Why do only Ottomans Get Elite Infantry
- Thread starter Fluffy_Fishy
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
all this discussion reminded me we are TOO FAR AWAY WENT AWAY from main thread .... just a note XD
(note:Also it reminded me "peasent's crusade" stuff.... its really funny I advice you search it... Turks later lost to real crusade so bad only because-they may still lost but not like that XD- they thought it was gonna be lame as last one XD)
(note:Also it reminded me "peasent's crusade" stuff.... its really funny I advice you search it... Turks later lost to real crusade so bad only because-they may still lost but not like that XD- they thought it was gonna be lame as last one XD)
Well can we get back on topic then? Why should other nations not have access to more diverse units as a whole?
How would you like to see it split if we were to break up different units to different pros and cons?
Personally I can see huge possibility in splitting up either through professionalism or armament, so being able to recruit for infantry for example, light medium or heavy, or the alternative would be irregulars, regulars, professional and elite? Cavalry could also be defined this way where as Cannons are perhaps organised slightly differently, splitting bronze and iron guns would be a good start.
All in all the combat system is really quite tired and could do with a complete rework
How would you like to see it split if we were to break up different units to different pros and cons?
Personally I can see huge possibility in splitting up either through professionalism or armament, so being able to recruit for infantry for example, light medium or heavy, or the alternative would be irregulars, regulars, professional and elite? Cavalry could also be defined this way where as Cannons are perhaps organised slightly differently, splitting bronze and iron guns would be a good start.
All in all the combat system is really quite tired and could do with a complete rework
So basicly you are trying to say that either Sipahis were based on Winged Hussars ? Or were they as sucessful as shock cavalry ? Both are not true (i dont deny fact that Sipahis were ellite cavalry of Ottoman Empire). Name any battles were Sipahis charge broke enemy lines and secured victory. Ottoman armies were mostly based on numbers (yes there were elite units). Those numbers were far superior than anyone they fought against untill 18th century. One more thing : win is a win noone contest fact that Ottomans were power house for over 200 years.
as I said:
1)Either they didnt impact history compared to others
2)Their prof armies wasnt lot enought or didnt matter so much. or their prof armies allready symbolized with their national idea group(ottoman army do not have any idea for jannies since they may lost them)
3)they dont have prof army or their almost entire army is proffesional
ottoman was neither of them... jannies impacted their story a lot(both good and bad) and was huge part of them, they were efficent but required to be suppored by other ranks like peasent army.
prussia on the other hand his prof army allready symbolized with his national ideas and goverment type. same for sweden and france. thats the reason
Only the Ottomans get them so that they have features planned to add for a couple more DLC. I don't mind more unique mechanics for each nations though the current implementation mostly seems like copy paste mechanics from one nation to another like we add previously with religion sliders.
Okay maybe I misunderstood you little bit. But let me tell you what was Ottoman battle tactic (it was an old trick from Middle Asia and always worked. Seljuks and Ottomans used this against Europeans).
Turkish cavalries never charged enemies to break their lines. They were always light cavalry units and had more maneuverability against European heavy cavalries. So simply firstly they were attacking enemies and later playing that they lost and running from battlefield to make enemies attack Ottoman center where elite Janissaries deployed and later cavalries encircled enemy units and make them get into panic and fear to beat them.
So because of such tactics you can't find this: " Name any battles were Sipahis charge broke enemy lines"
if you search for "the wolf trap", "goose's wings", "The crescent tactic" or the "Turanian tactic" you can see how ottomans use cavalary in battlefield. this tactic is a variation of a battle stategy used by Turks and other Central Asian nomadic cavalry armies.Turks used this tactic succesfully against heavily armoured lancer cavalry formations of Europe from Manzikert(1071) all the way to gates of Vienna
It was interesting to read this discussion, although most of it was centered around a lot of grinding between Venetian and Ottoman clans 
As far as i understand Ottoman vs European warfare, is that the Ottomans were the deadliest early on when they set their foot on Europe, in the Byzantine civil war, conquest of Serbia and Bulgaria, etc, which is late 14th century. As they appeared, they posed a problem to Byzantines and Serbs in their earliest clashes, as both were quite used to implementation of heavily armored cavalry and footmen, in contrast to very mobile and lightly armored Ottoman infantry and cavalry. The other major difference were the tactics, as @fksahin mentioned just above - up until then, the norm for European open battle tactics (at least Byzantium and Serbia), was first the heavy cavalry charge followed by the infantry. The Ottomans had it the other way around, increasing the effectiveness of their light cavalry against the battle-worn heavy cavalries. As Europeans got used to the Ottoman tactic, their battles were less successful, if not failing at times. Serbia for example already had a mobile light cavalry doctrine, which is a precursor to the famed Hungarian and Polish hussars, and expanded on it in early 1400's. Before the Battle of Varna, it is said that Hunyadi requested Đurađ Branković's light cavalry, as he believed they were all the Crusading armies needed to tip the scale in their favor. Unfortunately, this never happened as Đurađ had to maneuver a lot in diplomacy, and quite possibly made the biggest mistake of his life by not helping out the Crusaders, although he had everything to lose if he commited his husars to Hunyadi.
