janissaries overstrength

[Patronus]

I was reading a post where the author pitted one unit of janissaries against single units of various other elites (usually knights) from other countries (both units were dismounted). In every contest, even where the janissaries' stats were inferior to those of their opponents, the janissaries won overwhelming victories (sometimes even when they were outnumbered 2:1).

I ask the people of this forum and CA, is this really desirable? Firstly, it is not historically accurate at all. Yes the janissaries were some of the best trained infantry of their time, probably the only real professional infantry force in Europe at the time, but there were certainly other European warriors, the knights, who were able to stand up to them and defeat them. The Jannissaries were good, but not good enough to the point were they could massacre feudal knights without suffering significant casualties of their own. Secondly, super uber units make the game not as fun. What's the point of battling it out if the you know your overstrenthed units are going to steamroll the competition without any problems.

I think that the Janissaries should be nerfed to be about as good as the elites of the other nations (ie the knights and huslcarls).

CA did the same exact thing with the Spartans in RTW with making them the one unit that wouldnt break and retreat (when in fact in real life the spartans did route on several occasions). Rome Total Realism corrected this inaccuracy, is there anyone out there modding a more accurate Janissary unit for MTW2?

[NobleNick]

I was reading a post ... In every contest, even where the janissaries' stats were inferior to those of their opponents, the janissaries won overwhelming victories (sometimes even when they were outnumbered 2:1)...

I ask the people of this forum and CA, is this really desirable? ...Secondly, super uber units make the game not as fun. What's the point of battling it out if the you know your overstrenthed units are going to steamroll the competition without any problems.... I think that the Janissaries should be nerfed to be about as good as the elites of the other nations (ie the knights and huslcarls).

From the descriptions of the JHI's strengths and weaknesses, I would argue that they are not overpowered (I have not played them yet). First off, they are very vulnerable even to peasant arrow fire, which knights are not. Secondly, they are very vulnerable to cavalry charges (which knights can dish out). Thirdly, they are one of the very few good units the Turks have. I am sure I would use them; but I am also sure I could easily prevail against the AI's JHI in the field, given an equal number of units of Feudal or Hospitalier Knights. Or in a siege, given the same number of units of armored swordsmen PLUS the same number of units of Peasant archers.

...CA did the same exact thing with the Spartans in RTW with making them the one unit that wouldnt break and retreat (when in fact in real life the spartans did route on several occasions). Rome Total Realism corrected this inaccuracy...

The Spartans are tough, but are also vulnerable to arrow fire. Playing against the AI's Spartans, in RTW 1.5 vanilla. I would put archers on walls or do end runs in the field and fire into their backs. Initially there seems to be no effect, since they have 2 hitpoints; but soon they started dropping like flies. As a Greek player I did not use Spartans, due to their very high cost. an excellent unit man-for-man; but due to cost and vulnerability to arrows, they are not an over-powered unit in my estimation.

EDIT: I am playing M2TW 1.2 vanilla.

[Patronus]

Yes they are overstrength. I just told you of scenarios where they were beating knights, who historically were of equal, if not greater, caliber than the janissaries. If its a balance issue, then CA should add a greater variety of units for the Turks, not make one of them uber elite.
CA has a history of doing this, not just with the spartans in RTW but also with Greek fire throwers, and elephants with cannons....please.
In the end im fine with those other units, even though they are portrayed in grossly inaccurate manners, but I really think the Janissaries disrupt the gameplay and make them more elite than they really were. 120 knights vs. 90 janissaries.... and the janissaries win....comeon, that never happened and its totally unrealistic. 120 knights should be able to easily beat 90 janissaries.

