bovinespy:
True, but those demands for submission only carried any weight because the prospective victims were well aware of what fate awaited them if they resisted, because it had been done many times before. Genghis used terror as a deliberate tactic of statecraft.
No. He used it as a deliberate tactic of
warcraft. All the best armies use it, even today. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the US's version of this. "Surrender or we annihilate you, and you
know we can." Very effective.
Of course, I don't know about "many" times before. Can you refer to primary sources? A recent article in Reader's Digest detailing the most current evidence about Genghis Khan's conquests through Central Asia put that occurrence at
maybe two instances. The first was a Central Asian city that didn't reply fast enough, and the second was a city that turned traitor after it "surrendered."
Could you refer to more cities?
As I'm sure you're well aware of, many parts of Central Asia were so devastated by the Mongols that they have never recovered to their former states of relative prosperity.
If you're referring to the sack of Baghdad and similar actions, those were wartime actions carried out by the Mongols under another leader. Genghis Khan was long dead by then.
As did nearly all armies around the world until the Modern Era (and sometimes even into the 20th century, e.g. Nanjing). What you're missing here is the element of scale (as well as the previously mentioned deliberate use of terror as a legitimate tactic in war). Sure, Alex was a butcher, too, but not on Genghis' scale.
And what scale is that? How many cities? Which ones?
I don't see this as a valid comparison. Genghis Khan was an individual who slaughtered millions intentionally over a few decades time. By contrast, the depopulation of the New World was the result of the actions of innumerable historical actors over centuries. Moreover, the majority of those deaths were not intentional, as smallpox, measles, diptheria, etc. did most of the heavy lifting.
Individually, Genghis Khan didn't kill "millions" simply because there weren't that many people alive at the time, and especially in the middle-sized Central Asian towns. If you're referring to the millions drop in the Chinese census before and after the Mongol invasion, then you have his successors to thank for that. He didn't live long enough to see the complete subjugation of the Chinese kingdoms.
And, as I have repeatedly said, he was also a truly gifted leader. You know, it is possible for him to be both.
Yes, it is, but it has to be substantiated. Titular labels like "Butcher of Millions" doesn't count. That's just propaganda, undoubtedly spread and used by Genghis himself to save his troops the trouble of having to fight unnecessary conflicts.
BYC:
I just know whenever I play the Mongols, I never worry about spears. I spam keshiks along with swords, and I crush everything in front of me. Spears get either outmanuvered, or I take out their metal.
I don't get why people think the mobility of the keshik is ignored. Impis basically get the same thing, and they have an easy counter as well in axes which, also moves at 1 speed. Keshiks work the same way, except their counter is worse in most cases, and the keshik itself is a superior unit than the axeman.
Impis are NOT the same because Impis benefit from terrain defense, and also from Shaka's Aggressive trait as well as his Barracks. Combat 1 Shock Impi are quite basic units to get, and not all that easy for Axemen to deal with, particularly because until Engineering, Axemen only move as fast in
their territories, on
their roads as fast as an Impi.
Impis can act as emergency city defense, can take out rival mounted units with impunity, and can also pillage well even on their own, which means that their movement benefit actually matters.
The problem with Keshik is that it costs too much in terms of tech and production, and the advantage over the base unit is just not all that much, and it's not a unit you normally build in abundance in the first place.
And yes, this IS on topic. The topic is, "Is the Ballista Elephant the worst unique unit in the game?" It's not. I think the Keshik is.
I think that the best way to improve the Ballista Elephant is to remove the Ivory resource requirement. Then it would be a unit to reckon with.
vicawoo:
The post about surprise attacks, that pretty much outlines one of keshik's greatest strengths. Counter-attacking spearmen aren't so great, especially if you can't replace them and especially if they get hit in turn by more keshiks.
Their economy is more about slowing the entire world down by pillaging the strongest, razing weak cities, and capturing all their workers.
If you can hit Spearmen with more Keshik than the enemy has Spearmen, then I think that that indicates a superior economy, in which case you would probably have won no matter what unit you used.
Pillaging the enemy is great and all, but getting HBR AND the Ger AND Keshik seems to be a heck of a lot of trouble for the effect. For my part, the best use I've gotten out of them is for taking Barbarian Cities. They're quite good at that.
ShunNakamura:
I still don't see it as a weakness since the flanking promotions are so nice for early cavalry... so seven times out of ten you'll likely pick up first strike immunity anyways[at least for me...]
If you don't have to pick up the First Strike Immunity, you can promote your Horse Archers along the Shock route instead, which makes them pretty good units for taking out city defenders after the siege units are done, or in the field.
Flanking 2 Combat 1 Keshik, or Combat 2, Shock Horse Archers? I think the latter is a more generally useful unit.
.)
