w1 or Militia Seargents V4(if the player's tactics are not different than usual).
In paranthesis I will write combat value which is Att + Def value of the unit
CMAA v3 costs 1229 (14)
FMAA v3 w1 costs 1142 (14)
MS v4 costs 1253 (13, but with ap against 3 armor it will also have 14)

All of these units would lose against for example JHI at v0. But once these units are upgraded like this it becomes very difficult to counter them. How can we counter them? Let's look at some inf in Turkish army (JHI, JI, JAnnissary Archers, Turcoman Foot, Ghazi, Futtuwa, Ottoman Inf)

JHI v2 w1 costs 2788 (13, but with ap against 3 armor it will also have 14)
JI v4 costs 1449 (14)
JA at v4 w3 a1 costs 3005 (14)
Turcoman v4 w3 a1 costs 2910 (14)
Ghazi v4 w3 a1 costs 3437 (13, but with ap against 3 armor it will also have 14)
Futtuwa v4 w2 costs 1677 (14)
Ottoman Inf v4 w3 costs 1673 (13, but with ap against 3 armor it will also have 14)

As you can see the only reasonable inf seems JI eventhough JI's price is way too expensive as well. And as you know the price will increase if you take more than 4. So in order to counter let's say 6 European inf, the cheapest solution is 4 ji, 2 ott inf. While the cheapest solution for a European army (for 6 inf to have combat value 14) will be 6852, the Turkish army needs to spend 9142 florins. This means a European army will have 2290 more florins to spend for other units (or cavalry let's say). And as you know the Turkish cavalry needs much more upgrading to match up with European Cavalry. Also it is much more expensive to upgrade Turkish cav. as well (compared to European Cavalry)So can you see a balance here? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Why are the Turkish units so expensive? Even if I put the historical accuracy for units aside then I see this nonsense expensiveness.

[kataphraktoi]

I don't believe Sipahi of the Porte are underempowered but simply undernumbered, I tuned the Sipahis to 40 and all of a sudden their complexion change, they flogged some of my elite heavy units and sent them packing.

You guys heard of Magyar Khan?

He's been able to use an all cavalry army in MP and beat Catholic factions.

And all with Turkish units I might add.

Armenian heavy cavalry, Ghulam cavalry, horse archers, turcoman horse archers and alan mercenary cavalry.

pitted against some pretty nasty infantry.

Magyar's basic strategy.

He lures the flank of the enemy on one side, once they leave the main army, his cavalry then surround the estranged units and destroys them.

This opens the exposed flank of the enemy.

Using the shoot - run -shoot - run tactics he eventually wears them away and rams home the advantage with the heavy cavalry with good effect by flanking continously.

hey herac have u tried out my klibanophori with the cost of producing 30 men units at 1350 florins ??

[Kanuni]

LOOOOOOOOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Yes I know Wolf__Magyarkhan perfectly well kataphraktoi as I have recently entered his clan as a cub. My MP name is Wolf_cub_Kanuni. I guess you don't play MP much. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Magyarkhan should be accepted as an exception though because he is clearly one of the best players (actually the best IMO). Yes he uses all cav. armies well, not only Turkish though, he can bring out similiar all cav. armies with any faction. Other than that he can use regular armies well too.

Showing extremely skilled players as an example is absurd IMO. I have always mentioned about advantages/disadvantages when 2 equally skilled players play.

[Shahed]

Mag is an exceptional player,Kata. He can use any horse archer army very well. I have watched all the replays from the Wolves site, and have also played him myself.

However I myself have used horse archer based Muslim armies very well. The point is not that they are totally ineffective, but that Muslim armies are underpowered, too expensive, and totally misrepresented. This is my personal view and I have attempted to highlight why I come to this view, in my previous posts in this topic.

Thank you for the cost analysis Kanuni. It's very clear from that, not only do we not have vaguely realistic Turk units, but to make things even better, the units we do have are way overpriced when compared to Catholic units.