Here is a post by Ambrosius that goes over various scenarios with the Janissaries.

i should also note that for these tests im not using any tactics, just clicking on the enemy unit and toggling the run button on. the AI seems to walk first, then run when they get in range. i run right from the start

jannissary heavy infantry vs dismounted conquistadors:

40 jannissary heavy infantry
3 dismounted conquistadors (they run really fast, lol. must be the fact that they dont have plate armor on their legs)


jannissary heavy infantry vs forlorn hope:

forlorn hope broke at 15 men. end result:

3 forlorn hope
53 jannissary heavy infantry

granted, forlorn hope is only a 45 man unit, but they have 2 hit points. they seemed to hold their own at the beginning and even gave the 'victory is almost a certainty' message. then they dropped like flies, i assume thats when they started taking the second hp of damage. forlorn hope seem to run just as fast as jannissaries, so they couldnt catch the stragglers.



jannissary heavy infantry vs norse axemen:

norse axemen broke and ran like rabbits when they got down to 26. end result:
jannissary heavy infantry 66
norse axemen 19


jannissary heavy infantry vs dismounted portuguese knights:

portuguese knights broke at 18 men. end result:

jannissary heavy infantry 58
dismounted portuguese knights 0 (they dont run very fast annd the turks easily caught up to their routing units and butchered them).

[Sher Khan]

Yes they are overstrength. I just told you of scenarios where they were beating knights, who historically were of equal, if not greater, caliber than the janissaries. If its a balance issue, then CA should add a greater variety of units for the Turks, not make one of them uber elite.

Knights, historically, never consciously fought on foot unless forced to, let alone against the Ottoman Turks. As records of the crusades have shown, they also proved to be impetuous and ill-disciplined as foot-soldiers, whereas the Janissaries were equally skilled in a fight, but were professional troops who advanced, fought, and withdrew in good order.

They could, and did, beat knights. That was their job, really, and that is their job in this game. Or were the Turks so foolish to wage wars against a continent that devoted so much attention to armored cavalry nobles and elites without ever developing a force to counter them?


You are speaking from ignorance at this point, as you are only relying on an old, yet well done test without doing the work yourself and seeing just how these units are in actual play.

Try it. Start up a patched M2TW custom battle. You with your choice of European faction, 2 units of Dismounted Feudal Knights versus one unit of Janissary Heavy Infantry. See for yourself how "uber" these JHI units are. Your 2 units of knights will win, unless the AI bests you tactically. At worst, it'll come down to a stalemate or a loss/win that could go eitherway.

Then realize you both paid the same amount of money for your soldiers.

CA has a history of doing this, not just with the spartans in RTW but also with Greek fire throwers, and elephants with cannons....please.
In the end im fine with those other units, even though they are portrayed in grossly inaccurate manners, but I really think the Janissaries disrupt the gameplay and make them more elite than they really were. 120 knights vs. 90 janissaries.... and the janissaries win....comeon, that never happened and its totally unrealistic. 120 knights should be able to easily beat 90 janissaries.

I'm afraid we only see your prejudice here. Without testing for yourself, you get riled up over an old test that has since been rendered obsolete with the bugs in that version. How is it unhistorical? Unrealistic? A well-drilled, loyal, mobile and trained force of infantry facing an undisciplined and impetuous force of foot knights and winning? Like that's never happened before...

I find it extreme to pit the cannon elephants and Spartans on the same level as the balancing of the JHI. You're blowing it out of proportion without any real testing on your half to justify it.

Here is a post by Ambrosius that goes over various scenarios with the Janissaries.

Patronus, Ambrosius's epic testing was done with an unpatched M2TW game. There was a serious bug that absolutely crippled the combat ability of any unit with a shield or two-handed weapon (that wasn't a halberd). Thus, you shouldn't be using that test to judge how JHI performs on a patched game that fixes the above-mentioned issues.

[boerekovic]

I would just like to Copy and Paste Sher Khans Post,your getting rep for that.+rep.

[Patronus]

Sher Khan,
I will concede to you that the examples i brought up were outdated (the scenarios placing single units of janissaries against single units of knights). Ill be honest...I haven't tested a lot of these gameplay issues out myself. I haven't done my homework in that area nor have I read through the forums enough. So perhaps the janissaries are not as overstrengthed as I thought them to be.

