Mongols Vs. Huns... Redundancy?

[oliver]

Yeah there similar in the same way England and Spain are.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think describing the two as being particularly similar is an oversimplification in both reality and Civ. In the real-world case, this I think stems from seeing just the tail-end of the Mongols, as they invaded Europe, where they did indeed go on a rampage and then burn out much as the Huns had. But they founded lasting societies in Asia and left administrators in place as they passed through - they did found a genuine empire, while the Huns were essentially nomadic refugees from the expansion of rising powers in their home territories.

And as the poster above me pointed out, in reality Spain and England - two civs that were sedentary, European, developed and Christian, and which in the period represented both explored and exploited the Americas - could also be seen as "very similar". There too there's a wealth of difference in the detail. Most European nations are at least as similar to one another as the Huns are to the Mongols.

I also think this is reflected in the civs in the game. Horse archers don't act like cavalry units - there's no hit-and-run with the Huns, they just go in, gatecrash your party, and then move onto the next target. And they burn out very early. Warrior civs can only vary from one another on a small number of axes, which include the game period when they are at their most threatening, the types of unique units they can call on, and their tactics. The Mongols differ as much from the Huns in all three as they do from most warmonger civs.

The horse archer may have a horse graphic, but its derived from the chariot archer and doesn't need horses. So (1) it's very early, (2) its numbers are not limited by anything other than upkeep, (3) it replaces another ranged unit, and (4) it can't hit and run. Characteristics that make it more similar to the Babylonian Bowman than the Keshik, which (1) is medieval, (2) is very powerful but limited by the availability of horses, (3) replaces the Knight, making the Mongols relatively less capable of engaging in melee during their heyday than the Huns are during theirs, and (4) it can hit and run.

You also assume the player will be at the helm in both cases, but if you're playing as a non-Hunnic, non-Mongol civ, these civs will play very differently as an AI rival, and they play in ways that suit their UAs.

Attila is aggressive, untrustworthy, favours hitting other civs and would probably go on a rampage if his AI was ever capable of surviving past the very earliest stages of a game. He also burns anything he captures, which adds great tension to trying to reclaim territory from him in time.

Genghis rarely declares war early because he gains little advantage by doing so until the late Medieval period, he can be a reliable ally, preferentially attacks city-states, never burns anything, is reliably among the strongest AIs, and almost always seems to get drawn into multi-era-long wars with particular archenemies in the game's later stages. If he actually wipes people out or captures their capitals, it tends to be very late in the game or he hasn't spawned near a similarly strong AI.

None of these make the Huns and Mongols more similar to one another in game than either is to any other aggressive civ.

 

[woodshadows]

They are very similar, both one-trick ponies, the old horse archer hit n run, try to conquer as much as possible and hope it'll give you enough of a lead that will help alleviate the fact that they have no other tricks up their sleeve. I find them both very boring to play, the wars are too easy and don't require much thought, great for the lazy war-monger who doesn't want to challenge themselves, pump out a ton of horse archer type units and kill as much as you can until the other civs techs beat you and then try to manage a huge sprawling empire mired in some level of barbarism. I think that's why I prefer Egypt as opposed to the Huns, the war chariot being a less invincible unit vs the horse archer, but still powerful enough for a great early rush, but Egypt has so many other things going for it, the burial tombs and the UA are useful throughout the game, where the Huns specials disappear mostly after the first era. Same with preferring Arabia vs the Mongols, the camel archer isn't as powerful as the Keshik (most people would claim - tho I have argued in favour of the camel archer in the past, but it definitely requires less laziness and more thought and reconaissance to use effectively), but Arabia has a semi-decent UA, which depending on map size can be pretty powerful, +1 gold per trade route, for what hopefully will be a large empire you have conquered with the Camel Archers, add in the bazaar which can help with gold/happiness problems and you have a great civ, Mongols on the other hand, it's have an overly-easy war era in the medieval and then try to manage a sprawling barbaric empire with no other specials to provide any boosts or flavour to your gaming experience.

 

[adampjr]

Why? Based on what?

