Just playtested Mongolia on v0.97, went straight to them. A few notes:
Saw some Marsh/Plains in the middle of the Russian steppes, under the other marshes.
Baotou, just WNW of Beijing, flipped to me, but Beijing's overwhelming culture had it keep revolting. It will eventually flip back.
And the game itself? First I declared war on China on the first turn, before I even founded Ulan Ude (I moved to a hill tile to the north to get away from Beijing's culture), and started the process of pillaging China's improvements. I eventually lost all of my Keshiks to China's massive army, only pillaging a few tiles in the north. China then advanced on my near-defenseless cities. :(

Ok, try again. Reloaded from just before my spawn (so same world, same China). Rather than attack right away, I sent all but one of my Keshiks west, with advance scouts going to Persia and Russia. Persia was gone, with a powerful Arabia filling in the gap, while Russia was still a fledgling civ, slowly expanding eastwards. I managed to raze two small Russian cities and pillage a lot of improvements, only losing 2 of my 5 Keshiks, and only because I was reckless in trying to raze a third city. I had scared the furious Russians into peace, taking what little gold they had left, and had slowed down their expansion to where I was catching up (though they quickly rebuilt their cities and infrastructure). The whole region felt very balanced; the Russian UP was a major hindrance to attacking their core cities, yet still allowed me to quickly dash in and mop up a small city or a few improvements. I was very pleased with how that war went.

But the simple fact remains that Mongolia in the game is FAR underpowered. The Mongolian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire) (see a nice animated image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_Empire_map.gif)) didn't arise out of chance, or because of a number of factors. It is near inevitable that they would dominate such a large region in a short time! The Mongolian Keshiks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Mongol_weaponry_ and_new_Technology) used powerful composite bows (NOT lances as in Civ4) while galloping on horseback, something the horse archers in Civ are not capable of. They kept far away from their enemy, used mobility and brilliant tactics to their advantage, and lost very few men in campaigns. The only reason they didn't go on to conquer Europe was because they turned back voluntarily, due to the death of their leader, Ogedei. Siege engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Mongol_siege_war fare_and_logistics) were disassembled, carried on horseback to their position, and reassembled to bombard cities.

The point is, China's UP makes a Mongolian Empire simply impossible when it should be inevitable. They can pump out spearmen--and with their fully developed economy, many catapults and horse archers--that have an inaccurate advantage over the Keshiks. How can spears reach them when the Mongols shower hundreds of arrows from several hundred yards away? Even if the spears close, the Keshiks can move and fire! All melee units have this disadvantage. Spearmen especially should not have +100% against Keshiks because their tactics are for melee horsemen. Even normal horse archers would have to close with an enemy to finish them off, thus why spears were effective. Keshiks usually never saw their opponents; they wanted to stay away from the battle, as they had no replacements.

Mongols pillaged empires AND large cities, especially large cities. Their siege equipment was fast and light, they carried it with them on horseback, they didn't wheel it everywhere.

Now to the point, strongly suggested changes to make Mongolia more powerful:
Keshiks need +100% vs. Melee units to represent their advanced tactics and weaponry against foot soldiers
Graphics, Keshiks fought with a composite bow and probably NEVER used a lance
(For later) Second Mongolian Unique Unit: Siege Engine, same stats as catapults, movement of 2, higher cost
Reduce build cost of Keshiks
Increase maintenance costs so that constant war and pillage is preferable, but conquered cities are still expensive
Tweak AI to want to occupy China, raze everywhere else (Russia, Persia, etc.)
I understand that these will seem like radical changes to Mongolia, making it near unstoppable. If Mongolia expands quickly and destroys large parts of China, Russia and Persia, its large army will be its own doom, as the maintenance costs of both its units and captured Chinese cities will soon exhaust the money made from pillaging, and Chinese culture will eventually reclaim its own territory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Defeat_of_the_Mo ngols) Russia bounces right back, and a weakened Persia will stimulate more wars around Asia Minor. So as Mongolia expands and dominates for a short time, as should happen in almost every game, so too will they fall under their own weight. China will rebuild its armies (which are FAR too large now, several stacks of dozens) and be able to repel the Mongols.