But I do not think you are right on the matter of janissaries (the real life ones) being better fighters than the knights of old. And no, I am not talking out of ignorance...I have read many first hand accounts from Arab, Turkish and Crusader Chroniclers.
Yes the Janissaries were well disciplined, well trained and all around good fighters. There hadn't been a professional fighting force of their caliber since the Roman legions.
But perhaps you should read some first hand accounts about the knights. Impetuous, headstrong, and sometimes ill disciplined, but also very brave and capable fighters. Obviously this would vary from army to army, but there were some (I think of the Normans, Germans, and later on, the Spanish) who had a reputation as being some of the best warriors of their time.
Were there cowardly knights...yes. Were there some knights who werent such good fighters...yes.

My point is that, while I dont want to fall into the old trap of believing that all western medieval warriors were overwhelmingly superior to their eastern adversaries, the janissaries weren't the only ones who knew the trade of war. Though they may have had somewhat better discipline and organization than their feudal counterparts (if you can really call them counterparts), they met their match in the European warrior on numerous occasions. At the siege of Rhodes and then Malta, the Ottomans and their elite janissaries, despite heavily outnumbering the Hospitaller defenders, were virtually fought to stalemate by the stalwart and very tenacious knights. In then end they won at Rhodes, but only after suffering heavy casualties. And at the attack on Malta, tens of thousands of Ottomans and their janissaries were replused by a mere several thousand man force, only several hundred of which were actually considered knights. At the siege of Belgrade they were thrown back by the numerically inferior Hungarians, who mostly consisted of ill armed but enthusiastic peasants.

Did the Janissaries have their successes...yes. Was it their job to beat the knights and elite of Europe...yes. Did they always succeed at that....definitely not. And in many cases where they did, it was by shear numbers, not necessarily by skill. The Janissaries saw their fair share of defeats, including some by smaller, tenacious groups of knights or other skilled soldiers. And so this is why I bring up that like the Spartans, their military feats and prowess are sometimes exaggerated. They certainly were good in melee combat, like MTW2 portrays them, but unlike in MTW2, using archers wasn't the only way to defeat them...there were other soldiers of equal caliber who could best them, even on foot. After a certain point, however, it wasn't the knight who was fighting the janissary but rather the commoner. With the implementation of gunpowder and pike formations, the knight began to lose importance while conscript infantry formations became more practical. By the 1500's, the Spanish tercio had become one of the most feared fighting forces in all of Europe, though I don't think they ever squared off with the janissaries.

In the early and middle medieval period (1300's and 1400's) I agree the Janissaries were some of the best soldiers out there. Many of the European armies were not nearly as well trained or disciplined. But by the 1500's European soldiery, especially in the form of infantry units, had developed in Europe that were just as competent if not more so than the fabled Janissaries.

[Sher Khan]

They are balanced for their price, and ever since the shield bug fix, they haven't been as ubermensch as they once were. Basically, that post you read was done before any of us realized there was a game-breaking bug with units that had shields.

So the bottom line? The Janissaries are expensive. You could afford two units of feudal knights (I think) for each Janissary Heavy Infantry unit recruited.

They have no shields and mediocre armor in all honesty. This makes them incredibly susceptible to missile fire of any kind. Even peasant archers can inflict serious damage to a JHI unit whereas a unit of Feudal Knights can just walk leisurely up to their target without so much as losing one or two men.

Heavy cavalry charges decimate them. Their brace animation isn't as good as a true spearman unit, and they are demolished whole-piece by a good charge.

So they are incredibly fragile. Their true value shines when they are well protected and able to engage an enemy that's already pinned down by lesser troops. This is really their only purpose, as they make terrible linemen to hold against anything other than an infantry charge. Archer volleys will destroy them, and cavalry charges from the frong can cripple them. Compare this to other factions that are able to field a front line of Feudal Knights that, with great armor, shield, and morale ratings, make for top notch infantry linemen. They're well protected from missles, and can survive a charge better than the JHI.