Being a mountain kingdom, for one. Their militaries were very different. Human sacrifice played a smaller part in Inca culture as well.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Mongols and Huns aren't even close to redudancy,even to gameplay comparisons . Just because both have a mounted ranged unique unit,doesn't mean they are exactly the same civilization . If such stupid logic made sense,then you could said that Arabia and even Egypt are redundanty,regardless of their huge differences . The huns can survive after the Ancient era thanks to the +1 per pasture and the free animal husbrandy,which is a very good bonus . The main weapon of Mongolia before/after the Keshik era is the Khan,which is far more powerful than it seems to be .

 

[PhilBowles]

Mongols and Huns aren't even close to redudancy,even to gameplay comparisons . Just because both have a mounted ranged unique unit,doesn't mean they are exactly the same civilization . If such stupid logic made sense,then you could said that Arabia and even Egypt are redundanty,regardless of their huge differences . The huns can survive after the Ancient era thanks to the +1 per pasture and the free animal husbrandy,which is a very good bonus

They can survive, but these are somewhat minor advantages compared to those most civs will get past the early game - +1 production from one type of improvement pales in comparison to the Russian UA, for instance, while the free tech amounts to a rather small early beaker boost (that has to be spent on one of the less immediately-useful early techs). The Huns are going to rely on their units to get through the early game; of course any civ can survive into the later game, but a weak UA and no UUs/UBs past the ancient era puts them at a severe disadvantage.

The Hunnic UA exists to allow them to produce their early units very quickly (instant access to pastures - already an improvement good for production and food - with a production bonus that's only very relevant in the earliest game stages) - it's not a UA that will serve them well in isolation, and it's not meant to be competitive with the UAs of other civs.

The main weapon of Mongolia before/after the Keshik era is the Khan,which is far more powerful than it seems to be .

Hmm, it would be interesting to see an AI army with a Khan - not sure I ever have. I say an AI army, since the Mongols are low on my list of civs to experiment with (and although I do try out new civs every few games, I still tend to gravitate back to three - Siam, Songhai and the Maya - again and again).

EDIT: Okay, four. I've rediscovered my love of the Koreans recently as well.

 

[Roxlimn]

PhilBowles:

Actually, I was forced to run with Huns in isolated mode after I'd conquered the only other Civ on my island and I had no ability to cross oceans. Lots of horses, cows, and sheep, though. Their +1 hammer UA served me better in isolation than many other UAs I could mention, including the Mongol's, English, Japanese, and German.

The Horse Archers are actually more useful than it appears. They're not Keshiks by any measure, but their cheap production cost and fair ranged strength means that swarming them can extend their lifespan into the Medieval eras. I've even used well-promoted ones into the Renaissance.

I think it's a misunderstanding from the game's designers on what the Mongols and the Huns are, that they inherit traits that ought to be each other's. Mongols do not attack City States preferentially in real life. In fact,the first real opponents they took on were the two Southern Chinese kingdoms. Also, they preferred to extract tribute rather than actually conquer or raze anything.

If I had to mod them, I'd exchange the Hun's +hammer ability for the Mongol +City State attack bonuses, and change the AI so that Hunnic AI prefer to attack City States, leaving the Mongols neutral. Of course, in gameplay terms, the +hammer ability is the more powerful one, so it's an uneven exchange.

 

[PhilBowles]

PhilBowles:

Actually, I was forced to run with Huns in isolated mode after I'd conquered the only other Civ on my island and I had no ability to cross oceans. Lots of horses, cows, and sheep, though. Their +1 hammer UA served me better in isolation than many other UAs I could mention, including the Mongol's, English, Japanese, and German.

The Horse Archers are actually more useful than it appears. They're not Keshiks by any measure, but their cheap production cost and fair ranged strength means that swarming them can extend their lifespan into the Medieval eras. I've even used well-promoted ones into the Renaissance.

I think it's a misunderstanding from the game's designers on what the Mongols and the Huns are, that they inherit traits that ought to be each other's. Mongols do not attack City States preferentially in real life. In fact,the first real opponents they took on were the two Southern Chinese kingdoms. Also, they preferred to extract tribute rather than actually conquer or raze anything.

If I had to mod them, I'd exchange the Hun's +hammer ability for the Mongol +City State attack bonuses, and change the AI so that Hunnic AI prefer to attack City States, leaving the Mongols neutral. Of course, in gameplay terms, the +hammer ability is the more powerful one, so it's an uneven exchange.