Does anyone have any sources of info for the Faris ?

[Shahed]

Ok last afterthought here......

I'm sure Mag will tell you that the Muslim Horse archers are pathetic unless you are faced with a complete newbie who chases horses on foot, or a player who makes too many mistakes

[ErikJansen]

This is turning into a lovely thread for us Turk maniacs. Its in fact so good that I won't add anything much aside from praising the skill of MagyarKhan as well. It would be unfair to use him as an example of a Turk general using the faction successfully, since Kanumi's point is clearly unit comparison on a one vs one level.

One thing I've taken to myself though, when playing the Turks, is overpowering certain levels of the army in which you must work tactically to use that strength vs your opponent. The average general will have a harder time than most europeans in winning games, but it is a challenge worth taking IMHO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Unconventional army setups and upgrades may allow you to catch the opponent off guard, giving you a tactical advantage needed to press home a victory.

I've won battles vs skilled opponents with armies including 2 Hashishin, 3 Turco Cav and 2 Alans. To make this work you need a somewhat complex battle plan and a good tactical understanding of the map you play on, but nothing beats the reward gained with a victory in the end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

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

[Shahed]

Not much of a Turk fanatic meself. More a TW fanatic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

What I did appreciate about Shogun was that some research was put into accurately representing the Samurai, and their times.

This is not true for MTW.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Kanuni,

A couple of comments...

1/ Honor is missing in the chart; V4 JI will have +2 points vs CMAA and +4 vc MS... That helps... Also JI, Otto inf are disciplined...

2/ most of those guys have a bow... Was somehow useless in 1.1, but maybe 2.0 changed that a little. And MS dislikes bow (Armor 3 and no shield).
If you have JI/MS fight, I bet on JI; +4 honor and a bow...

3/ JHI are counter cav... Throwing JHI vs CMAA is a waste of fl. JHI shall be compared to Halb, Swiss Halb, billmen and CFK.

The problem with upgrade is you have to limit the number of upgrade you give per unit. Each additional upgrade is marginally more costly, which is why, in your example, JI are not too bad (4 upgrades) whereas Ghazi s****. Sure that the last w3a1 killed the cost of those for only marginal gain in efficiency.

Regarding Magyarkhan as a benchmark for turks... Well, If I remember well, Kanuni,you asked me to test turk vs byz with AMP playing the byz... Pretty sure I lose, even if the byz army is made of peasant and urban militia v1. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Agree that Sipahi of the Porte are underpowered and not up to their reputation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Louis,

[Kanuni]

Hi Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,

Quote[/b] ]1/ Honor is missing in the chart; V4 JI will have +2 points vs CMAA and +4 vc MS... That helps... Also JI, Otto inf are disciplined...

Yes honor is missing you are right, so actually this shows that JI will win because when both are getting same casualties the MAA and MS will rout when their morale is below routing level (and JI's morale will be +2 over routing level in theory). So actually maybe JI is worth those extra florins http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif , thanks for pointing that.But Ottoman Inf's morale will be -2CMAA and equal to MS. Oh and btw I really don't know how discipline can be an advantage. Other than not charging without orders how can discipline be of any use during melee vs these units??? I'll be glad if someone explains this, because in my tests it simply doesn't effect the fighting ability.


Quote[/b] ]2/ most of those guys have a bow... Was somehow useless in 1.1, but maybe 2.0 changed that a little. And MS dislikes bow (Armor 3 and no shield).
If you have JI/MS fight, I bet on JI; +4 honor and a bow...
Hmmm, IIRC archers' had only improved in lethality for 0.2 in v2.0 and lots of people who bought VI said that they didn't notice any increase for archers. Horse archers were improved more though (I guess about + 0.27 in accuracy) Oh and I really don't think JI's shoertbow can create an advantage since the opponent will have pavs in 1.1 and x-bows in 2.0 which can always fire at those JI's. It would be different if JI's used another projectile like longbow.


