LittleRaven
09-03-2002, 02:12
I originally posted this over on Ice Cold, but thought I'd repeat it here. Let me know what you guys think....
Due to an odd inability to build Grand Mosques, (see Possible Grand Mosque bug... (http://www.fourbelowzero.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000297)) I’ve not yet had a chance to play with Janissaries, whom I hear are excellent troops. However, I’ve had a LOT of opportunity to play with the other Turkish troops. Here’s some thoughts on what I’ve found. I’d love to hear from anyone else who’s had experience with the Turks...
To start off with, the Turks have a LOT of troops options. Muwahid Foot Soldiers, Turkoman Foot, Futuwwa, Ghazi Infantry...the list goes on and on. Very cool, eh? Well, not really. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of the troops types are repetitive and under-performing. In fact, many of them don’t really seem to perform in the manner their description would indicate. Whether this is an issue of an exaggerated description or a balance problem I’m not sure. Anyway, let’s do the list.
Peasants/Spearmen/archers/desert archers: These should be familiar to almost everyone. No differences in performance that I can tell. I think desert archers are slightly better than regular archers, but the difference is minimal. These guys can be used to supplement an army, but are not strong enough for the core.
Ottoman Infantry: I like these guys. They’re good archers, carry plenty of ammo, and they can fight in a pinch. Their description says they carry axes and can be expected to defeat most infantry in a head-to-head battle. Don’t believe it. They aren’t totally helpless in a fight, but they are definitely not up for front-line duty. Put them against anything tougher than spearmen and you’re going to lose badly. Still, they make good archers. Almost like Archer Samurai.
Saracen Infantry: Another good troop type. These guys are solid and should probably make up the backbone of your forces. According to their description they have poor morale, but I’ve never noticed any problems. They are armored, so they do tire easier than some of the other troops, but they can also take a pounding. Good guys to have.
Ghazi Infantry: According to their description, these guys are fanatical warriors who fling themselves recklessly into battle, hacking down enemies with their axes with no concern for their lives. They are supposed to have a very strong attack and almost no defense. Reading their description, I thought they would kind of like exaggerated no-dachis, who deal out tons of damage but take horrible casualties.
I was close. They do take horrible casualties and they do fling themselves into battle (in their defense, they almost never run) but they don’t kill anything. Why on earth these guys are classified as heavy infantry is beyond me. They really don’t kill anything. Even in a flanking maneuver (and due to their tendency to charge, flanking with them is rather difficult) their usefulness is very limited. They’ll kill a few guys until the back line turns around, then they just get butchered. Even spearmen rape these poor guys. It’s really difficult to justify building them.
Turcoman Foot: These guys have a higher requirement to build than Ottoman Infantry, (whom I was reasonably impressed with) so I looked forwards to trying them out on the field. Their description says that they are armored archers who can fight but do so rather poorly, so don’t use them in melee unless you have to.
Well, the description is right. These guys don’t seem to fight any better than regular archers. They are decent archers themselves, but for some reason they have a very large footprint, so it’s difficult to mass as much fire as you can with Ottoman Infantry. I haven’t really tested it, but it’s possible that their supposed high armor would allow them to do well in archer wars. The problem with these guys isn’t that they suck, they do just fine for archers, but that the niche they are supposed to fill is already filled by the superior Ottoman Infantry. Both troops types are unique to the Turks, so I don’t understand why they have two troops types for exactly the same role; especially when the easier one to produce is so much better. Has anyone found a good use for Turcoman Foot?
Futuwwa: Now this sounded like an interesting unit. Fanatical archers who carry swords are want to charge into the fray themselves, chopping down the enemy while ignoring their own safety. According to their description, they have a fierce attack but tend to take heavy losses.
Unfortunately, these guys suffer from the same problem as Ghazi Infantry. They just don’t kill anything in melee combat. They do fine as archers, though they will charge as soon as the enemy gets very close. I can’t understand their eagerness, because even charging spearmen downhill, they just get massacred. It would be one thing if they took a good chunk of the enemy with them, but they really don’t.
It’s difficult to justify buying them. They don’t do well in a offensive role because they don’t have enough killing power. And their tendency to charge means they aren’t really effective in a defensive role either. Ottoman Infantry shoots just as well, fights just as well (I suspect it fights better, actually) and won’t charge without orders.
Muwahid Foot Soldiers: These guys are ok. They’ll give a decent account of themselves in battle and they don’t tire easily. The problem is, almost everything they can do, Saracen Infantry does better. Saracen Infantry definitely fights better, and while Muwahid supposedly have high morale and Saracen Infantry low morale, my Muwahid almost always break before my Saracen. (though this may be because the Saracens fight better and therefore don’t die as fast) The one thing these guys do better than Saracens is move. They can run for quite a while without wearing out, which might make them good for flank attacks. Unfortunately, the Turks have a wide selection of cavalry to fill that role. Like the Turkoman Foot, these guys are an ok troops type trying to fill a niche already filled by a much superior type. I’m not sure why you would build them.
So these are my thoughts. I have to say I’m a little disappointed in Turkish armies so far. They have so many different unit types, and so little reason to build so many of them. I’m hoping that I’m just not seeing some of the uses for these troops types, and that they really do fill a viable role. If anyone has any advice, commentary, or contrary experiences, I’d love to hear it.
