Civ4 still doesn't get Keshik right

[gettingfat]

I don't mean this UU is useless. It's a somewhat useful unit. However, historicially speaking Mongolian mounted warriors were the most deadly forces that ever existed in that era. They tore everything apart in the 13th century.

Look back into the game. Mongolian leaders don't have aggressive trait, so when compared to a horse archer produced by any aggressive leader, Keshiks are actually weaker (their first strike doesn't work against horse archers). In reality, Mongolian armies are the best trained, most disciplined and organized forces in middle age. They are basically the Panzers and Praetorians, maybe more so, at their time.

By making it a horse archer, not a knight type unit, I suspect Firaxis people still believe Keshik is a primitive, barbarian like mounted warrior. Gezz, the cool looking European knights didn't even stand a chance against these pony riders.

Civ3, they made it wrong; Civ4, they still made it wrong.

 

[potatokiosk]

Makes you wonder whether the people who make these games know more about history than what they learned in high school.

 

[Ogrelord]

ummm... Keshik have no terrain penalty movement right?
They can just run around cities, pillaging everything.


EDIT; i'm no historian, but didn't the Europeans knights got decimated by the Mongolians simply cuz they couldn't keep up/chase/fallow/hunt against Mongolia superior horsemanship?

 

[gettingfat]

ummm... Keshik have no terrain penalty movement right?
They can just run around cities, pillaging everything.

So can any horse archers (I mean pillage around cities). The only thing horse archers can't do is to pillage improvements on a hill (in one turn). But in a real game situation, you usually try to pillage cottages and other improvements on grassland and plain first. Since Keshiks won't get defensive bonus from hiding on a hill anyway, the advantage is minimal.

As I mentioned, just send some horse archers to counter, they are still toasted.

 

[Andyr]

Look back into the game. Mongolian leaders don't have aggressive trait,

Yes they do... :/ At least in my manual and game, both do.

 

[Ogrelord]

Well i check the manual, didn't wanted to start a game to verify. The Keshniks ignores terrain movement penalty. I'll take maneuvers over power in War.

 

[gettingfat]

Yes they do... :/ At least in my manual and game, both do.

My mistake in that part. Still, they are mediocre.

 

[Seven05]

Not that the agressive trait matters when dealing with mounted units anyway... well, you'll build the barracks quicker but that's it.

 

[potatokiosk]

Well i check the manual, didn't wanted to start a game to verify. The Keshniks ignores terrain movement penalty. I'll take maneuvers over power in War.

But in civ4, the slightest increase in power can greatly increase your odds.

 

[Andyr]

My mistake in that part. Still, they are mediocre.

Yeah, they're not wonderful. I've been playing Kublai Khan for the Agg/Cre combo recently, and I tend to use Swordsmen to attack (or Axemen/Macemen), since the Keshik isn't particularly cheap, any better at attacking (it can't take the Cover promotion, which helps the infantry a lot) and can't get defensive bonuses from terrain.

 

[gettingfat]

Well i check the manual, didn't wanted to start a game to verify. The Keshniks ignores terrain movement penalty. I'll take maneuvers over power in War.

As I mentioned, you can still use a bunch of horse archers to do the pillaging. Unless the defenders' road system are totally messed up, their horse archers can still be able to catch up. I don't see much superior maneuvers anyway.

The lack of bombardment ability makes any horse archer type unit not much different from a mounted melee unit, anyway.

 

[Aurag]

I've got to agree with gettingfat, I've read a little about the Mongolians and have played them a few times. The UU is very under powered, could probabley do witht the 'Shock' Promo as standard if not 'combat one' as well. nothing stood in the way of Chinggis khan, if they offended him that is.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

As I've been saying since c3c, the Keshik should replace the Knight, have the blitz ability, and cost however much more it should cost to balance that out. This would allow the Keshiks to dominate the open field and pillaging but they would still need help attacking walled cities.

The Mongol warriors were ELITE. They were OUTNUMBERED in almost every battle they fought, sometimes as badly as 10-1, and they usually won. People have this dumb idea that they won through strength of numbers when in fact it was only much later during the Mongol Empire that they ever took on an opponent who had less troops than they did.

 

[Ogrelord]

i think you all misssing the point. if you decide to engage in some quick skirmish wars against other civs, it would be easier with Mongolia because his Keshik has no terrain movement penalty.

