Turkish Castle/City Ratio

[glitch]

So far, the only fault I can find with playing as the Turks is that you begin with too many castles and not enough cities(both early and late campaign); even the outlying rebel settlements are mostly castles. This is detrimental to you economy, especially early on. Converting useless castles to a prosperous city is both expensive and time consuming, further compounding your problems.
You can argue that this is a challenge in itself, and I would agree partially. The problem is that I had to use these "cowardly" tactics to survive. I allied myself with the pope, so no crusades can be called against me(I think, 200+ turns and nothing against me). Had one crusade been called against me, I would be neck up in it. When at war, I try to take as many enemy settlements in a blitz, and than try to obtain peace. Always trying to be the attacker, never the defender. I maintain 4 mixed armies-nothing else worth mentioning militarily.
I don't like these tactics at all, there are detracting from the campaign, but I have to in order to survive. Now, 200 turns later, my economy is doing decently.I have enough saved up to breath easily, but end turn reports are bipolar- occasionally bringing in a good sum, others, barely bringing in anything. I think this is mainly a ripple effect from converting all those castles and investing in them.
Out of all the various factions I've played, never quite had a problem like this. Getting your economy going is pretty simple with other factions.I don't need any real suggestions, I just wanted to vent a small frustration, and see what others thought. I truly believe this is a castle/city ratio problem.

[JorisofHolland]

I've never had that problem when playing as the Turks, though I don't play them very often. As you said, converting is expensive but certainly worth the effort. When my empire gets big enough, I convert nearly all my castles to settlements, only keeping a few at the borders and very advanced ones. Then I use the massive income to bribe armies rather than fight them.

[sbroadbent]

So far, the only fault I can find with playing as the Turks is that you begin with too many castles and not enough cities(both early and late campaign); even the outlying rebel settlements are mostly castles. This is detrimental to you economy, especially early on. Converting useless castles to a prosperous city is both expensive and time consuming, further compounding your problems.
You can argue that this is a challenge in itself, and I would agree partially. The problem is that I had to use these "cowardly" tactics to survive. I allied myself with the pope, so no crusades can be called against me(I think, 200+ turns and nothing against me). Had one crusade been called against me, I would be neck up in it. When at war, I try to take as many enemy settlements in a blitz, and than try to obtain peace. Always trying to be the attacker, never the defender. I maintain 4 mixed armies-nothing else worth mentioning militarily.
I don't like these tactics at all, there are detracting from the campaign, but I have to in order to survive. Now, 200 turns later, my economy is doing decently.I have enough saved up to breath easily, but end turn reports are bipolar- occasionally bringing in a good sum, others, barely bringing in anything. I think this is mainly a ripple effect from converting all those castles and investing in them.
Out of all the various factions I've played, never quite had a problem like this. Getting your economy going is pretty simple with other factions.I don't need any real suggestions, I just wanted to vent a small frustration, and see what others thought. I truly believe this is a castle/city ratio problem.

The Templars have a similar problem, except you only start off with a single castle. Going off the Early game:

Capital: Castle (Tortosa)

Rebel or Other Faction Controlled within reach of a turn or two:
Castles (8): Adana, Acre, Aleppo, Kerak, Nicosia (Byzantine), Gaza and Damietta (Fatimid), Caesarea (Turk)
Cities (5): Antioch, Edessa, Damascus, Jerusalem, Al Aqaba (Fatimid)

If you go a bit further east you can also add Qarisiya (yet another Castle) as well as Diyarbakir and Mosul (both Turk controlled castles)

I think the Templars have it worse off because you have to build from your single settlement (atleast I was able to utilize my spy for a first turn assault of Antioch). Turks have 8 cities/castles, though it is of course needed what with having to face the Byzantines from the west.