Quote[/b] ]3/ JHI are counter cav... Throwing JHI vs CMAA is a waste of fl. JHI shall be compared to Halb, Swiss Halb, billmen and CFK.
I also do not use JHI vs MAA either. The reason JHI is on that list is I tried to write every possible way to face MAA. And that list clearly shows that JHI is not the one to face MAA.

You're probably right about showing the reason for units to become more expensive due to more upgrades. But reasons still don't help with inbalance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif The Turk cav. will lose vs European cav. and except for JI the inf will also lose. 4 winner units out of 16 is just not enough.

Oh and I don't believe you'd lose against AMP if he showed up with peasants and urban militia v1 since people in this forum pointed you as a good Turk player http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Let's forget about AMP, think about facing a Byz army controlled by someone who is equally skilled as you.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hi Kanuni,

Quickly, regarding the discipline advantage.

Being disciplined greatly reduce (down to 0?) the penalty in case of General death. In some cases, the General death is the signal for mass rout, everybody getting -8, well it won't be the case for the disciplined troops.

For bow... Well it depends on the opposition. If armor is 3 or less wo shield, it is worth shooting (MS, swiss halb, gallow, billmen....), and it will hurt. More than 3 or with a shield looks like a loss of time.
Too bad it has not been improved in VI, I thought it had.
I wonder how 8 hybrid bows would behave against 3 pav xbow in high... So far I have not been able to really look at that... Whe I bring 8 bows I get rushed... Maybe that means something http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

See you online,

Louis,

PS: the few games I win are nowhere to be connected with being good, unless good means being able to pick apt allies to win the day

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ May 13 2003,22:07)]hey herac have u tried out my klibanophori with the cost of producing 30 men units at 1350 florins ??
not yet kata. I've been playing VI lately. I know nothing about technical stuff so this may be a stupid question but will the klibanaphori work with VI? if so I'll download it as quickly as I can after I finish my Irish campaign.

[Kanuni]

Hi Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe,


Quote[/b] ]Quickly, regarding the discipline advantage.

Being disciplined greatly reduce (down to 0?) the penalty in case of General death. In some cases, the General death is the signal for mass rout, everybody getting -8, well it won't be the case for the disciplined troops.

No m8, I knew being not panicked by general's death was a virtue of elite troops, not disciplined troops and now I'm perfectly sure about that after some testing. Make (in a custom battle) a high moraled troop like Ghazis as your general and also choose Ottoman Infantry. Choose a strong knight as opponent and charge Ghazis to that knight, and while they are fighting keep your cursor over Ottoman Infantry and as soon as your gen dies u'll see that it writes Dismayed by General's death. If you keep your cursor over an elite unit while gen dies you won't see this happen. Also when you put your cursor over an elite unit during a normal time, you will see that it will write Not panicked by General's Death after it writes for example Good Attack, Good Defence, Elite Unit. So I think what you wrote is a virtue for elite units. If disciplined units have any advantage (if they have any) it is not this.


Quote[/b] ]For bow... Well it depends on the opposition. If armor is 3 or less wo shield, it is worth shooting (MS, swiss halb, gallow, billmen....), and it will hurt. More than 3 or with a shield looks like a loss of time.

Well, don't forget that your JI also has 3 armor and while you shoot MS with it, a pav or a pav x-bow will fire at you as well and your JI will hurt more.

Bringing 6-8 bows which are also good in h2h is a right thing to do IMO as I think they can do as good as 3-4 pavs in the shoot out. But because these units are your main inf, you have to shoot at his main inf as well IMO. That is one of the things I do for my Turk army, and most of the time it works. But because I spend too much for inf, the cav. of a skilled opponent who runs his cav. away from my JHI means problem for me. Because his cav. is faster than JHI he could flank my JI or Ottoman Inf. instead of fighting my JHI. So as you can see you just cannot win vs a skilled player because of this inbalance with the Turks.

