Playing the Turks

[ElPrezCBF]

I've never played the Turks and my first campaign as them was a very slow start. Low level units also have rather high upkeep. They don't even have enough income to take on the rebels with a decent stack or build cheap buildings in all settlements at the same time. I know that at this rate, they would most likely be caught unprepared by the Mongols that will invade around turn 60. I wonder if there are any tips to play this faction or better, any mods that make for a more palatable experience?

[Gunther von Rittersburg]

Did you raise the taxes in any of the regions? You can probably set them to the highest in the region the King is in, since the King's presence would bring some order.

Dont forget to also get trade agreements! Egypt would be a good partner and, maybe even the Byzantine Empire, temporarily......

[ElPrezCBF]

Yes, but I also tried to allow "grow" policy in low pop cities so they will develop faster. Trade agreements do not seem enough early on because you don't have contact with anyone else besides the Byzantines and Egyptians. And "everyone else" would probably prefer to go on a crusade against you lol! It's understandable if there's not enough to pay for unit upkeep, but not being able to construct cheap buildings in most cities shows the extent of their very poor income.

[Teh_Diplomat]

Jihads will be your friend, as you need the Ghazi's for their Armour-piercing ability, and Saracen Militia as the spears/backbone. Turkish Archers behind them, until you can get better units (Janissary for example) and afford a stack of Horse Archers to take down those rebels that pop-up, and for enemy armies.

All this may be moot depending on where the Mongols appear.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

Yes, but I also tried to allow "grow" policy in low pop cities so they will develop faster. Trade agreements do not seem enough early on because you don't have contact with anyone else besides the Byzantines and Egyptians. And "everyone else" would probably prefer to go on a crusade against you lol! It's understandable if there's not enough to pay for unit upkeep, but not being able to construct cheap buildings in most cities shows the extent of their very poor income.

Did you know that the more chivalry a governor has, the more they help the settlement grow? Do you know how to increase your governors'/generals' chivalry?

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by CHE:

Did you know that the more chivalry a governor has, the more they help the settlement grow? Do you know how to increase your governors'/generals' chivalry?

No I didn't know that and thanks for the tip. I know how to increase their chivalry but let's just say my generals prefer to behave according to the saying that "let them hate me as long as they fear me" lol.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

Originally posted by CHE:

Did you know that the more chivalry a governor has, the more they help the settlement grow? Do you know how to increase your governors'/generals' chivalry?

No I didn't know that and thanks for the tip. I know how to increase their chivalry but let's just say my generals prefer to behave according to the saying that "let them hate me as long as they fear me" lol.

Hmmm... well, increasing Dread doesn't help your settlements grow. There are many ways to increase Chivalry. This site shows the traits and retinue for Turkish generals, and how to get them:

http://totalwar.honga.net/traits.php?v=m2tw&f=turks&c=family&encode=en
http://totalwar.honga.net/retinue.php?v=m2tw&f=turks&c=general&encode=en

[ElPrezCBF]

Thanks for the info CHE. I've always preferred dread because it seems to be more beneficial even though it does not help with your starting settlements. Every time you loot/exterminate a city, you get lots of money and the population cowed into submission because all resistance is exterminated. Not to mention the huge morale shock on any enemy army including the Mongols.

I also don't favor the idea of leaving generals as governors for long unless they are newly adopted because they tend to lose loyalty and I think gain negative traits that way.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

Yes, but I also tried to allow "grow" policy in low pop cities so they will develop faster.

Only use the growth policy if that means you can't have a positive growth .5 -1% with 100+ public order with any of the other policies.

Personally, I never build the farms unless I really have to, mainly for castles that tend to get stuck 1000-1500 population before they can be upgraded.

As for the Turks, I've never played them, I like Egypt better with the unit roster + starting locations.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

I also don't favor the idea of leaving generals as governors for long unless they are newly adopted because they tend to lose loyalty and I think gain negative traits that way.

I always have two sets of generals; those that will be fighting, these come with 2+ command and those that will become governors, these come with less than 2 command.

As for traits, inns and such give negative traits whereas health buildings, churches, town halls, docks and markets can give positive traits.

[CHE]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

Thanks for the info CHE. I've always preferred dread because it seems to be more beneficial even though it does not help with your starting settlements. Every time you loot/exterminate a city, you get lots of money and the population cowed into submission because all resistance is exterminated. Not to mention the huge morale shock on any enemy army including the Mongols.

I also don't favor the idea of leaving generals as governors for long unless they are newly adopted because they tend to lose loyalty and I think gain negative traits that way.

I haven't experienced governors "tend[ing] to lose loyalty", and the negative traits my governors have gained are all understandable and generally avoidable (especially once certain buildings are built), while governors can benefit the player by increasing happiness in a city, as well as increasing growth and income (lots of money long term), increasing sanitation, cheaper unit recruitment, etc.. The traits and retinue links I gave above show how traits and retinue are gained.

Yes, Dread reduces enemy morale, but Chivalry increases the general's own units' morale.

These are different ways to play, and I prefer to play he way that I think improves my faction's reputation (Chivalrous actions), as well as being a way of integrity - doing unto others as I would have others do unto me - since we are all one.

And the way I play, I both enjoy and can win, too.

[Mav]

Hi, I also play Medieval 2 and I was just curious as to how you can be the Turks. For me the only factions it lets me be is England, France, The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Venice, and Scotland. I would really appreciate an answer.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by TopGun Maverick:

Hi, I also play Medieval 2 and I was just curious as to how you can be the Turks. For me the only factions it lets me be is England, France, The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Venice, and Scotland. I would really appreciate an answer.

Kill the Turks.