That's my rant. I REALLY hope Keshiks at least get the +100% vs. Melee units, as it is ridiculous to imagine axemen defeating expert mounted horse archers. :crazyeye:

SilverKnight

you also would need to do something about china being so powerful, because 100% bonuses and cheaper keshiks only do so much when china can pump out unit after unit after unit

Just playtested Mongolia on v0.97, went straight to them. A few notes:
Saw some Marsh/Plains in the middle of the Russian steppes, under the other marshes.
Baotou, just WNW of Beijing, flipped to me, but Beijing's overwhelming culture had it keep revolting. It will eventually flip back.
And the game itself? First I declared war on China on the first turn, before I even founded Ulan Ude (I moved to a hill tile to the north to get away from Beijing's culture), and started the process of pillaging China's improvements. I eventually lost all of my Keshiks to China's massive army, only pillaging a few tiles in the north. China then advanced on my near-defenseless cities. :(

Ok, try again. Reloaded from just before my spawn (so same world, same China). Rather than attack right away, I sent all but one of my Keshiks west, with advance scouts going to Persia and Russia. Persia was gone, with a powerful Arabia filling in the gap, while Russia was still a fledgling civ, slowly expanding eastwards. I managed to raze two small Russian cities and pillage a lot of improvements, only losing 2 of my 5 Keshiks, and only because I was reckless in trying to raze a third city. I had scared the furious Russians into peace, taking what little gold they had left, and had slowed down their expansion to where I was catching up (though they quickly rebuilt their cities and infrastructure). The whole region felt very balanced; the Russian UP was a major hindrance to attacking their core cities, yet still allowed me to quickly dash in and mop up a small city or a few improvements. I was very pleased with how that war went.

But the simple fact remains that Mongolia in the game is FAR underpowered. The Mongolian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire) (see a nice animated image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_Empire_map.gif)) didn't arise out of chance, or because of a number of factors. It is near inevitable that they would dominate such a large region in a short time! The Mongolian Keshiks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Mongol_weaponry_ and_new_Technology) used powerful composite bows (NOT lances as in Civ4) while galloping on horseback, something the horse archers in Civ are not capable of. They kept far away from their enemy, used mobility and brilliant tactics to their advantage, and lost very few men in campaigns. The only reason they didn't go on to conquer Europe was because they turned back voluntarily, due to the death of their leader, Ogedei. Siege engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Mongol_siege_war fare_and_logistics) were disassembled, carried on horseback to their position, and reassembled to bombard cities.

The point is, China's UP makes a Mongolian Empire simply impossible when it should be inevitable. They can pump out spearmen--and with their fully developed economy, many catapults and horse archers--that have an inaccurate advantage over the Keshiks. How can spears reach them when the Mongols shower hundreds of arrows from several hundred yards away? Even if the spears close, the Keshiks can move and fire! All melee units have this disadvantage. Spearmen especially should not have +100% against Keshiks because their tactics are for melee horsemen. Even normal horse archers would have to close with an enemy to finish them off, thus why spears were effective. Keshiks usually never saw their opponents; they wanted to stay away from the battle, as they had no replacements.

Mongols pillaged empires AND large cities, especially large cities. Their siege equipment was fast and light, they carried it with them on horseback, they didn't wheel it everywhere.

Now to the point, strongly suggested changes to make Mongolia more powerful:
Keshiks need +100% vs. Melee units to represent their advanced tactics and weaponry against foot soldiers
Graphics, Keshiks fought with a composite bow and probably NEVER used a lance
(For later) Second Mongolian Unique Unit: Siege Engine, same stats as catapults, movement of 2, higher cost
Reduce build cost of Keshiks
Increase maintenance costs so that constant war and pillage is preferable, but conquered cities are still expensive
Tweak AI to want to occupy China, raze everywhere else (Russia, Persia, etc.)
I understand that these will seem like radical changes to Mongolia, making it near unstoppable. If Mongolia expands quickly and destroys large parts of China, Russia and Persia, its large army will be its own doom, as the maintenance costs of both its units and captured Chinese cities will soon exhaust the money made from pillaging, and Chinese culture will eventually reclaim its own territory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_advances_of_Genghis_Khan#Defeat_of_the_Mo ngols) Russia bounces right back, and a weakened Persia will stimulate more wars around Asia Minor. So as Mongolia expands and dominates for a short time, as should happen in almost every game, so too will they fall under their own weight. China will rebuild its armies (which are FAR too large now, several stacks of dozens) and be able to repel the Mongols.