I think the Huns still need their UA and its production bonus, but I agree regarding the Mongols. Some kind of bonus to tribute received from bullying city-states - maybe it costs the Mongols no or less of an influence penalty - to replace the Mongol CS attack bonus would be interesting, and give them some other bonus as well (even as it stands, and aimed against appropriate targets, the Mongol UA is not especially impressive).

Although having said that I think that there does need to be some balancing of historical accuracy with gameplay design. The Mongols are certainly an odd choice for a civ whose strategy is intended to be "diplo victory through conquering CSes" (although a strategy that amounts to "diplomacy through conquest" actually suits them very well - perhaps the CS link was the only way the designers found to portray this in Civ V terms?). The Songhai UA, for instance, is wholly inappropriate at least for Askia (his Civilopedia entry admits as much), but it does have the gameplay effect of making the Songhai an economic powerhouse, which is to some extent reflective of their real history even though mechanically it's achieved in an odd way (I still haven't worked out what the war canoe thing is about though...).

Now that the diplo victory condition has changed, and conquering CSes eliminates their vote rather than casts it in your favour, this Mongol strategy isn't a gamewinner any more, and doesn't really serve an obvious purpose in isolation, and I think the UA needs to be rethought to reflect that.

 

[Roxlimn]

PhilBowles:

You could modify it so that Mongols gain influence with CS's when they exact tribute or Workers, so they would have to maintain a fairly potent military and shuttle them around scaring their CS territories for their tribute monies. Genghis did have a historical problem with "conquered" territories refusing to give tribute, for which he went back after a campaign and exacted a most terrible vengeance.

Or further, since Mongols were known to incorporate a lot of conquered infantries in their armies, you could have Mongols exact tribute in a special way - through a Military Unit! That'd be fun and interesting, I think.

So, how about this:

Mongol Levy
Gain Influence with City States when exacting Tribute
Can exact Tribute in the form of Military Units from Military City States.

That'd create an interesting play interaction between Civs protecting CSs and Mongols bullying them for tribute. Also, you'd have a situation where Mongols have to bully a CS as often as possible to prevent their falling into the hands of Theresa's Diplomatic Marriages!

I think it'd be awesome.

 

[PhilBowles]

PhilBowles:

You could modify it so that Mongols gain influence with CS's when they exact tribute or Workers, so they would have to maintain a fairly potent military and shuttle them around scaring their CS territories for their tribute monies. Genghis did have a historical problem with "conquered" territories refusing to give tribute, for which he went back after a campaign and exacted a most terrible vengeance.

Or further, since Mongols were known to incorporate a lot of conquered infantries in their armies, you could have Mongols exact tribute in a special way - through a Military Unit! That'd be fun and interesting, I think.

So, how about this:

Mongol Levy
Gain Influence with City States when exacting Tribute
Can exact Tribute in the form of Military Units from Military City States.

That'd create an interesting play interaction between Civs protecting CSs and Mongols bullying them for tribute. Also, you'd have a situation where Mongols have to bully a CS as often as possible to prevent their falling into the hands of Theresa's Diplomatic Marriages!

I think it'd be awesome.

I think that's a great idea - especially the exacting military units as tribute. Although as the above UA would work, that could snowball, since if you're in a position to demand tribute, and gain no disadvantage from doing so, you just get a larger army with which to exact more units in tribute - it would probably need to be combined with my proposed "no influence loss for exacting tribute" rather than an influence gain.

 

[Roxlimn]

PhilBowles:

There would need to be a universal cooldown on how often you could extract tribute as Mongols. Apart from that, I don't see the issue. If the Mongol army is at home extracting tribute, then it's not abroad waging war. It's a classic Genghis decision point, I think.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

I think that's a great idea - especially the exacting military units as tribute. Although as the above UA would work, that could snowball, since if you're in a position to demand tribute, and gain no disadvantage from doing so, you just get a larger army with which to exact more units in tribute - it would probably need to be combined with my proposed "no influence loss for exacting tribute" rather than an influence gain.

I like it too.

Sounds much more feasible than the making demands more effective, while still having the same vibe.

