Mongols Vs. Huns... Redundancy?

[Jabberwockxeno]

Let me preface this with the following:

I'm trying to make a mod that adjusts each civ's unique abilities to be more useful and match who they are better. I started with the Mongols. Given the notority of their expansive empire, hit and run attacks and subjugation-or-raze mentality, I felt their UA was a let down.

So, I came up with demands are 20% more effective, mounted units get 1+ movement (alreeady existing), units that live through a battle that leaves them in red gives them 1+ mp and enhanced healing the next turn. I toyed around with hannpniess with razing/annexing/making a puppet state, but couldn't think of a good way to show how they worked without having something like "Razing a city your demanded beforehand but were denied produces no unhappy", which I assume would be very hard to make.

I figured maybe i'd think of something later, and moved on to the huns... Then I realized something.

The Mongols ARE more or less the Huns.

Both revolve around using mounted soldiers and archers, both come from central Asia, both ran far reaching raids and conquests out of Asia, both had similar cultural customs and backgrounds, both Atillia and Temujin had a habit of demanding land and resources and setting the whole thing ablaze if their demand was refused, etc. There are some theories that say the Mongols descended from the Huns.

Regardless of the sepfics, both are clearly very alike in both the real world, and more so in civ 5, to the point where I feel it's a waste to include them both.

What do you think? What civ would you have in place of the mongols or the huns? What would you do to make each more distinct?

What should I do about their unique abilities?
EDIT: For the Huns, how about:

Enthogensis: Raze Cities at 170% speed. Borrow City names from other in-game Civs. Start with Animal Husbandry technology. +1 Production per Pasture, defeated barbians have a 30% chance of joining you, snd captured encampments have a 10% of becoming a city of yours. Annexing or instuting a puppet state produces 170% more unhappnies.

This would make the huns more suited to building tall, en masse we have reserves empires and armies, vs. the wide, more hit and run style of the mongols

Moderator Action: Moved to G&K.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Claiming that they are the same seems a nice way to show ignorance . There are literally a world of differences between Mongols and Huns and the main one is related to the organization of their army and how they managed the captured territories . Hunnic soldiers did not follow a warrior code similar to Yasha and after Attila died,his empire simply cease to exist,while the Mongolian empire just got splitted into 4 different territories when Genghis khan died . If you change something on Mongol's UA,I'd suggest making them receive some ammount of culture for each conquered city-state(although,IMO,they don't need that buff) .

 

[Naresh]

Enthogensis: Raze Cities at 170% speed. Borrow City names from other in-game Civs. Start with Animal Husbandry technology. +1 Production per Pasture, defeated barbians have a 30% chance of joining you, snd captured encampments have a 10% of becoming a city of yours. Annexing or instuting a puppet state produces 170% more unhappnies.

This would make the huns more suited to building tall, en masse we have reserves empires and armies, vs. the wide, more hit and run style of the mongols

That drop in raze speed is pointless, the 30% chance of joining is minor (and steals from the Germans) and that 10% is just... stupid

 

[Drawmeus]

They don't play that similarly in-game... the Huns are *the* early rush civ, while the Mongols are a powerful medieval era warmonger. They both rely on ranged attacking cavalry, but that's about the extent of their mechanical similarity, isn't it?

 

[Naresh]

They don't play that similarly in-game... the Huns are *the* early rush civ, while the Mongols are a powerful medieval era warmonger. They both rely on ranged attacking cavalry, but that's about the extent of their mechanical similarity, isn't it?

Might as well throw Arabia into the mix with those camel archers then!

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Claiming that they are the same seems a nice way to show ignorance . There are literally a world of differences between Mongols and Huns and the main one is related to the organization of their army and how they managed the captured territories . Hunnic soldiers did not follow a warrior code similar to Yasha and after Attila died,his empire simply cease to exist,while the Mongolian empire just got splitted into 4 different territories when Genghis khan died . If you change something on Mongol's UA,I'd suggest making them receive some ammount of culture for each conquered city-state(although,IMO,they don't need that buff) .

I'm aware they weren't that similar in regards to the finer points, such as Temujin having strict rules of conduct for his army, and how atillia's death resulted in the immediate dispersal of his empire vs. the Mongol empire.

However, as to the latter point, I would argue that has more to do with attilia not having a heir. Prior to his death, each "ruler" ruled with his sibling, each with half of the land, as far as I understand it.

I'm no expert, nor do I have a special interest in either people. The main point of the thread is with the gameplay, not the history.

That drop in raze speed is pointless, the 30% chance of joining is minor (and steals from the Germans) and that 10% is just... stupid

Drop in raze speed is to make up for the barbarian joining. The theory as far as the origin of the huns is that it rapidly subjugated various tribes in the same region, leading to a relatively fast formation of a unique culture.

I plan to change Germany's UA anyways, as it applies more towards the pre and co-roman Germanic tribes than to the German empire that came out of Prussia and such.

And yes, in retrospect, that last bit goes against the tall empire goal, anyways.

They don't play that similarly in-game... the Huns are *the* early rush civ, while the Mongols are a powerful medieval era warmonger. They both rely on ranged attacking cavalry, but that's about the extent of their mechanical similarity, isn't it?

Maybe, but they function to the same style of play, and both have nearly the same aesthetic and cover the same region and style of living in terms of the game.

I feel we are getting off topic (my fault, admittedly, for having a rather broad subject).

This is less about my mod, and more about what a better civ would be to widen the cultures and regions currently in the game.