That's my rant. I REALLY hope Keshiks at least get the +100% vs. Melee units, as it is ridiculous to imagine axemen defeating expert mounted horse archers. :crazyeye:

SilverKnight

Seems a bit extreme doesnt it. I dont disagree that they need more of a bump but thats too much. ANd the raze cities thing isnt necessary. The AI needs to remain competetive and razing isnt that way.

I agree that their UP is really weak.

But again, we don't need to make everything determinalistic, so we don't need drastic changes.

We do need to offer the possibility that the Mongols can destroy everything that they want to.

Another interesting thing. "Mongolia" is perhaps the most important area in human history, as it has launched five great migrations:

The Xiognu attacked China and helped to cause the downfall of the Han.

The Huns swept into Europe, creating a massive migration that brought down Western Rome.

The Avars moved into the Balkans, and their attacks on the Byzantines helped to downgrade that empire from superpower to regional power. They also allied with the Slavs, who remain in those regions.

The Turks took over central Asia and dominated the Middle East for nearly a thousand years.

And the Mongols, of course, were the greatest military machine and largest land-based empire ever.


How can Civ come anywhere near to modeling this?

We do need to offer the possibility that the Mongols can destroy everything that they want to.

[...]

How can Civ come anywhere near to modeling this?
Right. All I'm suggesting is that it's made possible, or at least CLOSE to possible. So far, it isn't. It's also a glaring inaccuracy for any kind of melee units to have any effect at all on expert horse archers. They were trained to fire their bows while galloping! :eek:

Has anyone else played as Mongolia and tried to create some semblance of an empire? Anyone had any luck with the Chinese?

SilverKnight

Wouldn't it make sense to make Horse Archers and Keshiks marked as archery units and not mounted units? If it's possible to still give them the mounted promotions, this would make sense on many levels.

Wouldn't it make sense to make Horse Archers and Keshiks marked as archery units and not mounted units? If it's possible to still give them the mounted promotions, this would make sense on many levels.
I think that makes a whole lot of sense. Putting them in as cavalry has always bothered me.

Yay, this is why I have you guys! :D That's a great idea, and probably far simpler, too. While I still say Keshiks should get a drastic bonus against melee units (+100% doesn't seem that unreasonable compared to how powerful the rest of the world is in Civ and IRL), this would be a much better classification. It would also take away some of the sting from spearmen and pikemen that they never actually had.

Of course, it would look silly for a lance-bearing :rolleyes: Keshik to be classified as an archer. Does anyone know of more accurate animations for the Keshik? And while we're at it, what about a better Persian UU? We all know by now that the real Immortals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Immortals) were spearmen; any reason why they're not in Civ?

Gotta go to a birthday party, w00t. [party]

SilverKnight

I wonder if the horse archer animation will work with the Keshik? If not something could be whipped up by skinning one something or using this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173362.

For immortals take a look here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3816862&postcount=14.

The point is, China's UP makes a Mongolian Empire simply impossible when it should be inevitable.

I agree with the former, but I disagree with the latter. I know we're going for realism here, but the game needs to be fair. An unfair fight is seldom fun (at least, for me it is).

Well, I just played part way through a Mongol game on Viceroy difficulty and in about 15-20 turns after I started I had conquered all of China and Japanese cities on the mainland. In the late 1500's I completely conquered all of Russia except their Scandinavian cities. I personally think that the Mongols are fine how they are, but I was also on a low difficulty.

I don't think Temujin had access to a lower difficulty level. ;)

Ok, compromise. How about this? Keshiks become archery units and get a +50% bonus vs. melee units? I think this is fair, considering that spearmen would have no chance IRL against an actual Mongolian Keshik.

I'm just very disappointed that it's not even possible to create a Mongolian empire. And simply declaring the unoccupied space between Mongolia and Persia or Mongolia and Russia "part of the empire" is kinda lame... :(

SilverKnight

i gave them +50% bonus vs. melee units in next version.