Meaning that Khan can cross the continent up to your Civ in little time, destroy your roads, and cripple your economy. And it would be difficult to catch up his Keshnik because your units will lose movement point to hills and forests. Keshiks have an easier time retreating and healing in safe position.

War doesn't necessarily mean confronting the enemy directly. I had a (mp) game where i only had 2 cities and i've been at war with an player (who had 5) for over 3 000 years. I won it only because i didn't attack his cities. I just had 2 stacks of 12 units each roaming his countryside. Later on in the game, i came in with muskets and pults.

Seriously tho, it is in my own humble opinion that players who think certain UU are underpowered do not know how to utilized them at their full advantages at their critical time period.

 

[gettingfat]

i think you all misssing the point. if you decide to engage in some quick skirmish wars against other civs, it would be easier with Mongolia because his Keshik has no terrain movement penalty.

Meaning that Khan can cross the continent up to your Civ in little time, destroy your roads, and cripple your economy. And it would be difficult to catch up his Keshnik because your units will lose movement point to hills and forests. Keshiks have an easier time retreating and healing in safe position.

Seriously tho, it is in my own humble opinion that players who think certain UU are underpowered do not know how to utilized them at their full advantages at their critical time period.

Any unit if used correctly, can be useful. I guess you also miss the point.

Point #1: from the perspective of game-play, UU are designed so they give a certain advantage to a particular civ over a certain period of time. The advantage of Keshik over a regular horse archer is quite minimal. If you can build up a pack of 20 horse archers and the opp civs are so unprepared, you can still basically wreck havoc on their land, maybe a bit less, and you may take a bit longer to reach your enemies' land. It's underpowered relative to other UU, not the unit itself.

Point #2: from the historical perspective, the Keshik in the game is far far far weaker and more primitive than the Keshik in history. True, Civ is a game, but it's also a game that is so attractive because of certain degree of realism. Mongolian Keshiks epitomize the peak of pre-gunpower calvary (in broadsense), and they are not reflected in the game at all.

 

[Arms Longfellow]

Yeah, it's weird that the Keshik is outdated by the medieval times, when the medieval period is when the Keshiks wreaked havoc. I guess they didn't want them to replace Knight since there are too many unique units that replace knight already ... but still.

 

[*Nosferatu*]

If the raise the strength to 7 or 8, that'll be good, it'll handle most units, but still fall victim to spearman.

 

[snipafist]

I think a lot of people are making some false assumptions. While it's true that the Mongols absolutely ruled their time period, you are assuming they were as advanced as the foes they faced. They were not. They excelled at war, but in all other fields were rather undeveloped (no religion, difficulty coming to grips with succesful ruling styles over conquered people, little to no agricultural knack, etc.). For that reason, the horse archer makes more sense. The keshiks also ruled on open battlegrounds, but weren't terribly great at taking cities. The Mongols used infantry and siege weapons as their war against the Chinese continued on, so don't think that they were glued to their horses or anything. They understood when they should switch tactics.

So what should be done with the keshiks? I admit they are a little weak, and the horse archer itself is considered a generally mediocre unit (not as game-defining as the knight can be, that's for sure). I'd reduce the cost of horse archers slightly, and then I'd give the keshik a point or two of strength bonus to help it tip the scales against infantry or cavalry in the field. It should still have difficulty in taking heavily defended cities, however. You can't make them great at everything.

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree with Rhino, Keshiks make much more sense replacing Knights; they existed around the same time.

Give them 3 moves and they'd be a deadly force to reckon with. +1 moves is a lot more powerful than -1 costs, since you also move faster in clear terrain. Mongolian horsemen were best at engagements in open land and areas where there were plenty of grasses for their horses to eat, not in mountainous terrain or against fortifications, where they conscripted troops from the local population. Three movement points also makes you lethal at pillaging, another strength of the Mongols.

Another possibility would be to make them Knights that only require Horses, not Iron.

 

[jar2574]

I agree with Rhino, Keshiks make much more sense replacing Knights; they existed around the same time.

Give them 3 moves and they'd be a deadly force to reckon with. +1 moves is a lot more powerful than -1 costs, since you also move faster in clear terrain. Mongolian horsemen were best at engagements in open land and areas where there were plenty of grasses for their horses to eat, not in mountainous terrain or against fortifications, where they conscripted troops from the local population. Three movement points also makes you lethal at pillaging, another strength of the Mongols.

Another possibility would be to make them Knights that only require Horses, not Iron.

I really like those last two suggestions. They should have 3 movement points and not require iron.