Ottomans Discussion Thread

User avatar
New Zealand zoom
Gendarme
Posts: 9314
Joined: Apr 26, 2015
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by zoom »

dansil92 wrote:
zoom wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Probably because it were overpowered.
1urgjs.jpg
I'm thick as a brick!
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Goodspeed »

zoom wrote:I see some arguing that the unit is too strong, in general; not that it shouldn't counter other ranged infantry. The result of reverting Abuse Range is a weaker unit—against artillery and cavalry even more so than ranged infantry.
This is wrong. Reverting the change will make the unit disproportionately worse against skirms, compared to cav or art. The goal of the change was to make abus counter skirms, which they didn't with 18 range.
If people aren't arguing that abus shouldn't counter skirms, then they are unaware of the effect their suggestion would have. I was there when we tested the EP version in which we noticed skirms traded too well against abus with 18 range, I know the effects and am trying to share the knowledge. Take it or leave it.
Isn't adding range to the unit making it less specialized? Where is the sense in nerfing RoF—then buffing range—then nerfing hitpoints, only because you want the unit to do at least as well against ranged infantry??
Yes, the "sense" is to make the unit counter ranged infantry.
I would't change the unit at all right now. If Otto are too strong which I highly doubt, I would nerf them elsewhere. It's not like Otto's armies are (even close to) 90% abus. But if you insist on changing the unit, and I wouldn't blame you because people are notoriously unable to accept that some units are stronger than others, I'd probably go with HP. Maybe the minimum range.
Why not have Veteran Abuse Guns restore RoF,
Having inconsistent RoF on a unit would make it frustrating to micro. Feels like poor design. Also, the range change affects their performance against skirms much more than anything else, which makes it the perfect change for this particular goal.
or buff the ranged resistance of the unit???
Because it would disproportionately affect how ranged cav do against it.
You seem to be making a case against yourself, which is a shame since the sentiment that the unit should trade well against other ranged infantry is perfectly sound.
Since that's my exact point how am I "making a case against myself"?
Surely you aren't cherry picking the facts that are convenient, to you?
What facts, specifically, am I ignoring?

Another thing to keep in mind is that abus, once on the field, may seem very strong, but getting them on the field is another challenge. It's 300w for a building you would otherwise not build and they train very slowly. With 18 range, abus felt like a unit you built only because the other compositions you could go for were even worse. You didn't do it because you were excited about the unit. Being a unique unit, and Otto being a civ that should have a higher quality army than other civs, I think abus should be a unit you get excited about.
Germany lordraphael
Pro Player
EWTNWC LAN SilverAdvanced Division WinnerDonator 01
Posts: 2549
Joined: Jun 28, 2015

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by lordraphael »

im not sure if abus need any change. Also to people saying abus counter falcs. I wouldnt call it counter. Its just that in lower numbers falcs do very poorly vs them and more than 5 plus falcs in a sup game is very rare. But try sniping falcs when theres like 7 or 8 and oyu cant stagger moder effectively with your abus anymore.
Maybe you should decrease RR to 10. it would make skirms better vs them.
breeze wrote: they cant even guess how much f***ing piece of stupid retarded they look they are trying to give lesson to people who are over pr35 and know the best mu. im pretty sure that we need a page that only pr30+ post and then we could have a nice discussins.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

bwinner wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.
Yes I do. Btw I didn't just look at the stats, I have provided an explanation to why it's relevant in this case : otto should have a good winrate if it was strong since it's ez to play.
Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.
User avatar
France bwinner
Howdah
Donator 01
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mar 14, 2016
ESO: bwinner

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by bwinner »

Kawapasaka wrote:
bwinner wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:Do you have a good winrate with Ottomans against only pr30+? Regardless, it was really only an example of how easily such a small sample size could be skewed. There is so much more that needs to be controlled for, you can't just look at those statistics as they are and conclude which civs are weak and which civs are strong based off it, that's all I'm saying.
Yes I do. Btw I didn't just look at the stats, I have provided an explanation to why it's relevant in this case : otto should have a good winrate if it was strong since it's ez to play.
Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.
Well you don't get it at all. I said if you are an ez civ to play, so it a reason to NOT nerf spain despite them being on top of the winrate (although in their case it's probably more because they haven't been played enough for the stats to be significant, as it has been explained in the stats topic). And for otto it's even more of a reason to not nerf them cuz despite being ez to play they still don't even have a good winrate.
Anyway my idea wasn't really to talk about that, because I think this stats don't contain enough informations to help us enough, but more to highlight that there is really no evidence ottomans need to be nerfed.
Image
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