Yes! :thanx: I'll try this and report on it ASAP. :worship:

SilverKnight

first question: where can i read more about these UP's? I havent checked this forum in a while and i am anxious to know!
I think that what mongolia's power should be is something that enables Keshiks to go onto a forest tile and create a seige weapon out of that. For example, in FfH2 you can create a "sand lion" or something only if you are on a desert square, so how about a similar thing for forests with keshiks... that way they dont have to transport their seige weapons, they just arrive and build them

In a slightly older version i played as mongolia on emperor i think and tried to lure China's army out of its borders so i could pick it off, but unfortunately, any success i had was irrelevant because i would have no chance at taking on the chinese cities. my suggestion here is to give the Keshiks a promotion: Fear that increases (Fear I, Fear II, Fear III, etc) with each level for free. so a level 5 keshik will have "Fear V". and what this should do is create a chance that enemy cities will give up and go over to your side because they are afraid. So lets say a level 2 Keshik (with Fear II) attacks a city, make it like a 10% chance (prolly less...needs to be tested) that the city gives up without a fight and the keshik takes no damage. you could even make this a stacking effect so 5 level 2 keshiks would have a 50% chance of taking the city without a fight! If you really wanna do something cool, i would make it so that all mounted/mobile units, from horsemen to horse archers to tanks should gain exp from pillaging improvements. Even if it is a small amount of XP (say 1 or 2) it would make that tactic useful instead of stupidly exposing troops to counterattack (as it is) My rationale for all of this is that the fear of the approaching hoard was often enough to scare enemies into surrendering. It wasnt so much that the mongol army was invincible, but that its strict professionalism, superior tactics, and masterful use of psychological warfare (more than anything else) allowed a small and somewhat weak mongol force to make it seem like the gates of hell had opened up and resistance was futile.

any thoughts on all this?

good ideas, but for now the current power seems fine.
You'll find more info in the readme

China's power is a tad absurdly strong. They were overwhelming my mg/infantry/arty stacks with massed Chu Ko Nu fire. I figured I would create a Dien Bien Phu and wait for them to run out of troops on it... didn't happen.

Unfortunately for China, the Chu Ko Nu cannot deal with concentrated air power and fast armored columns. I'll try a Mongolian game once I finish nuking the rest of the world back to the Stone Age. All for Mother Russia!

good ideas, but for now the current power seems fine.
You'll find more info in the readme
It was said, that for every city that was sacked, two other cities would surrender. The Mongols (Genghis in particular) was more interested in submission rather than war. Their power resulted in a large empire, efficient pillaging didn't.

Seeing what Persia has (and the fact that that code exists), the Mongols power should be like Persia's except the effect only occurs for cities that are razed. So, if the city is razed, then other nearby cities will have a chance to flip. That by far would be quite more appropriate for the Mongols and it would allow for a fast, wide scale large territorial militaristic expansion which would result in an empire of cities spread sporadically across a great distance while also leaving a wake of destruction. This, by far, more appropriately represents Mongol power much more than the units simply being efficient vacuum cleaners (ultra quick pillagers).

When this is updated for Warlords, I would suggest that this ability be adjusted to include vassals, whereby razing cities would also encourage quicker capitulation. With the Mongols, think 'quick submission or total destruction', not so much as 'efficient pillagers'. Their power wasn't in their ability to pillage, it was in their abilty to use the threat of total destruction as a means of getting a submission - a threat they proved time and time again. That process simply resulted in a large empire that was built quickly. It simply isn't right for them to have an 'efficient pillaging' power, especially when you compare it with Persia's, America's, the English and the Spanish's power and with why they have it.

Here is a historically accurate 'unique power' for the Mongols as a gameplay algorithm:

*If city A has a Mongol military buildup within its fat cross, then give it a very small chance of surrendering (ie, 0.5% or less or something realistic/balanced).
*For every nearby city that has been razed, increase the odds of this city surrendering (ie, by 2%).
*For every nearby city that has surrendered, decrease the odds of this city surrendering (ie, by 2%).
*The city will either surrender or not surrender ONLY when a military buildup occurs in its fat cross. If the city has triggered to flip, don't allow it to flip UNTIL the military buildup occurs. Have it flip (or not) the moment the military buildup occurs. That would represent the process accurately.

That way you should get a strong division between cities that will and will not surrender. The more cities that are razed, the more likely more may surrender. The more that DO surrender, the less likely other cities will surrender too, creating a counter balance.