 

[woodshadows]

im sure the huns were included because of the notoriety and name-recognition of both the civ and leader.. the historical civ wasn't much of a civ and even their impact wasn't that tremendous, more like the straw that broke the camels back. given there is a polynesian civ and there isn't a real arctic-oriented civ, an inuit civ could be interesting.. granted they were never much of a 'civ' but it would be fun to have a civ that centers around the arctic as opposed to the huns who feel far too much like the mongols.

 

[UkraineNotPuny]

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.

The Mongol empire established the world's first fully functioning trade network, tolerated religion (at a time when civs in europe and middle east were setting each other on fire for buttering bread on the wrong side before saying grace), had a legal system which didn't give a hoot about your familial status - only on your achievements - AND adopted technology and crafstment from every civ they conquered.

I hate seeing the Mongols in every strategy game shown as just mounted warriors who pillaged cities (there was a lot of that too).

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

The Mongol empire established the world's first fully functioning trade network, tolerated religion (at a time when civs in europe and middle east were setting each other on fire for buttering bread on the wrong side before saying grace), had a legal system which didn't give a hoot about your familial status - only on your achievements - AND adopted technology and crafstment from every civ they conquered.

I hate seeing the Mongols in every strategy game shown as just mounted warriors who pillaged cities (there was a lot of that too).

Right, this has been pointed out before.

The issue is it's hard to incorporate any of that into the game without making an entirely new mechanic.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I think the Huns and Mongols are actually quite a bit more different than some of the civs we see. Byzantium WAS Rome, just the Eastern Roman Empire. I'd even say Arabia and the Ottomans are closer to being redundant.

That being said, for the Mongols, I dio wish their UA had a bit more to do with their diplomatic ways, maybe getting a bonus when fighting against a CS or civ that is at war with someone else, and it would set them apart from the you're-my-neighbor-so-you-die-now Huns.

As for a civ I feel is missing, I have to say Portugal. Including Spain, and the Netherlands and not including the 3rd early naval power seems as wrong as having Spain and France but no England. Younger countries could have potential too. Cuba, if well planned, could be an awesome civ, there is a lot of room for fun with Brazil, and I could imagine Australia or Canada being fun to play, but then again I think it bothers me a little that there are only two relatively young civs (Germany and America) in the game.

 

[Yzman]

Please no Portugal, we have enough naval European civs.

An inuit civ, which would be hard to do since I don't even know who they could have as a leader, would be really interesting though!

Imagine some UA that has to do with tundra/snow.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jabberwockxeno:

I think my proposed "Mongol Levy" UA can actually express their openness to adopting technology. Provided that they get enough access to enough Militaristic CSs, you could be looking on a Mongol Empire that transitions from Legions to Keshiks to Minutemen to Caroleans. With both the Levy and the normal unit additions fueling their war machinery, Mongol cities could concentrate on building exclusively infrastructure - a nod to Kublai's less warlike pursuits.

I'm a little diffident about pushing it too hard since it is my idea (of course I love it!); but I'd really be interested if it made it into a mod or even into an official patch. If they could patch in Austria's special CS power, I'm sure just asking for more military units could be done for the Mongols.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Jabberwockxeno:

I think my proposed "Mongol Levy" UA can actually express their openness to adopting technology. Provided that they get enough access to enough Militaristic CSs, you could be looking on a Mongol Empire that transitions from Legions to Keshiks to Minutemen to Caroleans. With both the Levy and the normal unit additions fueling their war machinery, Mongol cities could concentrate on building exclusively infrastructure - a nod to Kublai's less warlike pursuits.

I'm a little diffident about pushing it too hard since it is my idea (of course I love it!); but I'd really be interested if it made it into a mod or even into an official patch. If they could patch in Austria's special CS power, I'm sure just asking for more military units could be done for the Mongols.

Right, and I think the Mongol Levy is a much better representation of how the mongols operated then the current in game UA.

However, the gaining influence, or having it not cost any would only work if there was some drawback.

Personally, I say that it should be:

- Exacting tribute only costs 60% as much influence as normal.
- Can ask for military units from military CSs.

Combined with their mounted unit MP bonus.

 

[s0nny80y]

Mongols = horse resource dependant.

+1 cav speed, however, is a major plus especially when combined with the cav archer's swoop in swoop out ability during sieges <-this alone outshines the battering ram in terms of mobility (as long as you siege spam w/ cav archers)