[Kanuni]

Today I have met Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe online and we have played a couple of games and did some tests to see that if disciplined troops like Ottoman Infantry got effected by general's death.

We both agreed that Ottoman Inf DID get effected by general's death as the message when pointed the cursor over Ottoman Infantry was dismayed by general's death, however we also agreed that the morale penalty is not -8, maybe -4, because otherwise being disciplined meant nothing. As you know some non-disciplined units charge without orders but not all units that don't have a disciplined virtue do this like MAA.

So I'll be glad if someone cleared this up, what is the benefit of being disciplined? -4 penalty instead of -8 when general dies or is it something else??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Kanuni]

So still nobody to clear up the benefit of discipline?

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ May 13 2003,09:29)]Thx Kanuni, my knowledge is limited, I have read some books and done some research. The military, modern and historical is of inetrest to me.

I was hoping to show that there could be a lot more to Muslim units in MTW. I have got VI now, and so far I see the addition of two Muslim units: Arab Infantry, and Faris cavalry.

Faisal do you anything about Faris, were they really bow armed, or pure swordsmen ? Does anyone else know ? IIRC have heard the name and I read somewhere ages ago that the Faris, were a religious warrior cult. That's the best I can remember.

The Arab Infantry seems to be a more generalised unit. Will post more on further testing, also more to follow on a brach of the military essential to any Ottoman army: artillery.
I don't really much know about Faris in the meieval era becuase they are different.the faris of ommayad and abbasid(pre-al Mu'tasim Billah)are more than a match to any cavalry that existed in that time and they did not carry bows.They relied mostly on their fighting skills to defeat any cavalry but i suspect that they would rout when they get charged by cavalry since they are really not effective at charging or withstanding charges,but once they engage in melee combat(ie hand to hand)its the end of anything in front of them.

Also the word faris means anyone whose riding a horse and using a lance,sword or bow.For example the arabs used to call templars Fursan Al Ma'bad it translates into Knights of the Temple and when turned into singular its known as Faris al Ma'bad,its generally a word used to refer to anyone riding a horse and fighting.

After seeing the Faris stats at clan berserks site i was not impressed when i get my copy of VI i'll edit the unit to its proper status.

[Shahed]

Thanks very much for that info Faisal. Sorry I had completely lost this thread. I believ it's a good one for a sticky.

BTW did you edit the Faris ?

[Shahed]

Hmm seems that the correct name then, should be Al Fursan or Fursan Cavalry

[Leet Eriksson]

Yeah,now they are better,btw log on MSN messenger asap need to talk.