The test results were epic, but were affected by a very serious bug. If you were to test this now on a patched M2TW, you'd find the JHI would still rock, but not to the god-like levels they were pre-patch.



So no, they are not overpowered at all. They're simply top-heavy, and thus an unbalanced unit. Vulnerable like militia troops, but able to cut down most anything in attack power. They are no where near as game-breaking as the Spartans, who you could field en masse and find unbeatable.

I could field a Janissary army, too. But I'd waste so much money each turn retraining as they'd lose almost all their forces to missile fire alone.

[Miraj]

No they aren't overpowered at all. Read Sher Khan's post above. They are costly units and also easy prey for archers or cross bows. Anybody with a decent contingent of archers, xbows or HAs can easily target the Jans and thin them out nicely. And I think its a nice feature to make Janissaries infantry killers in melee.

[TWoxy]

I don't think they're overpowered; after all, they are really vunerable to arrow fire.

[NobleNick]

Patonus,

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that JHI are not strong. They are excellent heavy infantry killers by all reports. That is their forte. But this is a rock-paper-scissors type game, and the JHI have serious weaknesses to ranged and cav unit types. Even though they are a very high quality unit, their cost is commensurate with that quality. If your complaint is that you can use a handfull of JHI to beat the AI, because the AI is too stupid to exploit the JHI's weaknesses; well-l-l that happens all the time with just about any kind of unit. That is an AI problem not a balance problem. My suggestion is to crank up the difficulty or generate some house rules by which to play.

The JHI have obvious weaknesses; and an all-JHI force could be soundly beaten by a much cheaper counter force. Also, I postulate that just about anything you could achieve against the AI with an all JHI force could be accomplished more CHEAPLY by a different mix of units. Thus, the JHI is not overpowered.

[Miraj]

Great post Sher Khan! Pretty much sums up what I was thinking. The Janissaries were the greatest infantry force of all Europe and perhaps even Asia during their time and CA did a great job in how they configured them.

+REP!

[Sunday213]

they are easy to beat for me i get two light cav and i suround them.

[The Noble Lord]

Hi all,

No, I dont think they are overpowered. Its simple really, they were the first profesional army unit in the medieval Europe and they were very very hard to beat. Siege of Vienna in 1529 and again in 1683 proved to the Europe the power, stamina, endurance and fanaticism of the Janissaries. However, they were beaten numerous times again and again and one of the good examples is siege of Vienna in 1683. Thousands of ottoman Janissaries were defeated by the heavy cavalry of the Polish king Jan Sobieski. And austrian and german archers softened them up a great deal. So historically they were very good but they were beatable. In the game 2, they are very dangerous but attack them with the archers first until they run out of ammunition and then send heavy cavalry in full frontal charge. U will love the result.

CHEERS


" huns, mongols, timurids are the scourge of GOD "

[Patronus]

Sher Khan,
I think you have missed my point completely. Its almost as if you haven't even read my previous post.

Firstly, I acknowledged that the in game janissaries are not as strong or "uber" as i first labeled them. I understand that they have a counter unit in the game and that they are balanced. So I see no point to keep on discussing CA's use of them. I may disagree with the historical accuracy, but I understand the gameplay aspect of it.

Secondly, I don't understand what your argument is. I agree with, and said myself, much of what you said. The Janissaries, for some time, were the best trained, and most organized fighting force in all of Europe. In many cases they were better disciplined and better trained than many of the elites of Europe. I understand this. And until the the 1500's, there were few other soldiers that were as tactically adept as they were.

There are some instances where the knights beat the Ottomans and then there are others where the Ottomans, with their janissaries, won. I am not trying to say that one was supremely better than the other. Nor am I, as you suggest, trying to measure the worth of the feudal knight. You are right, there is no real way to measure a knight's worth in terms of the Janissaries. Knights came in all shapes and sizes, some good some not so good at fighting.