Indeed, starting in early 1400's, the Ottoman armies won out more with their numbers, which is not to say that their army was all that incompetent. Simply put, fighting on Balkans is really hard if you are the attacking side. The Ottomans took a lot of casualties in their Serbian and Wallachian campaigns during EU's staring timeline, due to superior ambush tactics, adaptability, defensiveness and increased usage of more mobile troops. Interesting read: Siege of Castelnuovo (my family's hometown). Although Spaniards indeed were obviously superior fighters to the attacking force, you can't pin everything on the competence of troops. I know the place and literally nobody would have a good time besieging that area.
All this being said, i am all for Venice getting some special troops their way, but i think that the OP slightly underestimated the Ottoman prowess on the sea - although i don't deny that Venetians were undeniably the best shipbuilders and sailors in the Mediterranean. If @Fluffy_Fishy has an idea of adding elite Venetian troops, so be it, but there is absolutely no need to involve the Janissaries or Ottomans for that matter. With the Ottomans being nerfed by removing the modifier that applies to all Ottoman troops, the least PDX could do was to add them as their elite units - which they indeed were. Also, the recruitment idea is historically accurate and actually makes for interesting gameplay for the Ottomans in the future. As far as the Ottoman navies in game go, they are perfectly defeatable, and there was absolutely no need for all that discussion going on.
As far as i understand Ottoman vs European warfare, is that the Ottomans were the deadliest early on when they set their foot on Europe, in the Byzantine civil war, conquest of Serbia and Bulgaria, etc, which is late 14th century. As they appeared, they posed a problem to Byzantines and Serbs in their earliest clashes, as both were quite used to implementation of heavily armored cavalry and footmen, in contrast to very mobile and lightly armored Ottoman infantry and cavalry. The other major difference were the tactics, as @fksahin mentioned just above - up until then, the norm for European open battle tactics (at least Byzantium and Serbia), was first the heavy cavalry charge followed by the infantry. The Ottomans had it the other way around, increasing the effectiveness of their light cavalry against the battle-worn heavy cavalries. As Europeans got used to the Ottoman tactic, their battles were less successful, if not failing at times. Serbia for example already had a mobile light cavalry doctrine, which is a precursor to the famed Hungarian and Polish hussars, and expanded on it in early 1400's. Before the Battle of Varna, it is said that Hunyadi requested Đurađ Branković's light cavalry, as he believed they were all the Crusading armies needed to tip the scale in their favor. Unfortunately, this never happened as Đurađ had to maneuver a lot in diplomacy, and quite possibly made the biggest mistake of his life by not helping out the Crusaders, although he had everything to lose if he commited his husars to Hunyadi.
Indeed, starting in early 1400's, the Ottoman armies won out more with their numbers, which is not to say that their army was all that incompetent. Simply put, fighting on Balkans is really hard if you are the attacking side. The Ottomans took a lot of casualties in their Serbian and Wallachian campaigns during EU's staring timeline, due to superior ambush tactics, adaptability, defensiveness and increased usage of more mobile troops. Interesting read: Siege of Castelnuovo (my family's hometown). Although Spaniards indeed were obviously superior fighters to the attacking force, you can't pin everything on the competence of troops. I know the place and literally nobody would have a good time besieging that area.