[ham&bacon]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif Hello everyoneI'm Greek, I live in Greece and I have a certain number of notes -friendly of course- to make for Kanuni -if he would read them please I would be quite happyMy grandfather fled Constantinople in 1940 (to fight in WW2 for Greece in Albania) and still is bilingual (speaking greek and turkish), as my father (who by the way fought in Cyprus in the greek special forces&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.I was never taught turkish on the other hand -no use for it- and don't understand anything but 10-15 words.I am not some tourkofagos (turkish-eater&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and all visits to our home in Con. have always been memorable experiences, mainly due to the coherent turkish hospitality and politeness.My 2 euros worth of history notes now: -nearly all kataphraktoi were wipped out in Manzikert and all efforts by the Comnenoi to restate them by mainly nobility's orphans failed in a matter of years, -in the battle of Kaustros river valley in Karia the Nicaean emperor Vatatzis beheaded the Seljuk sultan of Rum (Iconium), (1211 A.D.) a fact well documented in religious and folclore poetry and epic of the local Iconium shihites population (my grandfather has a university turkish education and has studied certain of these texts, so always remember that mainstream history can vary greatly within the same society over just a period of decades), resulting in the utter defeat of the Seljuk army, -the word famous (in even Chinese texts&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif early Seljuk empire did indeed unify all lands amidst Tien San mounts and the desert of Anatolia under the puppet rule of the later Abbasids in Baghdad, run by a Seljuk equivalent of the Shogun (after 1025 or so under a directly Seljuk sultan) so do not underestimate the numbers, logistics and over-all organization of early Turkish armies in Asia Minor, -as a matter of historical irony christian -greek speaking- sipahi fought as ottoman troops in the wars with Persia around 1550 under the banner of St. George (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif with great success only to be dismanted shortly after due to their worrying capabilities, as reported in official sultan registries and orders from Con. (the Eperus greek sipahi had existed as a military formation since around 1430), -and yes, after the 1400s the ottoman army was more european than many european realms, including the best artillery, the best mechanics, the janissaries (most probably the christians' most heavy burden) and a superb fleet, -as for Byzantine success in Asia Minor note the city of Philadelhia which withstood over six sieges only to submit in 1390 with the aid of an imperial troop of us greeks fighting alongside the ottoman sultan, as part of the submission treaty, -and finally note that the emperor Michael Palaiologos who restated Con. for the empire served for over 6 years as a turkish general, and used over 2.000 turkish mercenaries and allies at the battle of Pelagonia as recorded by french and italian (venician) historians.At that certain period of time the boundries between byzantine and turkish were thin and at cases turned completely transparentBoth states resolved to atrocities and both suffered great defeats.History, unlike maths is a relativitist study and should be treated so.My best wishes for you all

[Shahed]

What a nice post. LOL Welcome aboard filo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Faiz, great ta see ya last night, sorry was late had to play taxi and pick a friend from the airport. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ham&bacon]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif Well...O.K...I'm a...damned late medieval history fanaticAfter many long months of MTW (and painful years of STW) I decided to be not a humble guest and to speak uproiiiii(a certain cry that's at the start of many Amorphis songs).Thank you for your welcome SeljukSinan, I'll do my best http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif A nice big hello to all the insane MTWs out there.

[Tempiic]

Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 15 2003,15:29)]So still nobody to clear up the benefit of discipline?
besides this not attacking without ordered i saw mentioned and the reduced morale penalty from a killed general.... maybe they receive also reduced (or none if at all) morale penalties from nearby fleeing friendly units as long as they are not disciplined nor elite themselves....

Wish i knew earlier about this topic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

No, I do not consider myself a good turk player... just someone who plays mainly with muslims and russians (who got converted to islam too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)

[Heraclius]

wow its been a long time since i've looked at this thread. *goes on a nostalgia trip* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

hello ham&bacon. nice to see another Greek wandering around here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif very good post there. You'll also see other Greeks around here.rasoforos, rosacrux and komninos to name a few. hope you enjoy the forums http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

ps- you're not a football fan are you?

[RollingWave]

Am I the only person who thinks that the 3 muslim factions (espically the almos and eggies... ) are probably far more dominating in early than their christian counterpart?

I'm playing turks right now too and I steamed rolled ove the byz in less than 20 year.... (have to stop a bit now because my infrastructure built up is too light and can't produce enough troops to expand properly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif ...

However if there the most historical inaccurte part about the byz is probably those katties... like many other's have meantioned... teh uber heavy armor heavy cavs wasn't really part of the byzantian army after mezekert... (though IMHO the Byz might acturally do better in this game if they have faster acess to light cavs in early... that way they would acturally have a mean to deal with the turks instead of the eat up all their arrow with raw meat tactics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Also the Byz infantry is by far the strongest inf in early..... try those almohad urban milita http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ....

[Shahed]

Well in SP the representation is not that bad. And indeed the game represents the view that over time the Muslim empires weakened. Which is true and false.

Anyway, it's when you go MP and cannot have valor 6 Sipahi that the problem arises.

[Kanuni]

Hi,
Sorry I did not see your post earlier ham&bacon.

