Noticed a big difference with Turks in 3.1 vs 3.0

[Darviathar]

I was playing 3.0 until a few days ago, not realizing I had an old version. I had a long Byzantine game going, and was very disappointed in the weakness of the Turks. I forced myself to leave them alone, hoping to give them a chance at building up.

Much to my delight, this seems to have been fixed with 3.1. Instead of just sitting around, not bothering to take the weakly defended neutral cities (Sinope and the one just south of Iconium), they expanded aggressively, taking all Neutral cities in Asia Minor as well as Antioch and Edessa. This gives them a much better chance, and I am very pleased. Not long ago they pronounced a Jihad against Constantinople, and the other 3 Muslim states all sent several full stacks against my capitol to answer. I held on (Ballista towers proved a wise investment), and was very pleased to have been put on my heels for a while.

What exactly was changed with the Turks on 3.1 to make them a more viable faction? Or was I just "lucky" in my 3.0 game to see them so weak?

[Naked Emperor]

In my english campaign the Turks are the biggest faction, a force to be reckoned with

This is with DLV 3.1.2

[Lmagus]

In my game they are about to be annihilated by Egypt and I'm trying to save them somehow...

[Harry Lime]

I'm still playing a heavily modified DLV 3.0 as the Byzantines & the Turks have been a royal pain in the butt!
They took all of Asia Minor (except for Nicaea) & most of the Holy Land & the former Persian lands.
I'm slowly beating them back and thought the tide had turned in my favour when a Jihad was declared on Constantinople and now I'm on the defensive again as swarms of Islamic armies are heading my way. The year is 1290 & I only have 1 decent general (the King). If Constantinople falls this may well be the first ever Total War campaign I've lost.
Excellent game