[CHE]

Originally posted by TopGun Maverick:

Hi, I also play Medieval 2 and I was just curious as to how you can be the Turks. For me the only factions it lets me be is England, France, The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Venice, and Scotland. I would really appreciate an answer.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by TopGun Maverick:

Hi, I also play Medieval 2 and I was just curious as to how you can be the Turks. For me the only factions it lets me be is England, France, The Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Venice, and Scotland. I would really appreciate an answer.

Kill the Turks.

Yep, that's one way. There are other ways, too:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/comment/359/#Comment_359

[ElPrezCBF]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

I always have two sets of generals; those that will be fighting, these come with 2+ command and those that will become governors, these come with less than 2 command.

As for traits, inns and such give negative traits whereas health buildings, churches, town halls, docks and markets can give positive traits.

I actually face the dilemma of making governors good generals because I'm aware they can boost settlement income and other stuff, or making them high ranking generals without these benefits. But I reckoned they do better as generals because buildings already give substantial bonuses. This is different from later TW titles like Attila where you can specialize family members to be good governors or good generals, though Shogun 2 had the most interesting trait customization options imo. This aspect obviously wasn't adequately addressed in earlier titles like M2TW where you do not have control over exactly what traits they get.

Originally posted by CHE:

I haven't experienced governors "tend[ing] to lose loyalty", and the negative traits my governors have gained are all understandable and generally avoidable (especially once certain buildings are built), while governors can benefit the player by increasing happiness in a city, as well as increasing growth and income (lots of money long term), increasing sanitation, cheaper unit recruitment, etc.. The traits and retinue links I gave above show how traits and retinue are gained.

Yes, Dread reduces enemy morale, but Chivalry increases the general's own units' morale.

These are different ways to play, and I prefer to play he way that I think improves my faction's reputation (Chivalrous actions), as well as being a way of integrity - doing unto others as I would have others do unto me - since we are all one.

And the way I play, I both enjoy and can win, too.

My generals lose loyalty frequently whenever I let them sit in a settlement for too long. And once I give them a battle for a change, they almost always "feel appreciated" and increase loyalty.

Dread helps to reduce fighting time with fewer losses in contrast to chivalry that I believe allows men to fight longer. You can compensate for your own army's lower morale with superior tactics and some elite units to cover gaps that open up as a result of troops fleeing. But you do not have any control over enemy morale apart from a high dread general. That's the difference. But I can understand why you think chivalry is useful.

I'm sidetracking too much. Wonder if the Turks are worth playing looking at all the responses so far, seems to me they are not the powerhouse yet of the Turks in Empire TW.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

I actually face the dilemma of making governors good generals because I'm aware they can boost settlement income and other stuff, or making them high ranking generals without these benefits. But I reckoned they do better as generals because buildings already give substantial bonuses. This is different from later TW titles like Attila where you can specialize family members to be good governors or good generals, though Shogun 2 had the most interesting trait customization options imo. This aspect obviously wasn't adequately addressed in earlier titles like M2TW where you do not have control over exactly what traits they get.

To rely only on buildings isn't enough. A settlement can be 100% public order, 2500 income and a population growth of .5%. A general/governor can boost that to 200+public order 3200+ income and up to 2.5% growth.

Unless my empire is large and has multiple fronts, I hardly ever need more than 5 standing armies that are ready to strike at any enemy. I have generals placed in the cities at the frontline and then I have those family members that need to do what royal families do; Rule my empire.

I always have a governor in my capital and cities that I KNOW earn a lot of money and at one point, you'll have so many generals that you can't possibly want to put them in armies. It's easy to get 10-20 generals when you've got 30-40 regions and to give them all armies to fight with is gonna drain your economy quicker then a draining bathtub.

Next to that, you'd want to be top notch on the field, which requires settlements with large populations, which can be quicked by generals, you'd want to support your armies, you'd want more tax income, cheaper buildings and so forth that are all done by generals, not the auto-management, not the financial policy that doesn't even differ from all other policies aside from the growth policy.

Having a general allows you to balance taxes with public order and population growth to make sure you get the best out of that settlement. A settlement being unruly? Population policy gives the public order but increases the growth so much that squalor will become an issue, the other policies give 80% order and a negative growth, put in a General and you can have 110% order and 1% growth on high tax rate, but I'm somewhat repeating myself XD.

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

My generals lose loyalty frequently whenever I let them sit in a settlement for too long. And once I give them a battle for a change, they almost always "feel appreciated" and increase loyalty.

Generals won't abandon you when they're sitting in cities + the loss or gain of 1 loyalty isn't going to turn the tide against you + many of the positive traits from being a governor are worth more and can even increase their loyalty: Whenever you see one of them AI diplomats/princesses bowing to your city, 9/10 times they're attempting a bribe. When a bribe has been rejected, the loyalty increases, and seeing as how the AI tries it up to 5-10 times before actually declaring war, it can boost your generals loyalty with 3 (alongside 2 chivalry.

http://noctalis.com/dis/totalwar/m2tw_governor.shtml

Originally posted by Idlihx10:

Dread helps to reduce fighting time with fewer losses in contrast to chivalry that I believe allows men to fight longer. You can compensate for your own army's lower morale with superior tactics and some elite units to cover gaps that open up as a result of troops fleeing. But you do not have any control over enemy morale apart from a high dread general. That's the difference. But I can understand why you think chivalry is useful.

Perhaps, but I rather want that my men will fight aslong as they need to and perhaps even win the day with their high morale than hoping that the enemy will break before my own army breaks. As for control over enemy morale, sure there is, you just cut of the serpent's head.

Dread has it's perks, but so does Chivalry. Personally, I see dread as a waste of time because of all the negative impacts it has on the campaign map whereas I've never had the thought of; Oh dam...my general got chivalric :'(