Well your post was very hard for me to understand with all the parenthesis, and not using paragraphs (no offence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

So as far as I understood it, I'll try to reply.


Quote[/b] ]desert of Anatolia
Well this is not related nwith topic here, but as a man who seems quite knowledgable you should know that Anatolia is not desert. There is not even a 1 m² desert area in Anatolia http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]the word famous (in even Chinese texts early Seljuk empire did indeed unify all lands amidst Tien San mounts and the desert of Anatolia under the puppet rule of the later Abbasids in Baghdad, run by a Seljuk equivalent of the Shogun (after 1025 or so under a directly Seljuk sultan) so do not underestimate the numbers, logistics and over-all organization of early Turkish armies in Asia Minor
Well of course if we consider about the Great Seljuk Empire's time (note I'm not talking about Anatolian Seljuks), numbers, logistics etc... of Turks were good. But how can this be true in the time of Anatolian Seljuks and in early stages of Ottoman Empire when little Turkish states were all fighting with each other to gain land? Sorry, but I disagree.

I'll not quote any other things because as far as I understood them, I did not say anything against those points.

Well, I must say that I do not hate Greeks, because the place I was born in west Anatolia (Izmir- Greeks know it as Smyrna) has a culture which is very close to Greeks. (Its music, way of life, halay (like sirtaki), the Aegean fish and Raki (uzo) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif etc... etc...). I also admire the power of Byzantines when they were strong, but after Manzikert its fall started with a great speed, and it became rather a weak Empire, just like other Empires in their last times (like Ottomans in the end of 19th century to 20th century). So one part of this topic was that Byzantine military in the last times of Byzantines is overestimated by some people and also by this game.

LOL, the post that I wrote my first post still continues after months http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Tempiic]

It is a great thread... kinda uniting the few of us who strongly favour playing muslim (mainly turkish unfortunetly) factions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ July 28 2003,11:25)]Anyway, it's when you go MP and cannot have valor 6 Sipahi that the problem arises.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Good line Sinan

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

Louis the Simurgh,

[Shahed]

MUAHHAAHAAHAA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Sad but true. MUAHHAHAHHA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[vodkafire]

having read some of this thread, i have to agree the Turks are way too weak, but the other Muslim factions seem to be well represented in MTW. I think it would be good to give the Turks a Janissary Arquebusiers unit or something, kinda similar to Mameluke handgunners, w/ discipline, better morale, etc. than regular arquebusiers, as we all know that Janissaries used gunpowder extensively, even more than some European nations, during the later parts of the 15 century.

Also, as far as i know, disciplined trait makes the unit suffer no or less penalties when other units rout.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I think there are two different topics; maybe three...

1/ Are Turk units historically relevant? Are TW Turk armies like real Turk armies? I don't qualify to answer this one; my guess is no, but it is also the case for all other factions....

2/ Are Turks over/under powered? Well it depends if you compare them to their historical value, or if you compare them to other factions. Compared to their historical value; I don't know, but again, you can say the same thing for other factions.
Compare to other faction, I think they do well. Neither underpowered or overpowered; they have strenght and weaknesses, and are very enjoyable to play.

Stronger Turk units might make the game more historically accurate (that's arguable...), but might also unbalance the gameplay; I am fine as it is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Louis the Simurgh,

PS; my only problem is the lack of a medium HA like Mam HA or faris in the Turk roster... I would like that so much...

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I really love being the Turks and for some bizarre reason i love beating the Spanish as them.
Although Medieval is a great game,it sometimes lacks historical accuracy in units .
In my mod(which is nearly finished) i have added the Almoravids to Early and loads of muslim units to make it a little fairer for the Islamic factions, as well as more orthodox and pagan to fight some of the bigger catholic factions on level settings.
Just shamelessy promoting my mod there,sorry about that

[Shahed]

Hey mate did you finish your mod yet ?