Note that nearby cities are cities within the empire, not within a 2x2 radius or what not. It could be something like a 2% chance to surrender per turn for each razing so that 5 razed cities would give neighbouring cities a 10% chance of surrendering (similar odds to a cultural flip). WHEN one city surrenders (flips), the neighbouring cities get a 2% decrease in their chance to flip and so the more that flip, the less likely others will flip unless more razings occur. Then a historically accurate decision making process can occur that will encourage the player (or AI) to raze cities inorder to incite fear for those who do not surrender, which is historically correct. Heck, it was what he was known for: They would raze cities who didn't surrender, making an example of them so that others would surrender without contest.

This mod looks like it is trying to aim for historical accuracy. Genghis having this power would be very appropriate, and for the first time, would give him a true and realistic portrayal of the Mongols empire expansion ability (as opposed to the Expansive trait or the Imperialisitc trait). This power would portray his expansion methods properly. The Spanish have their ability to travel across the seas quickly, thus allowing them to resettle quicker than others which is historically accurate. America has the American Dream which attracts people from poorer places, which is historically accurate. The Chinese have the ability to train a massive army based on their massive population which is historically accurate. The English are able to have a dominant navy, which is historically accurate. Cyrus's conquest ability allows him to convert other cities due to his charisma and good treatment of others. Genghis should have the ability to get a city to submit without war by using the threat of total destruction because it is historically accurate. Giving him a pillaging ability doesn't do anything for empire building at all and I cannot see any logic at all in even giving the Mongols such an ability - especially considering the other empires unique power choices. Pillaging isn't what they were good at, it's what they did. What they were good at was war and they used that and the threat of total destruction to have cities submit. Looking at all of the powers, the Mongols power is REALLY looking out of place. They should have an empire expansion power.

Sorry for going on about this. I rarely find a situation where there is an opportunity for the Mongols to actually be accurately represented in the Civ world as Firaxis (and every other modder for that matter) seems to never get it right (or probably doesn't even care, which is probably the case). Just trust me, it is a major factor as to why the Mongols got to the size they did: Their ability in war allowed them to make promises of destruction if they didn't submit. "For every city that was razed, 2 other cities would surrender." That is why they got so big so fast. If there was only one power that could be given to the Mongols that would have them reflect the Mongol Empires success, that would be the one. There are no doubt others, but that one would have to be the one that ultimately allowed for fast expansion and thus the huge empire possible. It also reflects the ruthless reputation they acquired.

I like your idea, but it is too complex.

I would program it this way:
for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.
This is a simpler way and more different from Persian.

I will post a poll soon.
But in any case, even if it wins others' approval, it won't be in next version.

Is the military buildup checking the problem? If not, here is a much, much, much simpler way of achieving the same thing and the effect will be distinctly different from the Persian's power:

*each city with a Mongol military buildup has a chance to flip (surrender). The more cities that have been razed, the greater the chance. The more cities that have surrendered, the less the chance. Simple. :) All it would need is for the Mongols to keep a simple tally that keeps track of the net cities razed versus cities surrendered and use that to modify the city that has the military buildup's chance of flipping.

The gameplay focus here is no longer on razing which affects nearby cities, but instead it is on the military buildup flipping the city before conquest. Razing cities will give the city that has a military buildup more 'encouragement' in surrendering. This is functionally different to Persia, it factors in razed cities but it is based on military buildup near the city as opposed to nearby cities flipping. This would be a much, much simpler version of the one from my previous post (all it needs is to keep a running tally and to make the cities capable of detecting a military buildup). It will also operate differently from Persia's power. The idea you suggested (and the other idea I suggest below) will actually operate and feel more like Perisia's than this one because those ideas are based on distance from cities whereby this would be based on military buildup (and razing only influencing the odds of it flipping). It would ultimately feel and play out differently.

Another idea for the Mongols (that isn't as appropriate):

*nearby cities go into revolt when a city is razed. Personally, I think the implementation of this will look and feel similar to the Persian implementation, even though it gives two different results.

