Anybody "enjoy" playing Mongols?

[Grohth]

They seem kind of useless, and he's ugly too. Expansionist/Militaristic combonation don't seem like much either.

The UU seems like kind of a joke. Ohh boy, gets to move fast on mountains, woo hoo.

Just wonder if anybody has played them and enjoyed them. Maybe even perhaps ended up putting that UU to good use.

Just installed/started ptw. Was planning on playing all the new civs at least once. Not looking forward to playing "The Mongols" (I'll do it though).

 

[cgannon64]

They are last on my new civs cycle. I'm currently doing a REALLY fun game with the Vikings. Oh, its so great to crush England with Beserks. Makes it feel like real history!

Anyway, on topic. I really think the Mongols just aren't a good civ. I would have liked, say, a horseman with 3 move maybe, or a knight with 2 move, all terrain as roads. But the Mongol UU? Ick.

CG

 

[Grohth]

They are last on my list of "civs to play I haven't played yet", that's for sure.

 

[Yzman]

Yeah, I doubt I will ever play as them too much. The traits more or less suck and with a UU thats not that good either.

 

[KaNick]

You missed the "all terrain as roads" part

Edit: Yzman changed his post making mine useless, go ahead and delete mine too please.

 

[Yzman]

Yeah I noticed that so I changed my post. Heh thats what I get for trying to read a post too fast.

 

[Lord_Vetinari]

Well, nothing can really be done about the traits, can there? Can you think of a single civ that would be more fitting with "expansionist/militaristic" ? I sure can't. If they had been given a more attractive combo, there'd only be a loooong thread about how stupid Firaxis's historians must be.

I do agree that the new UU doesn't look all that attractive thoug. And what's the deal with being able to cross mountains easily, but not hills? How the hell can that be? It doesn't make any sense!

I think it got all wrong whith incorporating the Mongols into the Chinese civ from the beginning. Hell, they even had Genghis Kahn as a great leader in vannilla civ3. I think that the Chinese raider was supposed to be some kind of Mongol raider style thing. But now that we have mongols, it doesn't make any sense to give the Chinese three moved raiders and not the Mongols. IMO they should give the Raider back to the Mongols and give China a new UU (some kind of Crossbowman perhaps?)

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I agree 100% Vetinari. No question in my mind the "Riders" are an attempt at simulating the Mongols, and that China needs a new UU. I like the crossbowman idea. And the Keshik could be much beefier - the mongols did ride them all the way to the gates of Europe and the Middle East. Sure they crossed mountains but you know what, also hills, jungle, the works.

And while I have heard, Grohth, that you mustn't call the leaderheads ugly in a thread, you are right - they made him (and several other leaders) extremely ugly, something I sorta take offense at.

 

[GuangRong]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I agree 100% Vetinari. No question in my mind the "Riders" are an attempt at simulating the Mongols, and that China needs a new UU. I like the crossbowman idea. And the Keshik could be much beefier - the mongols did ride them all the way to the gates of Europe and the Middle East. Sure they crossed mountains but you know what, also hills, jungle, the works.

And while I have heard, Grohth, that you mustn't call the leaderheads ugly in a thread, you are right - they made him (and several other leaders) extremely ugly, something I sorta take offense at.

No, Riders Looks more Like the Han cavery , which often strikes fast and deep into far off Xiong Nu lands.

I think by they should change the Keshik's the movement to "treat all FLAT ,OPEN terrian as road" (i,e grassland, Plains, Desert, Tundra), it makes more sense then the defaut one.

The keshik will match or out menuvere a Rider, as long as they are in the open..

 

[Chieftess]

Same here. The Mongols are last on my "Civ Cycle" too.

 

[warpstorm]

The Mongols weren't my first choice (Vikings!), but after playing them I have to say they do not suck. Expansionistic is perfect for them. This gives them the ability to expand rapidly in the ancient age with a horseman attack strategy. The horsemen can then be upgraded to the keshik in the middle ages. They are decent units. A little weaker on defense, but cheaper. The treat mountain as grassland is a little wierd, but useful (especially on an Earth map where there are major mountain ranges in their neighborhood). Why they didn't include hills too, I don't understand.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by warpstorm
The treat mountain as grassland is a little wierd, but useful (especially on an Earth map where there are major mountain ranges in their neighborhood). Why they didn't include hills too, I don't understand.