Due to an odd inability to build Grand Mosques, (see Possible Grand Mosque bug... (http://www.fourbelowzero.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000297)) I’ve not yet had a chance to play with Janissaries, whom I hear are excellent troops. However, I’ve had a LOT of opportunity to play with the other Turkish troops. Here’s some thoughts on what I’ve found. I’d love to hear from anyone else who’s had experience with the Turks...
To start off with, the Turks have a LOT of troops options. Muwahid Foot Soldiers, Turkoman Foot, Futuwwa, Ghazi Infantry...the list goes on and on. Very cool, eh? Well, not really. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of the troops types are repetitive and under-performing. In fact, many of them don’t really seem to perform in the manner their description would indicate. Whether this is an issue of an exaggerated description or a balance problem I’m not sure. Anyway, let’s do the list.
Peasants/Spearmen/archers/desert archers: These should be familiar to almost everyone. No differences in performance that I can tell. I think desert archers are slightly better than regular archers, but the difference is minimal. These guys can be used to supplement an army, but are not strong enough for the core.
Ottoman Infantry: I like these guys. They’re good archers, carry plenty of ammo, and they can fight in a pinch. Their description says they carry axes and can be expected to defeat most infantry in a head-to-head battle. Don’t believe it. They aren’t totally helpless in a fight, but they are definitely not up for front-line duty. Put them against anything tougher than spearmen and you’re going to lose badly. Still, they make good archers. Almost like Archer Samurai.
Saracen Infantry: Another good troop type. These guys are solid and should probably make up the backbone of your forces. According to their description they have poor morale, but I’ve never noticed any problems. They are armored, so they do tire easier than some of the other troops, but they can also take a pounding. Good guys to have.
Ghazi Infantry: According to their description, these guys are fanatical warriors who fling themselves recklessly into battle, hacking down enemies with their axes with no concern for their lives. They are supposed to have a very strong attack and almost no defense. Reading their description, I thought they would kind of like exaggerated no-dachis, who deal out tons of damage but take horrible casualties.
I was close. They do take horrible casualties and they do fling themselves into battle (in their defense, they almost never run) but they don’t kill anything. Why on earth these guys are classified as heavy infantry is beyond me. They really don’t kill anything. Even in a flanking maneuver (and due to their tendency to charge, flanking with them is rather difficult) their usefulness is very limited. They’ll kill a few guys until the back line turns around, then they just get butchered. Even spearmen rape these poor guys. It’s really difficult to justify building them.
Turcoman Foot: These guys have a higher requirement to build than Ottoman Infantry, (whom I was reasonably impressed with) so I looked forwards to trying them out on the field. Their description says that they are armored archers who can fight but do so rather poorly, so don’t use them in melee unless you have to.
Well, the description is right. These guys don’t seem to fight any better than regular archers. They are decent archers themselves, but for some reason they have a very large footprint, so it’s difficult to mass as much fire as you can with Ottoman Infantry. I haven’t really tested it, but it’s possible that their supposed high armor would allow them to do well in archer wars. The problem with these guys isn’t that they suck, they do just fine for archers, but that the niche they are supposed to fill is already filled by the superior Ottoman Infantry. Both troops types are unique to the Turks, so I don’t understand why they have two troops types for exactly the same role; especially when the easier one to produce is so much better. Has anyone found a good use for Turcoman Foot?
Futuwwa: Now this sounded like an interesting unit. Fanatical archers who carry swords are want to charge into the fray themselves, chopping down the enemy while ignoring their own safety. According to their description, they have a fierce attack but tend to take heavy losses.
Unfortunately, these guys suffer from the same problem as Ghazi Infantry. They just don’t kill anything in melee combat. They do fine as archers, though they will charge as soon as the enemy gets very close. I can’t understand their eagerness, because even charging spearmen downhill, they just get massacred. It would be one thing if they took a good chunk of the enemy with them, but they really don’t.
It’s difficult to justify buying them. They don’t do well in a offensive role because they don’t have enough killing power. And their tendency to charge means they aren’t really effective in a defensive role either. Ottoman Infantry shoots just as well, fights just as well (I suspect it fights better, actually) and won’t charge without orders.
Muwahid Foot Soldiers: These guys are ok. They’ll give a decent account of themselves in battle and they don’t tire easily. The problem is, almost everything they can do, Saracen Infantry does better. Saracen Infantry definitely fights better, and while Muwahid supposedly have high morale and Saracen Infantry low morale, my Muwahid almost always break before my Saracen. (though this may be because the Saracens fight better and therefore don’t die as fast) The one thing these guys do better than Saracens is move. They can run for quite a while without wearing out, which might make them good for flank attacks. Unfortunately, the Turks have a wide selection of cavalry to fill that role. Like the Turkoman Foot, these guys are an ok troops type trying to fill a niche already filled by a much superior type. I’m not sure why you would build them.
So these are my thoughts. I have to say I’m a little disappointed in Turkish armies so far. They have so many different unit types, and so little reason to build so many of them. I’m hoping that I’m just not seeing some of the uses for these troops types, and that they really do fill a viable role. If anyone has any advice, commentary, or contrary experiences, I’d love to hear it.