[JorisofHolland]

Templars are supposed to be weak, but their economy is very good if you take all those settlements you mentioned. Antioch, Damascus and Jerusalem are very wealthy if not sacked. They make up for the bad starting position, which is the only challenging thing about them.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

So far, the only fault I can find with playing as the Turks is that you begin with too many castles and not enough cities(both early and late campaign); even the outlying rebel settlements are mostly castles. This is detrimental to you economy, especially early on. Converting useless castles to a prosperous city is both expensive and time consuming, further compounding your problems.
You can argue that this is a challenge in itself, and I would agree partially. The problem is that I had to use these "cowardly" tactics to survive. I allied myself with the pope, so no crusades can be called against me(I think, 200+ turns and nothing against me). Had one crusade been called against me, I would be neck up in it. When at war, I try to take as many enemy settlements in a blitz, and than try to obtain peace. Always trying to be the attacker, never the defender. I maintain 4 mixed armies-nothing else worth mentioning militarily.
I don't like these tactics at all, there are detracting from the campaign, but I have to in order to survive. Now, 200 turns later, my economy is doing decently.I have enough saved up to breath easily, but end turn reports are bipolar- occasionally bringing in a good sum, others, barely bringing in anything. I think this is mainly a ripple effect from converting all those castles and investing in them.
Out of all the various factions I've played, never quite had a problem like this. Getting your economy going is pretty simple with other factions.I don't need any real suggestions, I just wanted to vent a small frustration, and see what others thought. I truly believe this is a castle/city ratio problem.

If I may...If one remains cented in asia minor Minus Antioch, Aleppo, & Eddessa. You would be virtually immune from Crusades. Dealing with The Romans is simplistic because they fall into a HA armies hands. "I have swordsman, you will all Parrish". Ya buddy maybe in auto-calc but not in the field...

The true question is how are you going to deal with the K-Shah steamroller, followed closely by the followers of Salahudin. With our luck they'll probably ally, and roll Asia Minor up like a carpet....

Get small and stay out of sight and that should give you the time to readjust your infastrature. Kinda wishful thinking cuz the Egyptians basically allied with K-Shah in my campaign and made me stop for the moment.

[Ichon]

Well as Turks I find many of the castles far away from front useless and difficult to defend(IE- cost more than its worth). It is easier to sell some to Kz Shah or any Islamic faction to strengthen them and keep same religion so easier to retake later while concentrating on gaining Syria from Crusader States and Fatamids. I usually disband all units except militia and 2 half stack of cheap units to begin taking rebel regions.

The Kz Shah will need help vs Mongols and if you get a good alliance by gifting some regions or bribing the alliance with regions it is not a bad trade since the investment to build and defend those region barely balance out what they pay up front and the AI will build them as fast or faster than you could. Just sell the settlements piecemeal to get steady income over time while moving to the coasts. It can be worth it to convert a couple castles to cities before selling so Kz Shah doesn't get huge amount of castles while also cities are easier to capture later than fortresses.

Moving to the coasts and only the Euphrates valley inland kept lets Turks concentrate their forces and also makes some epic late campaign battles as either Byz or Kz Shah/Mongols become blobs and Turks get their later period units. I've probably played short campaign with Turks 3 or 4 times and 1 long campaign and they are my favorite Islamic faction because of the start central position they have and can play off all the powers around them against each other and look forward to fighting Mongols or Timurids later in the campaign plus build up 1 enemy of choice for some epic clashes. I prefer Kz Shah but sometimes even with help Mongol weaken them too much to make an epic fight. Byz can be interesting but Turks tear them apart too easy in late period. Mongols, K Shah and once Hungry made the most fun opponents.

[StyggeKrumpen]

The problem with turkish economic build up is that you will need to take high income cities around your starting territories. In my oppinion there are basically 2 wayes to go.

The first is as mentioned above gifting cities away to kwares and egypt to secure borders south and east, then concentrating on the byzzies killing them as fast as possible to gain good trading cities around the agean sea.

The second option is to fortify your western border against the byzzies then going for egypt and the crusaders. I would suggest the first one as going for the crusaders will make the catholics pissed and gifting away territories that lie near to the horrible mongol horde can make the war with them come later in game.

Plus when playing turkey later in game when i have a good developed empire my worst enemies often lies to the west. AI factions that control the Constantinoble area of the map are the hardest opponent in game so conquering this area early on is important for any long camping game with turkey in my oppinion.