My real point was that Janissaries weren't the unbeatable, unstoppable force that many people, not just CA, make them out to be. There were some knights who were disciplined and tenacious enough to beat them, and vice versa. And later on the Europeans developed some professional infantry forces that were able to deal with them. I think its safe to say that you and I have found some common ground, and there is no real need to continue this argument.

Patronus, at the risk of turning this into a history debate, the examples of Malta and Rhodes are not exactly fair comparisons of fighting ability. If you'll notice both were heavily fortified island castles atop hard-to-scale battlements and rugged terrain. In such a situation, any small number of well-trained men can withstand a large, skilled fighting force. The results would have been the same had the situation been reversed, I dare say.

I understand that both Malta and Rhodes were siege battles, with the Hospitallers on the defense. This does not take away from the fact that in both instances, the Hospitallers were outnumbered by a margin of tens of thousands and faced overwhleming odds. And you prove my point exactly: only a skilled, well trained, battle savy force, such as the Hospitallers could have held out as long as they did or have caused as many casualties as they did for the attackers. There were many other instances were much larger garrisons, both European and Muslim, had been overwhelmed or forced to surrender much more quickly. The only reason I brought up the examples of Malta and Rhodes was to point out that there were European soldiers of excellent quality who were around during the time of the Janissaries. The Janissaries weren't the only grade A soldiers of their time.

That's it Sher Khan...I really think that this argument has been settled.

[Sher Khan]

We have indeed reached a common ground, but I certainly did not miss the point of your post. I did not accuse you of any further CA bashing, and only sought to further explain what I find specific about the JHI in game, why they are powerful, and that it probably wasn't intentional. It was for your benefit, in truth, as simply ending a debate on 'you don't have any experience in the matter' is a bit crude for me.

My only thrust of argument concerning the historical point was what made one warrior top another. I concluded just like you that they were hard to compare, and that both are capable of incredible feats. I pointed out their only real difference: professionalism vs. feudalism.

[boerekovic]

Again, as i read Ambrosius' Post of the Janissaries being beaten by overwhelming numbers, i wanted to post about the fact that this were siege battles,
and that they would be way better on a simple Battlefield,
Sher Khan took my Words simply dropping them into his post.
Its quite funny, as he wrote exactly what i wanted to post (not the CA stuff)

[loquar]

For the points I think that janissaries are about right. Some strengths and some weaknesses as above.

The only situation that they might possibly be seen as slightly tipping the balance is when you measure stack vs stack as one full stack has the capacity to have paid more for its units (and therefore rightly getting better units) but this is virtually immaterial in the game as the number of battles restricted by unit numbers is minimal.

I personally like them, I hate cookie-cutter armies and any variation helps

[NobleNick]

Hmm... Well I see that we are all coming to a concensus. I did a wee bit 'o research, last night; but see that it probably moot. Still, I hate to see research go unpublished (especially when it is mine ), so...

I decided to do a little sandbox (custom battle) testing. FIrst I pitted 4 units of English Feudal Knights (hereafter referred to simply as knights or EFK) against 4 units of JHI. The method I used was to play as England against the AI's Turks, using just enough management to receive the benefit that cav get from... being cav. I used the Grassy Flatlands battle map, strung out the EFK in a single battle line, packed close together, 4 units wide and 4 horses deep. At battle start, the EFK started running towards the JHI (I CONTROL-LEFT-DOUBLE-CLICKED behind the JHI line). As the cav neared the JHI lines, I individually assigned each of 3 running cav units to charge the front 3 JHI. The fourth EFK unit continued running past the front line to engage the JHI "general's unit."

As the front 3 EFK engaged the front 3 JHI, the JHI went flying. I let the engagement go for about 5 seconds, then disengaged to run the cav back near their starting point, to prepare for another charge. At the point when I disengaged, but before the 4th EFK met the 4th JHI, the battle scorer showed 54% JHI lost versus 18% EFK. I re-grouped and charged again. This time all JHI panicked on contact and were slaughtered. IIRC there were 49 EFK lost.

