Mongolia

Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
771
Feedback for Mongolia:

UB: The Ger is great, though strongly dependent on surrounding.

UU: The first Khan is great. The second is nice. After that, you won`t notice them. The rewards diminish extremely fast, and it feels like you are only having two of your UUs all time. However, you can utilise them all game long, with constant efficiency. So what they lack in numbers they make up in duration. They are fine.

UA: Bad. Like really, bad. The aditional movement for horses (melee horses are also faster) is good, but not amazing. Ignoring ZOC for horse archers does nothing. I have game where I use horse achers a lot, fight deity AI from classic age on nonstop, and it didn't matter once. It might as well not exist.
Annexing CS: Well, if you have enough power to annex the CS, you have enough power to conquer it as well. All it does is save you a few clicks, and give you a few GA points. Might not exist at all, too.

So in summary we have a decent UB which is depends strongly on surroundings. An OKish UU, and a terrible UA. One of the weakest civs I have tried so far. The UA really needs something.
Two suggestions:
- Get all the units of the aquired CS. Still very narrow, and mostly redundant, because if you can annex that way, you have a lot of units anyway. But it can be utilized for some nice tactical moves.
- Remove (or greatly diminish) the diplomatic penalty for aquiring CS using the mongolian UA.

Actually, I think you could throw both suggestions on top of what they have now and they would still be average.
 
Feedback for Mongolia:

UB: The Ger is great, though strongly dependent on surrounding.

UU: The first Khan is great. The second is nice. After that, you won`t notice them. The rewards diminish extremely fast, and it feels like you are only having two of your UUs all time. However, you can utilise them all game long, with constant efficiency. So what they lack in numbers they make up in duration. They are fine.

UA: Bad. Like really, bad. The aditional movement for horses (melee horses are also faster) is good, but not amazing. Ignoring ZOC for horse archers does nothing. I have game where I use horse achers a lot, fight deity AI from classic age on nonstop, and it didn't matter once. It might as well not exist.
Annexing CS: Well, if you have enough power to annex the CS, you have enough power to conquer it as well. All it does is save you a few clicks, and give you a few GA points. Might not exist at all, too.

So in summary we have a decent UB which is depends strongly on surroundings. An OKish UU, and a terrible UA. One of the weakest civs I have tried so far. The UA really needs something.
Two suggestions:
- Get all the units of the aquired CS. Still very narrow, and mostly redundant, because if you can annex that way, you have a lot of units anyway. But it can be utilized for some nice tactical moves.
- Remove (or greatly diminish) the diplomatic penalty for aquiring CS using the mongolian UA.

Actually, I think you could throw both suggestions on top of what they have now and they would still be average.

Considering that the AI tends to steamroll a whole continent as Mongolia...I don't see this civ as being very weak.

G
 
From my experience the ai steamrolls, because the mongolian UA heavily synergizes with AIs free units. They pretty much seem to be able to mass annex surrounding city states from day one without much effort. The player cant realistically do that
 
From my experience the ai steamrolls, because the mongolian UA heavily synergizes with AIs free units. They pretty much seem to be able to mass annex surrounding city states from day one without much effort. The player cant realistically do that

Free units?

G
 
The 2-3 starting units from difficulty

I agree the Mongol abilities are not nearly as useful for a player. It helps the AI because it will annex a city-state that it would not normally conquer. That isn't usually the case for the player, and in fact annexing a city state that you could otherwise conquer means less experience and fewer Khans.
 
Deity starts with 3 warriors and 2 scouts (Immortal is 2 warriors and 1 scout), but they tend to keep at least 1 warrior around their cities.
I don't think it is significative when trying to annex a CS. Is it ?
 
My issue with the Ger (though I accept that this is purely anecdotal) is that every time I've played Mongolia, I would much rather have had a Granary. I find myself starting next to deer and wheat rather than animals. When I'm constantly thinking "I'd much rather not have this UB" I feel like something should be different.

Perhaps I just have a lot of unlucky starts though.
 
My issue with the Ger (though I accept that this is purely anecdotal) is that every time I've played Mongolia, I would much rather have had a Granary. I find myself starting next to deer and wheat rather than animals. When I'm constantly thinking "I'd much rather not have this UB" I feel like something should be different.

Perhaps I just have a lot of unlucky starts though.

Pretty much exactly how my games as Mongolia goes as well
 
My issue with the Ger (though I accept that this is purely anecdotal) is that every time I've played Mongolia, I would much rather have had a Granary. I find myself starting next to deer and wheat rather than animals. When I'm constantly thinking "I'd much rather not have this UB" I feel like something should be different.

Perhaps I just have a lot of unlucky starts though.

Well, I could reduce the free faith to +1 and add back wheat/deer/banana/bison if you want.

G
 
Well, I could reduce the free faith to +1 and add back wheat/deer/banana/bison if you want.

G

I thought the faith was already at +1? If it is +1 already, then I'm not sure how to nerf it enough to add the Granary bonuses back in, though.

In any case, something like that might be best. It's not that I don't like what the Ger is, just that when you can't use it, it not only takes away Mongolia's UB, it also takes away a standard building in the game at the same time.
 
I am not a fan of Ger too, it is just strange that certain resources just become bad for a civ because of their UB. If you start surrounded by Wheat/Deer as Mongolia it's not so good.

It feels to me like the Ger bonus should be nerfed from +3Food to +1F+1G or something like that but also include the regular granary resources, perhaps increasing base food from 3 to 4 to compensate. This way Ger gains even if it doesn't have pastures compared to other civs (+1G per deer/wheat/etc) and gains a lot if it gets some pastures.

It for sure would be broken if it remained +3Food and gave bonuses to old Granary resources too.
 
It for sure would be broken if it remained +3Food and gave bonuses to old Granary resources too.

Sure, something needs to go. Not necessarily certain that the bonus to pasture-resources should be the thing that goes however.
 
The Ger is a really good building: +1 Faith, Angkor Wat Tile Expansion, and +3 Food to Stable Resources. The only downside is the lakc of Food on the usual Granary Resources. Just like how people weren't happy with other UB's lacking features of the base Building. Lowering the Pasture Resources Bonus to 2 or 2/1 will be needed.
 
I for one love the Ger. Admittedly, I haven't played Mong much since way back when their UA got changed, but, in my memory, it turns prod tiles into super tiles. You gotta settle around it, but I never had a problem doing so. And the faith meant getting to God of War or maaaaaybe the pasture one without having to build a shrine right away. Don't remember it ever giving two faith tho, and the civpedia for 2/24 has +1 listed. Did I miss this smaller change amongst all the bigger ones of the 3/1?

I do play with bonus resources revealed, but it only takes a first column tech to reveal normally, I think?
 
I also think the UA needs a change. Annexing city states is a great way for the AI at higher difficulty levels to expand extremely quickly, but as a player, I'd rather make friends with city states and war with AI civs. I do like the extra movement for mounted units though.
 
I also think the UA needs a change. Annexing city states is a great way for the AI at higher difficulty levels to expand extremely quickly, but as a player, I'd rather make friends with city states and war with AI civs. I do like the extra movement for mounted units though.

If you'd rather make war with AI civs and befriend CSs...the Mongols might not be for you. I recommend attila, he likes smashing people.

G
 
If you'd rather make war with AI civs and befriend CSs...the Mongols might not be for you. I recommend attila, he likes smashing people.

G

While I totally agree with this statement, I do still find it difficult to use the Mongol UA because the AI has plenty of troops.

Its basically a "win more" option. If you have a bigger army than the other players, you not only can conquer them, but you can get CS on the side! If your army is only slightly bigger, you can't do either!
 
Top Bottom