[bɑne]

The first is as mentioned above gifting cities away to kwares and egypt to secure borders south and east, then concentrating on the byzzies killing them as fast as possible to gain good trading cities around the agean sea.

Keep in mind that gifting cities away can impact your reputation later as the game punishes you for "retaking" cities you have gifted away with a reputation hit. Even if they are no longer under the control of the faction you gave them to.

[Ichon]

Keep in mind that gifting cities away can impact your reputation later as the game punishes you for "retaking" cities you have gifted away with a reputation hit. Even if they are no longer under the control of the faction you gave them to.

That is true but usually more important for Christians nations or nations which are surrounded. Nations in a map corner or Muslims don't need to worry about it as much from my experience since usually they only need 1 ally and if you keep gifting cash to that ally you will usually quickly overcome the bad rep in releasing prisoners and occupying. Though it would be better to take all the cities you gifted away earlier as close together as possible if you are worried about it because there is a minimum point to where your rep can drop and taking it there fast and recovering is better than spreading it out.

[Double A]

Keep in mind that gifting cities away can impact your reputation later as the game punishes you for "retaking" cities you have gifted away with a reputation hit. Even if they are no longer under the control of the faction you gave them to.

Really? Even if your ally is, say, the HRE, and Venice takes Bolgona, so you take it back and gift it to the HRE (for modest compensation, of course), and then 5 turns later Venice takes it again and you take it back and sell it again?

[bɑne]

Really? Even if your ally is, say, the HRE, and Venice takes Bolgona, so you take it back and gift it to the HRE (for modest compensation, of course), and then 5 turns later Venice takes it again and you take it back and sell it again?

In that example I would expect a reputation hit. More on this can be found in Reputation Bug e.g. aduellists posts or in another post by Ichon concerning the papal states vassalage I quoted then. +rep for you btw Ichon.

<...>Only thing you can do is only occupy city and ransom or release prisoners. Ransom is neutral while release is quite positive.Also never take a city you sold to someone. Even if a different faction owns the city now it will make you dubious or worse.<...>

Of course this does not contradict the strategy described here - just wanted to mention it so there is no surprise. As long as you keep an eye on the cities in question its enterily manageable as Ichon already described.

[meese]

In my Turkish games I've always allied with the Khwarezm Shahdom and Templars, then maintained good relations with Egypt. Constantinople's just too tempting.

[Ichon]

Taking out Byz with Turks is not a bad option but I simply think that makes game too easy for Turks. Once you have Constantinople and Anatolia the Turk center of power is easy to control by ship and has high income.

Strengthening K Shah and weakening Fatimids is preferable to me since K Shah will be distracted by Mongols soon enough while Fatimids usually take out Crusader States fairly quickly and if Turks are busy with Byz it sets up a 2 front or 3 front war since Kievan Rus or Hungry usually comes into it at some point taking out Byz quickly though with their territories you can afford lots of armies.

I usually try and ally with K Shah and Crusaders first until Fatimids vassalized or down to just 2-3 Nile cities. Then Jihad on Crusaders while either gifting some Greece rebels to Byz and taking rest of Anatolia(so they stay as buffer vs Catholics. With Fatimids and Crusaders gone and alliance with K Shah the fun begins. Get into it with Venice and some Crusades going to come down on you but that is good prep for the Mongols or blob K Shar. Build up cities and armies and meanwhile some periodic Jihads around the Med... Byz with Constantinople and Greece behind it can usually take out Hungry but if not then Hungry is a fun opponent and K Shah or Mongols should be winning by this point 80-120 turns in... usually Mongols still winning unless you give K Shah alot of help and even send a few nice armies to meet the Mongols but 1 short campaign I did see K Shah defeat 70% of the Mongol stacks with hardly any help aside from giving them Iraq, Arabia, eastern Anatolia and secure borders- I think Mongols went north first with many stacks so K Shah had a bit easier time early.

[Double A]

Yeah but once you take Constantinople and the city on the other side of the Bosporus, you'll be raking in at least 3k extra a turn. And if you send merchants to Constantinople, Egypt, Damascus, the West Balkans, and East Turkey, you'll be raking in cash like crazy. Those are easily the most profitable areas, even without the merchant fort exploit.