I personally think the Mongols should have a power that keeps them close to the aggressive militaristic expansionists/imperialists ideal. Genghis in particular wanted submission rather than war and gave orders of submission when approaching each city whereby they either surrendered or didn't. Those that didn't were punished with a mass slaughtering which in turn affected the next city's decision to surrender.

edit: The idea in more detail:

*Have a running tally that adds 1 to it when the Mongols raze a city, and subtracts 1 from it when a city surrenders to the Mongols. Tally starts at 0.
*Make it so that cities can detect a military build up. There must be code like that that already exists in the game.
*Implement it so that when a city has a Mongol military buildup, the current tally modifies the base chance of it flipping and a test is done to test whether it surrenders or not right there and then.
*If it surrenders, the city then changes hands and the tally is subtracted by one, making it less likely for the next city to surrender.
*If it doesn't surrender, nothing happens. The Mongol player can then capture and keep the city if they want, but it might actually be preferably in the long run to raze it. Razing it increases the tally by one making it more probable that the next city will surrender. Keeping it does nothing.
*A positive tally will increase the chance of surrender and a negative tally will decrease the chance of surrender for every city that has a Mongol military buildup.
*There would probably also need to be multipliers or something in there to get the gameplay balance right.

I think that is much more simpler than my idea I presented in my previous post. What are your thoughts? Basically this should create a gameplay experience whereby if you raze and destroy everything, cities may, out of fear, start to spontaniously surrender to you the moment you rock up to their city with your army. THAT'S the Mongols :)

Blas, I think you´ve got a contender for complex ideas! ;)

Good idea, Watiggi! :goodjob:

Blas, I think you´ve got a contender for complex ideas! ;)
ohhww, is it still too complicated?

Good idea, Watiggi! :goodjob:
Thanks :)

ohhww, is it still too complicated?

;) Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did. Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.

for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.

Would the AI know that it has to raze cities? Or know which one to raze to get a higher number of units? Perhaps I would do it on capture or raze, with a lower %

;) Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did.
A one line description: "Approached cities can surrender out of fear." :)

A one line description of the process:
For all cities approached by the Mongols, give them a chance to flip based on the number of cities razed and surrendered.

Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.
It would require one value (a signed integer) and everything else could be computed or retrieved at the time it is needed. The value is only updated when a Mongol razes a city or when a city surrenders. Checks for razing will only need to occur when a city is razed. That will not slow anything down. When a city is deemed to be approached by the Mongols, the city will then do the test to determine surrender or not and update that value.

The issue I see is how intensive the check to see if a city is being approached by Mongol units might be. Is this the case? If it is, I have some ideas about reducing computational time (if it's needed).

I guess, if a tally (even one this simple) is totally out of the question, then it could just be a chance the city will surrender when it's approached and nothing more.

Would the AI know that it has to raze cities? Or know which one to raze to get a higher number of units? Perhaps I would do it on capture or raze, with a lower %
I know that this isn't aimed at me, but Genghis has a 75% chance of razing a city, so my idea would (should) work with his AI rather well. In fact, it kinda complements it :D

Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did. Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.I have given it some more thought. This model:

*only uses information retrieved in the present. So it doesn't require any tallies.
*has a very simple approach detection code that takes up no extra overhead and makes sense.
*performs the same function as before: For every city besieged by the Mongols, give them a % chance of surrendering, based on the number of cities razed.

How? Here's a sort of algorithm that would be put into the bombard function.


Unit bombarding code:
{
If unit is Mongol
{
// At this point, we know that this unit is Mongol,
// is either a seige unit or a ship and is bombarding
// the city defenses of a city the Mongols are at war with.

get the total number of cities in the Mongol empire#
get the total number of cities razed by the Mongol empire##
calculate a chance that the city will surrender###

if city is to surrender
{
switch city to the Mongols
}
}
}
And that's it :)

# I don't know how intensive it would be to calculate the number of cities during every Mongol bombard, but I wouldn't be surprised to find this value stored somewhere in the game at run time (correct me if I am wrong).

## How does the Info Statistics Screen know how many cities you've razed? The value should be available somewhere in the game so this shouldn't take up much processing time to retrieve (again, correct me if I am wrong).

### This chance would have to be gamplay tested no doubt. I am toying with a few formulaes and ideas for now, but it will be influenced by city razings.

