Too weak Seljuks in Late Era?

**CloacaMaXima** · August 16, 2012, 12:33 PM

This might just be bad luck for me, since every play through is different, but I've tried now Late Era Roman campaign twice (first on Hard, now on Very Hard since it got boring

) and both time the Seljuks have been crushed within the first 50 years between Mongols and Fatimids.

Shouldn't the mighty Ottoman Empire pack a little more punch? It also feels stupid that I didn't deliver a single blow against my archnemesis before they got taken out

**GiddeeUpp** · August 16, 2012, 12:34 PM

THey dont have ALOT of infrastructure even in late era, so difficult for them to compete against fatimid/mongol war machine.

**Ichon** · August 16, 2012, 12:45 PM

The simply lack access to large numbers of decent stat infantry which makes a large handicap in auto calc. If you playing near them and fight out all those battles manually it can actually be interesting challenge due to the cavalry and archers. The low armor and lack of decent heavy infantry until emergence of Ottoman units means Seljuks until 1300s are relatively weak but if they survive til that point and you find yourself fighting masses of janissaries, well its a different game.

**CloacaMaXima** · August 16, 2012, 12:59 PM

That's the point, I was HOPING to get to fight masses of Janissaries

The Mongols are simply a bit too strong... I understand their historical significance, but the game can't really simulate the fact that Mongols were poor rulers and they lost their newly conquered lands fairly quickly

**GiddeeUpp** · August 16, 2012, 01:04 PM

They only lost cause Khans sons began fighting amongst themselves.

**CloacaMaXima** · August 16, 2012, 01:18 PM

That is true, but it also had ALOT to do with the fact that as soon as the fighting (and thus looting) stopped, the troops left the Khan. There really wasn't a unified Mongolian nation with troops blindly loyal to the Khan. It was the riches they were after.

**Korsan82** · August 16, 2012, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by CloacaMaXima

That is true, but it also had ALOT to do with the fact that as soon as the fighting (and thus looting) stopped, the troops left the Khan. There really wasn't a unified Mongolian nation with troops blindly loyal to the Khan. It was the riches they were after.

simply not true. The mongols were blindly following their Khan. The only reason they collapsed is the succession crisis when a khan dies. Usually the Khan splits the empire between his sons which is a reason for that nation getting weaker with every ruler dying.
The loyalty of the troops fighting in the mongol army was outstanding. It was even that outstanding that in the battle of Ankara the Entire Ottoman levy Cavalry backstabbed the Ottoman army resulting in a defeat, in capturing of the Ottoman leader and the "ottoman interregnum".
Besides unloyalty on the battlefield was punished by death without excuses.

**CloacaMaXima** · August 17, 2012, 04:29 AM

Uh yeah, that is true. I didn't mean that they would backstab friends for better loot and so, on the field they were indeed fiercely loayl and reliable. I was simply referring to the fact that a big chunk of Mongol forces was indeed comprised of locals (turkomans and various tribes from the steppes for example) who've joined the Khan for loot and in order to survive/to remain in power in their own territory.

It is true that various Mongol nations remained for few hundred years, but that is the point: a single huge Mongol EMPIRE ceased to exist since various commanders of the armies declared themselves as the next Khan. So in short there should be some sort of "mongol civil war" at some point.

For example Timur was the Amir of Samarkand and even tho he was muslim and of turkish origin he ruled the Khanate of Il (or whatever it was called, not sure) and considered himself Gengish Khan's successor and launched a new Mongol invasion "to finish the Great Khan's work". And it's good that Timurids are a separate faction who will most likely attack Mongol lands, since it simulates the various Khanates competing for power : )

But to the original topic: yes I acknowledge that Ottoman's rise to power occured later and Seljuks weren't a superpower in 1200s, but it's simply sad that it's so hard for them to BECOME one when historically they did

**Astarte** · August 17, 2012, 06:33 AM

Well, they hopefully make real "late campaign" sooner or later

**Ichon** · August 16, 2012, 02:05 PM

Ottomans did not rise until far into the timeline of SS though. Prior to that its a Seljuks roster though I don't think Seljuks get enough heavy troops as they actually had historically. The Anatolian central regions where Turks controlled the longest supported more HA style army but the surrounding regions that Turks gained control of still fought more like ERE which had ruled for centuries. Also Azabs really suck... if they are going to remain so atrocious in stats they should have much larger numbers. Personally I think the stats should be bumped a bit and numbers slightly larger, should help Turks alot.

Mongols did not fall apart that quickly. Over a century with some of the regions still being ruled by Mongol descendents over 2 centuries later. Persia and Anatolia conquests were lost quickest but the main issue was Mongols were very small component of the conquering armies, it was mostly various Turkic tribes which joined for fear of obliteration and loot as well as tribal confederations were relatively normal for Turks and there wasn't a reason to fight to the death as in return for obedience the local rulers were left in place most of the time.

**Chazz1225** · August 16, 2012, 08:12 PM

they should introduce a new janissary unit that's bulked in impressive heavy ornate armour that could frighten units, something like those elite janissaries in Assassin's Creed Revelations. That would be awesome!!