bwinner wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Spain is also easy to play, and sports the second highest win rate of all the civs in that table, so... nerf Spain? Or is something different going on here? I'm pretty sure there is, and it's a very simple explanation - some civs are more popular with better players.
Well you don't get it at all. I said if you are an ez civ to play, so it a reason to NOT nerf spain despite them being on top of the winrate (although in their case it's probably more because they haven't been played enough for the stats to be significant, as it has been explained in the stats topic). And for otto it's even more of a reason to not nerf them cuz despite being ez to play they still don't even have a good winrate.
Anyway my idea wasn't really to talk about that, because I think this stats don't contain enough informations to help us enough, but more to highlight that there is really no evidence ottomans need to be nerfed.
Otto has only been played a couple hundred more times than Spain, still seems quite low compared to the Brit, Ger, Russia, France with 1k+. Where you draw the line for a significant enough sample size sounds completely arbitrary - 400 games no, 600 yes? And once again, like many others have mentioned, unless you adjust for the skill differences of all the games sampled, this data is simply not meaningful as there is no reason to believe that there's an even distribution of civ popularity amongst the PR range.

Sure, the data gives no indication that Otto is OP, but it's not strong enough to provide solid evidence for the contrary either.
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8049
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Hazza54321 »

Is spain easy?
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

Hazza54321 wrote:Is spain easy?
Well, learning the basic FF is quite easy. Actually winning games with the civ is a completely different story.
Of course there's plenty of more advanced stuff as well with Spain, but that's true for most civs I'd say, even Otto.
User avatar
France [Armag] diarouga
Ninja
NWC LAN Gold
Posts: 12710
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
ESO: diarouga
Location: France

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by [Armag] diarouga »

Hazza54321 wrote:Is spain easy?
Yes. Easy, but weak.
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
#trainableSpahi
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by harcha »

They definitely have the dps considering the ROF. But the card could be turned into a worthwhile upgrade.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

Kawapasaka wrote:
aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.
goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
#trainableSpahi
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

aqwer wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
aqwer wrote:Fortress age card "Irregulars which gives x1.0 against vils" is so useless. It should be worked on to make it less unviable.
It can be modified to give +2 range and 20% atta to Light Cav and moved to industrial. Since CV are awful bcz short range and animation and they don't have that dps to protect RI from Cav.
I'd think CA are perhaps more useful late-game since there's generally less kiting, and in any case they're not actually at a range disadvantage against standard non-Port Dragoons, are they? Caracole affects both unit types. +2 range and 20% attack is a massive buff lol, completely unnecessary.
goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8049
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Hazza54321 »

Jans are a good lategame unit anyway
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by duckzilla »

This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
  • CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
  • CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
  • CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
  • Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
  • You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
  • Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
  • Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
  • Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.

Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l

However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.

In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

Kawapasaka wrote:
aqwer wrote:
Show hidden quotes
goon just and run and never get shot bcz CA less range and set up animation. All goon type units are much better than CA bcz of that.
About dps , it is difficult to focus fire with CA so your LI already dead by Cav when CA actually starting to kill them.
And +2 range and 20% attk is still inferior to "Genitours" and "Lippizar Cav" .
It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
#trainableSpahi
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

Hazza54321 wrote:Jans are a good lategame unit anyway
Jan are not that good bcz low dps against Cav , with CIR it is difficult to hold large Cav mass with RI behind.
#trainableSpahi
Australia Kawapasaka
ESOC Pro Team
Posts: 1116
Joined: Jan 25, 2019
Location: Wales (new, south)

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Kawapasaka »

aqwer wrote:
Kawapasaka wrote:
Show hidden quotes
It's inferior to Genitours only if you value 2 range over 20% attack which I find questionable. As for Lipizzaner Cavalry, at least that being buffed actually served a purpose to counter-act the base stat nerf so Uhlans would be more similar to their RE counterparts in the late-game, where they aren't a balance issue at all.
As for the rest of your point, yeah, Otto would probably prefer to have Dragoons in most situations. They're generally the superior unit, yes. Well, tough luck lol. Most other civs would prefer to have Abus over Skirms as well.
Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
Okay 2 range might be superior in a situation specifically where goons are fighting CA, but that's not all range cav is gonna be doing all game.
Otherwise, you're complaining about Abus-CA losing to the counter-composition? Cav-Skirm is supposed to beat Goon-Skirm. That's how the counter system works.
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by harcha »

duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
  • CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
  • CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
  • CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
  • Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
  • You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
  • Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
  • Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
  • Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.

Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l

However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.