For the next trial, I did all the same, except strung out the line a little narrower and deeper and ran all 4 EFK into the front 3 JHI. After 2 charges, all JHI were gone, with 54 EFK losses.

The third trial was essentially the same as the first, with 39 EFK lost and the JHI annihilated.

THe fourth trial was the same as 1 and 3, except it was 3 EFK pitted against 4 JHI: 59 EFK lost and the JHI annihilated.

In every trial up to this point, the JHI routed immediately upon contact of the second charge.

For the fifth trial I pitted 3 EFK against 4 units of the Turk's Saracen Militia (SM) spearmen. The EFK won again. But IIRC the EFK lost about half their force (90) and some SM got away.

This data is far from the last word. To be complete I should have also played as JHI against the EFK. ALso, there will be terrains and situations which are not so favorable to the EFK as the Grassy flatlands. ALso, I did not do a statistically significant number of battles. Still the anecdotal evidence seems to support a significant superiority for the EFK in at least this situation.

Now for some cost-benefit analysis: I went to brandybarrel's FAUST for M2TW with 1.2 patch and got recruitment and upkeep costs for some units, including the ones mentioned above, plus England's Armored Swordsmen (EAS) and England's Archer Militia (EAM). I figured total unit cost as recruitment cost + 5 turns of upkeep. Some might argue that this is too few turns and others might argue that it is too many turns; but I think most would agree that it is a more realistic prediction of true cost of a unit entering battle than just using only recruitment cost. Here are the numbers:

JHI = 840/175 . . Total cost = 1715
SM = 490/155 . . Total cost = 1265
EFK = 730/250 . . Total cost = 1980
EAS = 550/150 . . Total cost = 1300
EAM = 220/100 . . Total cost = 720

--------

Given this information we see that a force of 3 EFK units costs 5940, whereas a force of 4 JHI units costs 6860; yet the cheaper EFK prevails. It looks like 4 EFK are comparable to 6 or more JHI; but knowing that the JHI would probably fair better if they were in my hands and the EFK were run by the AI; I would guess that 3 EFK are comparable to 5 JHI, for a total cost of 5940 for EFK and 8575 for the JHI.

In the EFK vs SM battle, I did a disservice to the SM. An equivalent cost force to face the 3 EFK would have been 5 units of SM (cost = 6325), whereas I only used 4 units SM. Still, the SM seemed to out-perform the JHI against cav. 5 units SM cost less than 4 JHI, yet could be expected to cause more than 110 casualties to the cav force: clearly superior performance for the price than the JHI in this situation.

Several things I did not have time to do, but which I think would be really interesting, are:

1.) Pit 10 units JHI (cost = 17150) against 13 units EAS (cost = 16900) in a statistically significant number of battles, with AI controlling Turks for half the battles and England for half.

2.) Pit 11 units JHI (cost = 18865 ) against 7 units EAS + 13 units of EAM (cost = 9100 + 9360 = 18460) in a statistically significant number of battles, with AI controlling Turks for half the battles and England for half.

3.) Pit 5 units JHI (cost = 8575 ) against 12 units of EAM (cost = 8640) in a statistically significant number of battles, with AI controlling Turks for half the battles and England for half. Note that there are OVER twice as many archers as there are JHI, which means no matter what the JHI do, an adept archer general will always have at least half his units shooting into the backs of the JHI. My money is on the archers when played by the adept human, and on the JHI when the archers are AI controlled.

I hope you found this interesting.

[Sher Khan]

Ah, not to throw a wrench in your nice research Nick, but I think it'd be prudent to test JH Infantry against Dismounted Feudal Knights instead of their mounted variant.

Heavy Cavalry, no matter the quality, will destroy unsupported JHI simply because they are infantry. For countering Heavy Cavalry, the Turks have their Quapukulu...

[Broken Lance]

JHI aren't invincible

i did a quick custom battle. Ritterbruder vs. JHI

END RESULT:


JHI got pwned


point: Ritterbruder are still teh secks