All this being said, i am all for Venice getting some special troops their way, but i think that the OP slightly underestimated the Ottoman prowess on the sea - although i don't deny that Venetians were undeniably the best shipbuilders and sailors in the Mediterranean. If @Fluffy_Fishy has an idea of adding elite Venetian troops, so be it, but there is absolutely no need to involve the Janissaries or Ottomans for that matter. With the Ottomans being nerfed by removing the modifier that applies to all Ottoman troops, the least PDX could do was to add them as their elite units - which they indeed were. Also, the recruitment idea is historically accurate and actually makes for interesting gameplay for the Ottomans in the future. As far as the Ottoman navies in game go, they are perfectly defeatable, and there was absolutely no need for all that discussion going on.
Last edited:
Wasn't the main objective of the Turkish cavalry non combative, while they did fight on the field the vast majority of their actions seem to be screening and raiding independently or ahead of the main force.
The screening was pretty effective at giving less mobile armies confusion and poor understanding on where to best combat them, while the raiding had a great degree of success in softening targets for the main force and stretching out their enemy forces.
Light cavalry is very effective at breaking lines too, it's probably more choice than effectiveness. Interestingly though the Turkish light cavalry tactics were adopted by a lot of the Balkan communities and then improved upon to the point they could best the turks at their own game.
For such duties Ottomans used Akincis (cavalry) and Deliler (winged hussars took wings after seeing them) and later Crimean Tatars. Tımarlı Sipahis are light cavalry for such battle tactics (the wolf trap) and Kapıkulu Sipahis are heavy cavalries. Don't mix them
If I remember correctly the Crimean tatars left the battlefield without helping Ottomans during siege of Vienna 40k strong just left...For such duties Ottomans used Akincis (cavalry) and Deliler (winged hussars took wings after seeing them) and later Crimean Tatars. Tımarlı Sipahis are light cavalry for such battle tactics (the wolf trap) and Kapıkulu Sipahis are heavy cavalries. Don't mix them
Damn cowards, I wounder did Ottomans ever go after them to teach em lesson for their cowardly behavior?
Their Khan, Murat Giray discharged from Crimean throne.
And one correction, they didn't need fight along side the Ottoman Army but defend the largest bridge on Danube where Sobieski's forces cross over the river. Letting them pass made Ottoman Army's rear defenseless.
Damn what an incompetent fool...thanks man always love to learn something new about Ottomans.
The behavior of Tatars was not cowardly. Murat Giray Khan had a friction with Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa. Khan's retreating without a clash was a conscious action. And this action's result was relieving of duty. Subsequent to this, Selim Giray Khan appointed to Crimean Throne.
And in addition Polish Cavalry and Jan Sobieski were coming to die. It was a suicide attack for Christianity. It was be madness to try to stop like these men with a little steppe cavalry Tatars. The number of Tatars was not so big.
Last edited:
I don't really mind Venice not having unique troops, it makes more sense to properly model the governmental/social aspect of the city the current merchant republic system is awful and doesn't represent anyone. Venetian troops are pretty unique in some ways but they are quite understandable considering the spread of cultures and influences going in and out of Venice. Something that needs to be hit with the iron hand of no is Mercenary use though, Venice didn't hire particularly more mercenaries than anyone else, the majority of their manpower actually comes from conscripting men from Dalmatia.
If you were to add unique units to Venice you are basically set into two ways, cannons or marines. The issue with cannons is they weren't particularly unique as a unit, they were just incredibly technologically advanced for their time typically setting a gap of about 100-200 years in advance of their contemporaries, whilst also manned by a group of artillerymen with a strict selection progress and thorough training program to get the best use out of these weapons, the main issue here is they don't really appear much different to the eye, they are just highly accurate and deadly.
The other way you could go is through Marines, because unsurprisingly a city built on water where maritime lifestyle is the only lifestyle creates staggeringly effective marines to the point that other European nations were all modelling their amphibious infantry on those from Venice, more commonly known as the Fanti da Mar, they steadily developed after its formation as part of the 4th crusade and while they showed being decisively effective over their lifetime although it wasn't until Morosini that their true effectiveness was shown. They were structured in quite an interesting way, with a small easy to command division, however this was in part what limited them most, similarly to the Veneto Real line infantry, while the unit size is unclear they were notably smaller divisions than the Veneto real, who were organised into divisions of 800, which roughly compares to a Napoleonic french demi brigade. Without exact numbers infront of me its probably safe to assume the 10 Fanti da Mar divisions are around 200-400 men. They make the most interesting choice.
However I would like to point out I don't want to see unique units appearing for single nations until there is a more diverse recruitment and composition for all nations, with expanding the system with more unique groups like the Janissaries.