The Mongolian Empire

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 (see a nice animated image) 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 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 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. 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.

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

SilverKnight said:

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 (see a nice animated image) 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 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 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. 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.

SilverKnight

Click to expand...

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?

Arkaeyn said:

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?

Click to expand...

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!

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.

Blasphemous said:

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.

Click to expand...

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! 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 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 were spearmen; any reason why they're not in Civ?

Gotta go to a birthday party, w00t.

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.

SilverKnight said:

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

Click to expand...

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! I'll try this and report on it ASAP.

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!

Rhye said:

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

Click to expand...

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.