I agree, which is why I would have liked the Keshik more if it was all terrain as grassland, or maybe a horseman/knight replacement with all terrain as roads. Oh well.

CG

EDIT: I have a question. If a Keshik is attacked on mountains, does it get the 100% defense bonus?

 

[warpstorm]

In the editor help it just says it ignores unit movement cost, so I'll 'assume' that they get the bonus still.

 

[Grohth]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash

And while I have heard, Grohth, that you mustn't call the leaderheads ugly in a thread, you are right - they made him (and several other leaders) extremely ugly, something I sorta take offense at.

I was hesitant to put that in the post, after seeing how that is a "sinful" thing to do in here. I was going to say more about it, but just kept it simple (it's ugly!). I know that's not what he looked like (would you follow a leader that looked like that?).

I'll probably get some verbal warning for that statement.

I'm playing against the Mongols right now and they are doing pretty freaking good. Maybe because they got a good layout of land. He already declared war on me (started next to the freaking warmonger). Kind of a rough battle going.

 

[jpowers]

Firaxis seems afraid to back out of several bad Civ III choices in PTW. Why not redistribute the elephant cavalry to Carthage, given that Hannibal's march into Italy is by far the most remembered Carthaginian accomplishment. The Chinese should have the Shaolin Monk, something like the Samurai, but needing no resources to build and replacing the mideval infantry. And why not recognize the uselessness of the Man-O-War and F-15 and pick something else? The English longbowman could have an even better attack rating. Plenty of American suggestions have been made in these fora.

 

[-proletarian-]

A great way to make the Keshik a lot better would be to have them ignore all movement penalties for all terrain. They have 2 movement, right? Then let them move those 2 squares whether crossing mountain, hills, jungle or forest. THAT would make them a really unique UU.

 

[Silverflame]

Actually I was thinking of giving Keshiks a 5/1/3 rating, and the ability to retreat earlier or something. Because when the mongols swarmed into Europe, they did strike hard, and when counterattacked, they retreated leading the european knights into an ambush. That would make the keshiks quite useful.

I agree changing the Chinese UU, and making longbowmen crossbowmen, then making the English UU a longbowmen. I dont know about the American UU though.

 

[RobOz]

I haven't played with the Mongols yet and I probably won't unless it's a MP where civs are randomly distributed. I will say that they are really fun to play against, though.

If handled right you can have a war dog at your side. Mongols (in my few games so far) seem to be at least mid level in the tech race and are always up for a fight. If you can get them on your side, which isn't at all hard, you have a pretty powerful ally.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by jpowers
Firaxis seems afraid to back out of several bad Civ III choices in PTW. Why not redistribute the elephant cavalry to Carthage, given that Hannibal's march into Italy is by far the most remembered Carthaginian accomplishment.

Remembered for failing! India was the right place to put war elephants, as they were a huge part of medieval Indian war culture... those big pikey doors are a legacy of times when elephants were used as living battering rams and pikes put on doors to convince them not to impale themsevles...

Originally posted by jpowers

The Chinese should have the Shaolin Monk, something like the Samurai, but needing no resources to build and replacing the mideval infantry.

Now you're talking! I like that idea alot and it is the first solid thinking on the "problem of China" that I have seen. Make it a bit faster to build too.

Dead on with England and USA too. England ought to have the longbowmen you suggest. America ought to have either "Minuteman" a mobile musketeer type, or "US Marines" a hyped up marine unit capable of actually defeating Mech Infantry. If they don't fix the problems of boats/planes/artillery there is no reason to make these classes of UUs.

 

[Sylith]

Why not redistribute the elephant cavalry to Carthage, given that Hannibal's march into Italy is by far the most remembered Carthaginian accomplishment.

Most of the elephants died crossing the Alps. The rest didn't last much longer. There weren't any by Cannae.