This idea lets the normal bombarding code figure out whether the units are close to the rival city and whether the Mongols are at war with them all automatically without having to add any extra overhead (:D). If the total number of cities and the total razed cities are indeed values stored, then this too shouldn't take up any overhead and it is simple :) The only real extra code that attaches to the normal run of the game is in the bombarding code for when a unit bombards and it's a test to see whether the bombarding unit is Mongol. As such, it shouldn't take up any important processing time. :)

Basically it would (should) result in a gameplay experience whereby if you have razed cities prior, when you start hammering down the defenses of the next city with seige units, it might surrender. If the city doesn't surrender and you raze it, then the next city should be more inclined to surrender when you beseige it. The chance of surrendering should be heavily influenced by city razings. It should make for total destruction or surrender kind of conquest. Very Mongol :)

The name could be "Horde", "Fear", "Submission" or "Surrender".
The description could be "Beseiged cities can surrender out of fear."
The process is: For every city besieged by the Mongols, give them a % chance of surrendering, based on the number of cities razed.
It's one line, simple and the effect is immediate.

What do you think?

I would program it this way:
for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.
This is a simpler way and more different from Persian.
It would be better off if it were 'every other enemy city in a 2x2 area goes into revolt' instead of units deserting.

I like your idea, but it is too complex.What is your opinion on the 'surrender or extermination' idea as a power. Am I wasting my time with researching the idea? I have found several simple ways in which it could be made to work, but I am interested in whether you are considering it at all (the simplified version that is - that seige units would trigger the check and the total cities vs razed cities would be retrieved in real time without any tallies). I think it would be worth the Mongols having something like that as it represents their methods rather well.

I don't think the current Mongol power is very good. I don't usually bother with pillaging, since all it does is create more work for my workers once I've taken the city.

yes I'm considering it. But before defining the final shape I have to try to program it and see what fits best.

Ok cool. Please keep me posted :) If you need any help or something, let me know.

Do you happen to know how that info screen statistics keeps track of the total number of cities razed? I for the life of me cannot find it in the SDK, nor can I even find the info statistics screen code in Python or anything else. The only thing that seems to happen is that when a city is razed, it reports it (for the logs and I guess the replay too). Maybe it gets the number from going through the log looking for it. If so, that seems to be a rather complicated thing to do. I would have thought that the number of razed cities would be there somewhere as either a stored number or a simple algorithm that calulates it.

Great thoughts on the matter Watiggi.

I just finished reading John Man's "Ghengis Khan" last night - very good read if you like the subject.

The Mongols initial goal was to continuously find enough plunder to keep rewarding their army - to reward loyalty - and to punish double-crossers, of which Ghengis came across many. It wasn't until the particulars of how they dealt with the Xi Xia (Hsi Hsia), becoming a sort of weak vassal, and then taking Chinese cities that they actually thought about ruling and maintaining cities at all. And even then it was as a constant source of tribute in the initial phase. There's the theoretical discussion of how the advisor Yelu Chu Tsai was able to convince the Mongol leaders in China NOT to slaughter all the farmers and destroy the cities and use northern China as pasture with that very argument. But that's an aside.

In general though, they were more likely to punish (not necessarily raze) cities to punish double-crossing or obnoxious leaders/generals, or cities that caused them particular pains in the ass while they fought. They would give the surrender or die order to each city as they came along, and few actually chose to surrender.

You could go in a completely different direction.

I think a special power where when the Mongols take a city, that instead of having resistance for a few turns, instead you just burn those population points right now, and get rid of the resistance entirely. In some of the cities in Khwarezm, they basically lined the people up and slaughtered them over the course of a few days - so much for any resistance on the timescale of Civ IV. Then they could quickly move on to the next attack - which is what happened historically.

I'd still like to see some chance of surrender... maybe looking at it from a completely different mechanic? Maybe Mongol Keshiks have an effect on the culture in the adjacent tiles? So if you have enough of a buildup next to a city, it might have resistance or flip using the existing game mechanic?

But the existing pillaging and moving doesn't capture the Mongol specialty at all.

Nice idea :) Yeah, it wasn't until the cities started refusing to give tribute that the then took things further. I guess after conquering a city, they got a lot more than just demanding tribute, and so the conquests began...

The Mongols got a lot from their conquests though: Genghis would routinely relocate the 'specialist' population back to Mongolia so that they could teach others. They also hauled off a lot of valuables in 'supply trains' from conquered cities.

I like your idea with mowing down population inorder to quelch revolts. One could take that further and make it into something that effectively removes the burdon of having to manage/support cities yet, at the cost of being able to develop the cities - a temporary but effective city management solution that frees the military or city development. Basic city management at the cost of population would do.