Also the WesW Mod speaks of some very good changes to Turk units. i did not have time to try this yet, only time for one battle. About 160 Siphai held out for ages against 400 or so Order foot Soldiers. Much better. I hope I have time to try more of it.

Let us know when your mod is out. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I've a few problems with my computer at the moment and also trying to put a few maps in(with LOS Reconquista map being one).
A few more units will be added and the names need to be fixed but it plays fine and there are no crashes.
It will be released as soon as i can get the time to finish it but it is chaotic and the new countries give it a new balance,which is worth the wait.

[Shahed]

BOMP

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

[Heraclius]

lol. aw this was a fun thread. (brushes back a tear of nostalgia) how is kanuni by the way? I haven't had a chance to go to the net yet.

[Shahed]

Hey buddy

Have'nt played with Kanuni for a while. He was on vacation recently. I have been bit lazy and have not been tending to my email much either. (EEEK just remembered your last PM)

From what I hear and saw in a replay I watched last night, is that he is FAR more efficient and skilled than the first days when he played under the name, Cavus. He still plays Turks, almost exclusively. He has also developed what I think I will call the Kanuni Array, an exclusive formation not used by anyone else.

I think I'll have to admit my admiration, for all that he has achieved using Turks.

In the replay I watched I could see clearly a longing, on his part, for more tactics. the way he deployed and the way he conducted the battle was quite clear that he wished for more realistic tactics in the game.

He used the Turcomen VERY well, risking them repeatedly but forcing his opponent to commit most of his heavy cavalry in an expensive chase.

[Dragonfish]

Kanuni,

I really dont know what you are talking about.
I play the Turks online (my favourite faction) and I can tell you that they are very powerful. The Jannisaries are to my mind the best infantry on MTW, and I really love using the Naptha Throwers to shock the enemy from behind (oh dear..I'm giving away top secret military tactics&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I too have a keen interest in history, but we do get conflicting accounts of events. For example, everyone was told that an ancient civilisation put the stones of Stonehenge in their present place. Now we have learned that it was in fact the Victorians who erected them where they are now.

[Shahed]

Greetings Dragon & Welcome Aboard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Kanuni is one of the people who posted in this thread. If you look at the topic starter his name is Kanuni. This thread is his first post at the org. Online he is called Wolf__Kanuni If you see him please give him my regards, and do ask for a 1vs1 (if you want to see the Kanuni Array/formation), if you like. I don't play too much online these days.

Sultan Suleyman was known to the Turks as Kanuni Sultan Suleyman. This translates (approximately) to King/Emperor Suleyman The Lawgiver. So Kanuni ---> Lawgiver, and is a title much like other Ottoman Sultans had. Yildirim Sultan Bayezid means King Bayezid The Thunderbolt. Fatih Sultan Mehmet means King Mehmet The Conqueror...and so forth.

About the Turks, I'd recommend reading the thread from the beginning. What we are talking about here is that the Turks, while they are included in the game, like the other Muslim factions they are poorly represented. Please read from the beginning (if interested and time permitting), as there is useful information here to support this claim.

I agree that history is an inexact science. However the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire existed till the last century. Therefore a lot of material is available and accessible for research. In summary this thread deals with poor representation of the Turkish (and also Egyptian and Almohad) units in the game. Some examples are cited, and a general concensus was reached. It is still an interesting discussion worth reading for new patrons who did not read this thread before.


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

PS: my sig at the moment,is an Ottoman depiction of a Dragon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

BUMPED for Bozi (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=9377)

[Sjakihata]

A two year old thread - the search button is really useful, eh?

[Shahed]

Hehe :D Yeah it's great, however, some threads have avanished from the forum. But this place is still full of excellent information all over.

[Mount Suribachi]

Holy thread revival Batman! ~:eek:

I was in this one too, way back on page 1 ~:grouphug:

[LestaT]

Nice interesting reading material.