 

[Naresh]

Drop in raze speed is to make up for the barbarian joining. The theory as far as the origin of the huns is that it rapidly subjugated various tribes in the same region, leading to a relatively fast formation of a unique culture.

I plan to change Germany's UA anyways, as it applies more towards the pre and co-roman Germanic tribes than to the German empire that came out of Prussia and such.

And yes, in retrospect, that last bit goes against the tall empire goal, anyways.

The drop in raze speed is meaningless. When in general you'll be razing a city of size 10 or less that 30% reduction is only 1/2 turns, hardly justification.

It's your Mod, so I won't say anything else too negative. Just that if this was a cry to change the main game there would be a long and detailed rant inbound.

Aside from that. I'll be enjoying myself watching your mod progress

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Just that if this was a cry to change the main game there would be a long and detailed rant inbound.s

Please feel free to do so anyways. I've learned that rants tend to be more useful as far as information than normal dissucion.

And i'm not easily offended

But again, off topic, ish. Don't want to get this locked.

 

[Naresh]

OK, well asides from the 200% - 170% drop. It's almost nothing in civ terms, it's like changing a units strength from 15% to 14% in the grand scheme of things in means nothing. Especially in something like razing...

30% and 10% are too small a chance for things to happening.

 

[Bibor]

The Mongols ARE more or less the Huns.

Not quite.

 

[adampjr]

There are some pretty important differences when you put them under a microscope, but given the fact that they lived so far apart in time the similarities are remarkable. The Scythians were not entirely different either. The plains lifestyle was effective adn simple, and did not need to evolve much over a long period of time (in which European and many other civilizations evolved greatly).

 

[hudders]

Same deal with the Incas, Maya and Aztecs.

If you compared European civilizations with the same regard for detail, you'd find most of them stupidly similar as well. It's only because we are used to the nuances of the different cultures that we regard them as being very different.

 

[adampjr]

Same deal with the Incas, Maya and Aztecs.

If you compared European civilizations with the same regard for detail, you'd find most of them stupidly similar as well. It's only because we are used to the nuances of the different cultures that we regard them as being very different.

Same with the Maya and Aztecs. I would suggest that most of us view the Inca very differently.

 

[Slvynn]

Many forget that point of Gengis rule that if country he attacked DID NOT opposed and surrendered before invasion started he were quite "gentle" with population of such countries, normally he even browsed craftsman shops and if he saw some ingenuinity and skills he sent talented craftsmans to Mongolia or bigger cities, and granted them quite good conditions.

Also military discipline/code, as already been mentioned.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Same deal with the Incas, Maya and Aztecs.

No comment, I'm shamelessly biased on that note.

Many forget that point of Gengis rule that if country he attacked DID NOT opposed and surrendered before invasion started he were quite "gentle" with population of such countries, normally he even browsed craftsman shops and if he saw some ingenuinity and skills he sent talented craftsmans to Mongolia or bigger cities, and granted them quite good conditions.

Also military discipline/code, as already been mentioned.

Right, this is probably the biggest difference between the two at a quick glance. The issue is that's rather difficult to work into the game without adding a unique mechanic, or giving demanded cities a production/whatever bonus, which would rarely happen even if you double the effectiveness of demands, seeing as how buying a city rarerly happens.

 

[Slvynn]

No comment, I'm shamelessly biased on that note.



Right, this is probably the biggest difference between the two at a quick glance. The issue is that's rather difficult to work into the game without adding a unique mechanic, or giving demanded cities a production/whatever bonus, which would rarely happen even if you double the effectiveness of demands, seeing as how buying a city rarerly happens.

Mmmm
May be gain 2-3% production bonus or 5% GE generation speed in capital with each Courthouse built in empire?
May be even more, dunno, will need to balance it though

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

OK, well asides from the 200% - 170% drop. It's almost nothing in civ terms, it's like changing a units strength from 15% to 14% in the grand scheme of things in means nothing. Especially in something like razing...

30% and 10% are too small a chance for things to happening.

What %s would you suggest then?

30% is nearly 1/3, and given the amount of barbarians there are early game, i'd say 1 out of 3 killed barbarians is approaching OP.

I'm not a expert or vet civ player by any means, so if i'm overlooking something please say so.

 

[hudders]

Same with the Maya and Aztecs. I would suggest that most of us view the Inca very differently.

Why? Based on what?

 

[headcase]

Mmmm
May be gain 2-3% production bonus or 5% GE generation speed in capital with each Courthouse built in empire?
May be even more, dunno, will need to balance it though

A Garden UB which has the effect of the Courthouse built into it (but can still be built in any city), and have the Courthouse removed for the Mongolians.

So their Courthouses are earlier, cheaper, don't need a river, and give the usual great person bonus.

Just a random idea... probably an OP one given the level of usual uniques (plus getting a courthouse that early doesn't gel with the Mongolian's medieval focus)

 

[Slvynn]

A Garden UB which has the effect of the Courthouse built into it (but can still be built in any city), and have the Courthouse removed for the Mongolians.

So their Courthouses are earlier, cheaper, don't need a river, and give the usual great person bonus.

Just a random idea... probably an OP one given the level of usual uniques (plus getting a courthouse that early doesn't gel with the Mongolian's medieval focus)

No, actually its pretty balanced.
and i like your idea.... and its conquest synergy with some GP/annexing flexibility touch - which was actually true - they annexed huge territories, which later broke into 4 MONGOLIAN kingdoms.... The problem that they warred each other later, especially Il Khanate, and for Golden Orda it was not actually annexation, more puppeting, they puppeted part of Rus they conquered, and part of Rus left unconquered.