I also like the idea of Keshiks (could extend it to all units) having an effect on culture. It would work better than my seige idea, but I dare say it would be difficult to implement. The seige idea was just for a simple trigger that wouldn't take much processing power. I ultimately would prefer that it would just trigger the 'order of submission' when Mongol military build up occurs in general.

Other interesting ideas (this is fun):

*get research from pillaging the ruins.
*free supply costs for units away from own territory.
*cities give tribute instead of costing maintanence (hmmm, bit unbalancing but is actually right. I have a better balanced and more realistic one later though)
*cities cost no maintanence, but revolt more often (requring supression).
*captured cities require no garrison (I don't know, it frees up the military)
*'motherland' unhappiness are killed off when captured; No revolt period.
*no 'we demand military protection' unhappiness occurs.
*population decreases upon city revolt; ends revolt. (pretty much your idea)
*unhappy citizens who refuse to work are killed off.
*conquered cities can pop rush gold (:D:D:D This would work really nicely)
*newly conquered cities create free specialists in Mongol capital.
*population can be reduced in conquered cities which result in specialisits in Mongol capital.
*a generalised: City order is restored at the cost of population. Fixes the city if something is wrong with it like unhappiness, revolt, maintanence too high, etc.

I like the 'conquered cities can pop rush gold' idea! If no tribute is given, kill off some population and the tribute resumes. Gameplay wise, it takes away the burdon from managing cities - specifically having to build them up so that they pay for their maintanence costs - while not making it too unbalancing. It allows the cities to be able to pay for themselves (and maybe a bit more) but it also prevents the cities from developing into something competitive. I like it! That would allow for a big empire that pays for it's maintanence but without it becoming over developed and overpowerful.

Damn this is fun coming up with different ideas.

I definitely like your line of thinking on this -


*conquered cities can pop rush gold ( This would work really nicely)
*newly conquered cities create free specialists in Mongol capital.
*population can be reduced in conquered cities which result in specialisits in Mongol capital.


These are all good ideas too. Like you said, they took $ and specialists (artisans, engineers, and people to teach them siege warfare) from the cities they conquered, while slaughtering many of those who opposed them.

I'm not sure if its possible in the game dynamics, but to tweak the existing game mechanics to make it:

* Conquered cities have a population point relocated to the Mongol capital, who becomes a specialist
* Mongols get a multiplier to increase the gold yielded from conquering a city
* When Mongols conquer a city, the population is reduced a point or two further, and resistance is either drastically reduced (which happens when the population is smaller anyway), or eliminated.

I like the 'pop rushing gold' idea as it represents so many different aspects all at once: Basically it would symbolise them wanting tribute and compliance from the conquered cities and when they don't get it, they do a mass punishment and take it for themselves, resulting in gold and a reduced population. It's also a means of allowing the city to pay for itself which in turn doesn't bring down the empire as a whole and allows for fast expansion but also prevents cities from being able to develop. It frees up the need to manage cities whilest not becoming too much of a bonus that can be exploited to create a massive economy.

*conquered cities can pop rush gold.
*conquered cities loose a population point; Mongol capital gains a free specialist.
*resistance or unhappiness can be 'removed' by killing the population point.

With this, you could then maintain the city by:

a) pop rushing gold to pay for the city maintanence and.

b) pop the unhappy population when they either refuse to work (due to war wariness for instance) or to reduce the revolt time for newly conquered cities.

Which would allow for:

a) fast conquest expansion because the cities - all though they wont develop because they'll keep loosing population points - they will be able to pay for themselves (and maybe a bit more).

b) a simple aggressive 'city management style' of killing people when the city becomes a burden.

c) a very, very large empire (that expanded quickly) while not allowing it to become over powered in terms of generating a lot of commerce and research because the population will be killed regularly to pay tribute, otherwise the economy would crash.

Essentially it would allow you to expand fast, stay afloat and end up with a lot of cities that aren't developed (and thus a lot of territory), but whose cities also don't need to be developed inorder to maintain such an empire. I guess from a gameplay point of view, playing as the Mongols, the game should be very militaristically focused with little attention paid to city management. Any needed city management (like paying for maintanence or dealing with unhappiness) should be solved by killing the population, hence pop rushing for gold and poping unhappy people who refuse to work or cities that resist.