In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.
I suggest to add a range on melee attack on Irregulars card. IDK how much range would be fair. How much range do oprichniks have?
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

Kawapasaka wrote:
aqwer wrote:
Show hidden quotes
Ofc, +2 range is superior than 20% att, what will extra att do if you can't shoot them at first place.
As for Otto, CA even worse bcz can't hit and run, and due to this cav come on top of abus gun which itself has a min shooting range. As a result you lose your abus gun at the expanse of enemy Cav, and he will left with RI against CA if any.
Okay 2 range might be superior in a situation specifically where goons are fighting CA, but that's not all range cav is gonna be doing all game.
Otherwise, you're complaining about Abus-CA losing to the counter-composition? Cav-Skirm is supposed to beat Goon-Skirm. That's how the counter system works.

+2 range is also better for RC against Cav bcz they start shooting earlier
#trainableSpahi
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
  • CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
  • CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
  • CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
  • Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
  • You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
  • Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
  • Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
  • Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.

Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l

However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.

In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.

How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
#trainableSpahi
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by duckzilla »

aqwer wrote:
duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
  • CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
  • CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
  • CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
  • Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
  • You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
  • Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
  • Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
  • Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.

Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l

However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.

In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.

How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
This sounds definitely nice and would be a nice boost for Ottoman late-game, which tends to lack behind due to economy and mobility reasons.

But in my opinion they do not necessarily need a stat boost to perform better in countering cavalry. They already do this job quite decently. Such a buff would rather improve their viability in goon battles, which is not their purpose.

I would love to see Irregulars giving the unit more uniqueness by enhancing its ability to raid (higher range is profitable here). This would not just fit the cards intended design, but it would also fit to Ottoman history very well. The area of modern day Hungary has been the subject of frequent raids by Ottoman cavalry squadrons between the 15th and 18th century. It became nearly completely depopulated due to that.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Norway aqwer
Dragoon
Posts: 411
Joined: Aug 27, 2017

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by aqwer »

duckzilla wrote:
aqwer wrote:
duckzilla wrote:This topic is more complex than the discussion here:
  • CA are ~15% cheaper than goons (100f/60g vs 90f/90g)
  • CA have more HP than goons (265 vs 200)
  • CA do more raw damage per second (8.66 vs 7.33)
  • Both units have the same range (12 or 14 with caracole)
  • You can use CA as a meat shield against cavalry, while you cannot do so with goons
  • Without micro, CA does its job better than goons due to a high dmg output combined with melee resistance. With micro, the goons are vastly superior due to shooting instantly
  • Goons perform better against other ranged units in general
  • Goons should win a direct battle against CA (first shot + range resistance + ability to kite)
Both units obviously have their strengths and weaknesses. They also serve different combat roles.

Using the unique unit of Jinete with Genitours as comparison is just nonsense. Goons in general are not overpowered only because one specific civ has an overpowered goon unit.l

However, I would love to see the Irregulars card improved. Either a +15% attack or +2 range would be useful and not overpowered. But buffing potential could also be along the lines of improving the anticav multiplier, increasing melee resistance or simply hp, reducing the train time + cost (basically what french have for cuirs). Given the framing of the card (Irregulars in the sense of raiding units), one could also keep the bonus vs vills and additionally buff siege dmg to transform the unit to a weaker but ranged version of an Oprichnik.

In general, I would like to see more creativity when suggesting changes of cards or units. These "buff attack"-suggestions are not very interesting to me.

How about "Irregulars" gives you +2 range and 10% hp in fortress age. It will be on par with "Way of the bow".
This sounds definitely nice and would be a nice boost for Ottoman late-game, which tends to lack behind due to economy and mobility reasons.

But in my opinion they do not necessarily need a stat boost to perform better in countering cavalry. They already do this job quite decently. Such a buff would rather improve their viability in goon battles, which is not their purpose.

I would love to see Irregulars giving the unit more uniqueness by enhancing its ability to raid (higher range is profitable here). This would not just fit the cards intended design, but it would also fit to Ottoman history very well. The area of modern day Hungary has been the subject of frequent raids by Ottoman cavalry squadrons between the 15th and 18th century. It became nearly completely depopulated due to that.
Well said. In that regard, I think it can be changed to give +2 range and x1.0 against vils. Bcz atm this card is severely underpowered. After that change I think ppl will use it more and will add uniqueness and diversity to ottoman play.

P.S. I vaguely remember that Garja himself suggested the exact same change.
#trainableSpahi
User avatar
Malaysia Aizamk
Pro Player
ESOC WarChiefs Classic 2017
Posts: 1459
Joined: Feb 26, 2015
Location: ded

Re: Ottomans Discussion Thread

Post by Aizamk »

I’m pretty sure irregulars was my go-to card with ottoman for a good few weeks. Essentially triples their damage vs vills.

That being said, I’d gladly welcome a buff
oranges.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV