Alternative campaign-the Mongols

kaskavel

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Messages
98
Intro (same for all scenarios): This is one of a series of campaigns I have created in order to try to create more interesting games. They suggest a number of self restrictions the player has to follow, depending the civilization he is playing. The purpose of them is to

  • Create fun, different, challenging and interesting games.
  • Offer the game a flavor consistent with each civilization characteristics and history
  • Support the civ’s traits and encourage game-play consistent with them.
  • Allow players to lower the difficulty level of the game.
Each one of them has been tested in practice and I present the format that I found most interesting, perhaps making 1-2 changes after running the game. I would be glad if you added extra ideas that may improve the experience. In all games I am also using the extra self restrictions I always apply to myself but that is not directly relevant to the campaigns. I guess every player has some house rules he follows, he can just combine them with the ideas presented here. One of them I have to mention though, I do not use artillery. It may influence my perception of some of the scenarios presented. In general, I am trying for years to create situations in strategy games that allow me to reduce the game level as much as possible, ideally to the neutral level where neither the player nor the AI has an advantage, while retaining the game’s challenge. I have not succeeded in that, only a couple of those scenarios may have troubled me somewhat in regent level-and that is with many extra house rules applied, but the point is that anyone can combine his game level, his own self-restrictions and the difficulty level in order to create a wildly different than usual, but still challenging game. I am always trying to have as much of the added difficulty possible applied in the late medieval-early industrial ages, the point where the player usually gets away with an overwhelming advantage. Basic victory conditions are always active, unless noted otherwise.

I hope you find the campaigns interesting and have something to say about them.



The Mongols-A boy first learns to ride, then to walk

Rules: Only the fastest available land units are allowed. Can only build warriors (only until horses are secured and they are not to be ever upgraded), chariots, horsemen, UU knights, cavalry and modern armor.

Map: May restart if no realistic native horse resource exists. Old earth is even more favorable to the player than in a normal Mongol campaign. Archipelago is less fun but playable. In fact, while all settings are OK, it is 3 billion, arid, cold, Pangaea, restless that gives the game the best Mongol flavor, with endless wild terrain for the riders to cross and conquer.

Notes: The idea is to recreate Mongol’s people determination to horse riding. The player is expected to run a fun game with lots of horse units for both offense and defense. Defending cities and borders becomes difficult and makes the player nervous, encouraging an aggressive behavior that is consistent with the tribe’s mil and exp traits and a massive horse production that is consistent with the tribe’s historical hordes. In times of war, enemies should not be allowed to easily attack cities with their knights/cavalry/tanks forcing the player to go on the offensive in enemy territory. Makes the defensive bonus of cities built on hills matter more than usual. Attacking is executed with big horse stacks that represent the Mongol historical hordes. There is no infantry around where the injured may rest. Only terrain bonus can protect an injured horseman, it is every man for himself. The player may find the period during expansion more difficult with only warriors to defend himself until all cities are connected and horses have been secured. This also sounds consistent for a nomad civilization-no spearmen are coming from the capital to help . The next difficult stage comes with tanks. If the player balances difficulty level and other self-restrictions perfectly, then the ideal game is one where he obtains a small but not overwhelming advantage during the cavalry wars, and then enters a difficult period of fighting tanks/mech infantries with cavalry until he manages to produce modern armors. The way I play the game (no artillery allowed), bombers become insanely important at that stage. Artillery does not mix well with cavalry for invading purposes anyway and you do not want the enemy inside your borders, close to your cities where you usually bombard them to pieces. No, not this time, unless you have a very secure expanded cultural borderline. This stage represents Mongol’s dedication to tradition while the rest of the world moves forward. And it is very fun, how often do you use cavalry supported by bombers to face the tank armors of the modern, more civilized world?

Difficulty: Small to moderate. Players running despo horsemen-based quick conquests will find nothing challenging here. Builders on the other hand will get much nervous, the settings scream to the player that he has to attack first.

Variants: Similar campaigns can be run by other horse-based civilizations like the Ottomans, the Iroquois etc.
 
Artillery does not mix well with cavalry for invading purposes anyway
Usually it does work quite well. The firing range of artillery and the movement of cavalry do mix quite well. If the game is not won before replaceable parts, then this is the time for massive warfare. Cavalry will suffer fewer losses against redlined infantry than against 4/4 musketmen.
 
For invading purposes? Not sure why you say so. You cannot escort it against enemy cities. Yes, you can kill enemy infantry that cross your borders, but in this scenario , if opponent also has cavarly or tanks, you really do not want the war to take place on your side of the border.
 
In general, I am trying for years to create situations in strategy games that allow me to reduce the game level as much as possible, ideally to the neutral level where neither the player nor the AI has an advantage, while retaining the game’s challenge.

The human player moves first. With learning technology, attacking, and movement of units, wonder building, and more that implies an advantage to the human player.

Terrain varies so much in this game and influences how quickly a civ can develop and how powerful they can become.

Because of those two factors, I don't think even matches are possible in this game. Though, some changes can bring things closer to an even playing field. For example, extra starting units or decreased build times can make things more even.

Honestly, I think Monarch ends up closer to an even starting position than Regent.


Artillery does not mix well with cavalry for invading purposes anyway and you do not want the enemy inside your borders, close to your cities where you usually bombard them to pieces.

As justanick suggest, that simply is not true. Though one doesn't necessarily need as many defenders as Moonsinger says, her classic article on the use of a combined arms attack shows that cavalry work well. A few cavalry armies can also capture cities quickly.

And it is very fun, how often do you use cavalry supported by bombers to face the tank armors of the modern, more civilized world?

I don't, because by the time I have artillery proper, the AIs can get shredded on any level often enough.

Builders on the other hand will get much nervous, the settings scream to the player that he has to attack first.

Attacking first, if we mean declaring war, is not as good for the happiness of one's citizens as having the AIs declare war. It's better to have the AI declares war on your people (and that can happen even on Chieftain) than to declare on the AI's civ. Why? Because either your citizens get war happiness, or the AI's citizens get war happiness.

For invading purposes? Not sure why you say so.

According to the civ III combat calculator a 6 attack 4 hitpoint cavalry vs. a fortified 1/4 infantry in a metropolis wins 59.7% of the time. In contrast, a 6 attack 4 hitpoint cavalry vs. a fortified 4/4 musketman in a city wins 38.7% of the time. A combined settler + worker + artillery proper + cavalry combined arms force is significantly more powerful than a stack of cavalry fighting musketmen. Also, 4 hitpoint cavlary vs. 4/4 pikemen in a city win 54.3% of the time! So, the combat engineer camps (they don't have to get abandonded) with bombardment followed by cavalry charges even ends up more favorable to the human player than cavalry vs. pikemen.

As the saying goes, God fights on the side with the best artillery.
 
As for variants, one restriction I've thought of, but haven't tested would just to disallow the human player from using the luxury slider. That could encourage the use of governments with military police more often as well as contendednedd buildings. It could also easily hamper the human player's expansion.
 
Honestly, I think Monarch ends up closer to an even starting position than Regent.
Yes, I agree. Still trying to self restrict in a way that may work, but it generally doesn't.
As justanick suggest, that simply is not true. Though one doesn't necessarily need as many defenders as Moonsinger says, her classic article on the use of a combined arms attack shows that cavalry work well. A few cavalry armies can also capture cities quickly.
In my effort to somehow balance my games, I do not use artillery and settler pushes, since they are two of the most unbalancing tactics in favor of the player. It goes without saying that I do not use their combination either! In fact I am not using armies either, lol. Anything the AI does not use correctly, I do not use it either with the huge exception of workers. (I tried to automanage them once at some point, I got sicked in a couple of minutes and restarted, lol).Of course, that is just me, not trying to persuade anyone. There is no debate here, using some stuff in sid or not using them in emperor are both reasonable ways to play if it makes one's game exciting and enjoyable.
In any case, that is not the purpose of my campaign. All I am saying is that if you do all that, then in this senario, you will find more difficult to execute the push anyway if it involves building in enemy territory, since your settler cannot advance supported by infantry. Advancing with heavy cavalry support risks both getting heavily attacked and getting attacked in your poorly defended cities in the back.
Attacking first, if we mean declaring war, is not as good for the happiness of one's citizens as having the AIs declare war. It's better to have the AI declares war on your people (and that can happen even on Chieftain) than to declare on the AI's civ. Why? Because either your citizens get war happiness, or the AI's citizens get war happiness.
Well,by attacking I mean provoking the war regardless of how one does that. By the way, since you mentioned it, I have the impression war happiness works similar in all governments types. Do you know if that is true?
 
As for variants, one restriction I've thought of, but haven't tested would just to disallow the human player from using the luxury slider. That could encourage the use of governments with military police more often as well as contendednedd buildings. It could also easily hamper the human player's expansion.
I have something for you in my next campaign. It is quite the opposite, though, you have to use ONLY the luxury slider. In general I think using the slider is more technical and strategic than using buildings, trade and entertainers (bliah). I doubt anyone who has restricted himself to low levels knows how to even use it correctly.
 
Advancing with heavy cavalry support risks both getting heavily attacked and getting attacked in your poorly defended cities in the back.

It would be slower, but even without settlers, a push of a stack with infantry covering artillery proper and some cavalry would still work out as effective. Cavalry's extra range still would work out advantageous, since those that don't win a battle can still make it back to some tile where infantry stand. Even if you don't have rubber, with enough rifleman a combined cavalry + infantry + artillery stack would still work out as effective.

You might find the C3X mod (also called Flintlock mod... note it's NOT a patch, it's a mod... it maybe can get edited to only function as a patch though) interesting since it enables the AI to use artillery built from their cities offensively, and also for AIs to build armies.

By the way, since you mentioned it, I have the impression war happiness works similar in all governments types. Do you know if that is true?

Yes. One of the links I posted above consists of a report where I tested and found that get war happiness applies to every single government.

It is quite the opposite, though, you have to use ONLY the luxury slider.

Anything the AI does not use correctly, I do not use it either with the huge exception of workers.

Are you sure? Do you use the luxury slider? The AI rarely uses it, and perhaps in many games not a single AI used it at all. If you're using the luxury slider, I don't think you're following that principle.

I don't know what you mean by only using the luxury slider though. Infrastructure or units need supported. So, either some taxes come as needed to support those or to get gold to get loans from AIs. Oh, I guess specialists could support units. Alright, I guess with specialists it could work, but like I imagine lots of captured small cities eventually. It sounds like a lot of micromanagement, and not of the science specialist farm variety which is sometimes needed and sometimes not needed to get managed.
 
Are you sure? Do you use the luxury slider? The AI rarely uses it, and perhaps in many games not a single AI used it at all. If you're using the luxury slider, I don't think you're following that principle.
Of course I do, because it is quite technical. It is interesting to discuss what self restrictions one puts to himself and what he doesn't, but it is off-topic here.
I don't know what you mean by only using the luxury slider though.
I meant the Russian campaign. No religious buildings and difficulty in trading, so the slider is the basic tool to keep people happy.
 
I really like these ideas and will give one a go tomorrow and post updates in whatever thread I pick first. Bring variety to the experience with restrictions tied to history. I use customised rules but will play at a lower difficulty setting and try these. I am a builder so I will stink at this one (although my custom Mongols get the Keshik at Monarchy, they still suck in thd AIs hands).

I too limit myself in ways I find more challenging and/or enjoyable. I won't use more than 3x artillery on any front. I won't build loads of cities tightly packed together and I'll limit human use of military alliances.

I have posted a lot about game difficulty. If you want to make the last two eras as challenging as the first two I would suggest two simple steps:

1) remove all starting unit bonuses from the AI - the will not jump out to a lead
2) decrease the cost factor for the AI to the cost factor applied to two difficulties higher - the AI will develop its cities and units far more quickly in the last two eras
 
Giving this one a go on a huge Earth map, 31 Civs and my custom rules. Main implications of custom settings for this challenge are:

i) far smaller empires (domination win condition is 20% of land and population)
ii) massively extended early ancient era (lots of chariot rush potential)
iii) a Civ needs only one out of horses or iron to be competitive until the Industrial era (e.g. gets ancient cavalry with Republic)
iv) military alliances replaced with MPPs, but aggression at max
v) early game has autogenerated settlers, Civs can't build them.
vi) Mongols get Keshik at end of Ancient Era (which is Monarchy on my settings)
vii) settings reward short, sharp military campaigns and gain of partial territory rather than full annihilation in one go.
viii) Russia starts in Siberia and China near Gobi desert (for spacing issues of Korea, Japan and Netherlands (who start in Dutch East Indies).

I am an Emperor player but almost never win at that setting with my custom difficulties. Combined with being a bit rubbish at warfare, I've wimped out and am attempting this on Monarchy. Off to a good start as my scout gets the wheel from a goody hut and horses are in immediate sight.

1734266238318.png
 
Last edited:
I pop a settler and look to hook 2x horses, but Russia makes immediate war declaration and I'm only allowed to produce warriors. This could be a mighty short game!

1734267045332.png


EDIT: Slaving to build a warrior at Kazan saves me, as does my early barracks at Karakorum. Manage to make peace and horses coming online at Ta-Tu to the the SW. I already have horseback riding. I will be ready for the next war!
 
Last edited:
Glad you enjoy it! How do you extend the ancient era?
Lack of tech trading for the first two columns of tech is the main one that allows this. Plus making Republic require all other Ancient Era techs (i.e. completely kill the Republic slingshot).

EDIT: Also slower settler production and now doubled shield costs for buildings with culture (not mentioned yet in thread below as still testing that last one).

 
Last edited:
The capital has a nice potential flood plain-mountain combo but needs a lot of work. The rest of the land does not look particular good though. But...it is old earth for Mongols I guess.
I pop a settler and look to hook 2x horses, but Russia makes immediate war declaration and I'm only allowed to produce warriors. This could be a mighty short game!
The player may find the period during expansion more difficult with only warriors to defend himself until all cities are connected and horses have been secured. This also sounds consistent for a nomad civilization-no spearmen are coming from the capital to help .
 
1734381734730.png
I belatedly worked out that having mountains on my southern frontier is a disaster as I can't defend them and I don't want them to be occupied by a hostile force. So I started, belatedly, to put aggressive city placements into the Gobi desert, to try and build a flat land frontier. Instant failure as Portugal (starting in Mozambique) brought their horses up into the Gobi and took one city (Mandalgovi) and razed another in one turn. I'm having to resort to a MPP with Carthage to hopefully intercept Henry's hordes (he has been incredible belligerent in this game, along with Russia). All the other good MPP candidates are in existing wars and would create more issues. Thankfully, I've just reached the next era so have my early Keshiks!
 
The combination of huge map and only autoproduced settlers makes for rather unusual borders.
Yes, the Greeks and Sumerians were at peace, so when the auto-populated settler period ended they kept settling and headed to eastern Asia. Whereas, Russia was involved in wars, so didn't make settlers (and I didn't want to over expand, because I get crushed every time I try that on my custom settings). So on the Earth map and 31x Civs this is exaggerated because the middle east and Europe are so congested that Sumeria and Greece must make huge migrations (not unprecedented in human history with Bulgars and Kazakhs). On a randomly generated map with more evenly spread out Civs this isn't such an issue and so the negative side of auto-settlers is reduced compared to this screenshot.

Borders with 3 or more Civs are commonplace with the auto-settler setup, but possibly only because it is combined with much more congested landmasses than is the case in the default settings (i.e. limiting the Civ expansion phase around their hub to around 5 to 9 cities's worth of territory and having all Civs packed in more tightly). My recent change to double the shields of buildings that produce culture also makes for slower AI (and human) borders.

The result of 3 or more Civs sharing boundaries (and slower expanding cultural boundaries) is that flips against the human are much less likely, so you can gamble on very bold city placements. As the human, if you want to do full culture focus, you can also make aggressive city placements and aim for a flip - which you can do much more feasibly in these settings.

The best example is my Erdenet, the last city I'd made at the time of the screenshot. Russia is dominant to the north and east and has cultural expansions AND I'm near their capital. However, my western border is shared with the Ottomans so I assess there is a good chance Erdenet will not flip to the Russians if I can get its cultural output up and running. Russia were slow to gain culture as they were in so many wars. If Russia was full culture focus from turn 1 I don't think I would have risked planting Erdenet. There are a lot more variables flying through my head with these settings, but I appreciate they won't be to everyone's liking.


Campaign Update: So the Portuguese allies, the Ottomans, must have attacked Carthage on Carthagian soil (I'd forgotten Carthage had taken Babylon in an earlier war, so almost shared a border with the Ottomans. The Ottomans were on my land at that time so when my MPP with Carthage kicked in my second city was captured by the Ottomans and razed to the ground. I've just managed to extricate myself from MPPs and my only outstanding war is with the puny French who won't have the stomach for anything protracted. So hopefully things can calm down and I can regroup a bit and then actually plan an offensive campaign rather than firefight unprovoked disasters. I do now have a Keshik army/general (albeit a very nerfed one with my settings).

It is utter chaos when your top defensive unit has a defensive score of 2 in the medieval era. I am very much enjoying the experience. Its a totally different type of game to normal and in a standard game I'd have thrown in the towel at having my 2nd and 3rd cities razed. But because I knocked the difficulty down a level to Monarch (to make the challenge more feasible) I am still very much in the hunt here if I can just start being proactive. I want to go for relative historical accuracy and knock off the Chinese first, before turning my eyes on a massive campaign into the heart of Europe.
 
Last edited:
How do you do that? Sounds great
In the 'Techs' tab of the Editor, you check the "Cannot be traded" box for each tech you want to make untradeable.
 
Top Bottom