Who has better horses?

[qrterlber]

I want to know who is better suited for Horseman Rush between Mongols and Greeks. Participate in the poll and submit any comments below.

*Edit*

Sorry, i should of been more specific with this. I meant in a stardard map, standard speed, continents, normal everything.

 

[Smote]

greek/china are best at horse rush, china b/c of general, greek b/c of power 14 move 5

 

[qrterlber]

I really think that Mongols are better suited just because their GG can keep up with them and heal them. Once you get march the horseman are unstoppable.

 

[alpaca]

I really think that Mongols are better suited just because their GG can keep up with them and heal them. Once you get march the horseman are unstoppable.

If it's only about the horse rush, Greece beats them hands down. After all, the CC is almost as strong as a Mongol Horseman with a Khan, stronger if you factor in bonuses. Mongols are much better at other horse units, though (and therefore stronger if you keep warring). Since this seems to be only about a horseman rush, I voted Greece.

 

[LordTC]

Actually I'm really not a fan of the Keshik, I think it was much more powerful in real life. There is no retreat mechanic that makes it hard to actually attack this guy, and the melee rating is somewhat soft. It's also a bit of a nuisance that to take cities you have to decide on a combined arms approach that also uses some horsemen for the actual capture. That being said the Khan is an absolute BEAST, one of the best UU's in the game.

Move 5 on a great general is already sick, but the double medic is nuts.

My biggest problem with the Mongols though is I hate their Civ Ability.. bonuses against city states really aren't that useful to my playstyle for two reasons:

A) It's not all that useful to attack city states since it tends to make the city states you want bonuses from mad at you

B) It's not like the extra bonus is needed to attack city states

My favorite horse rush civ is Babylon.. I find the ability to get writing and libraries up on the way to rushing horseback riding (pop a great scientist) when you have early horses is pretty amazing, and when you get your horses started that quickly, it often makes up for the fact that you don't have a unique unit that is useful in the rush. They're also a much better all around civ so if you miss out on horses you have tons of good alternatives (e.x. ok I don't have horses so now that GS doesn't pop horseback riding he helps me find out if I have iron). I like civs that don't have to go all in on a specific play.

 

[wurstburst]

I picked Mongols. For me horseman rush is about more than the first civ you attack. It's about sustaining that attack until you tech to rifles (which for me is a pretty long time, as I focus on all the other stuff I need until I absolutely need rifles). For sustaining an early horseman attack, Mongols win hands down as the combination of horse and later horse archer is pretty potent.

 

[stormerne]

Not voting. It depends. Simple question first: how many civs/what size map? Let's take two extremes. If you're playing duel, you don't have to travel far or for long, so use the extra strength of the Greeks. If you're playing against many civs on a larger map, it helps to have the extra speed of the Khan.

 

[kamex]

Not voting. It depends. Simple question first: how many civs/what size map? Let's take two extremes. If you're playing duel, you don't have to travel far or for long, so use the extra strength of the Greeks. If you're playing against many civs on a larger map, it helps to have the extra speed of the Khan.

I agree. Greece is maybe better for standard or large continents, Mongols for Terra or Pangaea.

You 'can' have a GG with companion cavalry, but you need an extra CC to cover the GG, and often by the time the GG arrives, the first wave of CC has cleared the area

 

[Guardian_PL]

My favorite horse rush civ is Babylon.. I find the ability to get writing and libraries up on the way to rushing horseback riding (pop a great scientist) when you have early horses is pretty amazing, and when you get your horses started that quickly, it often makes up for the fact that you don't have a unique unit that is useful in the rush. They're also a much better all around civ so if you miss out on horses you have tons of good alternatives (e.x. ok I don't have horses so now that GS doesn't pop horseback riding he helps me find out if I have iron). I like civs that don't have to go all in on a specific play.

Actually I've found that Bowmen are very good units for rushing, I only have to care for my Warriors, otherwise I can't move into the city

 

[Snapp]

In MP, call me crazy, but I actually prefer Russia. You can get way more horse units than your opponent, mix in some chariot archers even. And you also get the improved hammer bonuses when making your horsemen so you get them much quicker

In SP, you really don't need the extra horse units, so I prefer the mongols, simply because they have a better transition into kessiks.

 

[qyll]

I prefer mongols because I usually don't need to rush horsemen that quickly to conquer a neighboring civ. As a result, I like the mongol horsemen as a long term investment (CC's strength bonus disappears after promotion), and the khan generals really help.

 

[Gus_Smedstad]

There is no retreat mechanic that makes it hard to actually attack this guy, and the melee rating is somewhat soft.

True, but you usually do the retreat on the strategic scale. I.e. target is 4 hexes away - you move forward 2, shoot, and then move back 2. Usually they're invulnerable, but they do squish ridiculously easily if you advance into hostile territory, don't leave movement to run away, and get surprised.

My main problem is that even though they're neigh-invulnerable normally, individually they have a fairly low attack strength for the era, and ranged attacks in general tend to do less damage than melee even at the same strength. So where 2-3 knights can usually take a city quite rapidly, Keshiks needs a lot of Keshiks or several turns.

 

[qrterlber]

My biggest problem with the Mongols though is I hate their Civ Ability.. bonuses against city states really aren't that useful to my playstyle for two reasons:

A) It's not all that useful to attack city states since it tends to make the city states you want bonuses from mad at you

B) It's not like the extra bonus is needed to attack city states

I like this Mongol trait. I try to warrior rush a close CS before i can get a Horseman in order to get a GG as soon as possible. Usually I can get a GG BY killing barbarians and a CS before i go after a civ. I think paying CS is a waste of money; it is much better to use the money to rush troops or happiness buildings.

 

[Lyoncet]

True, but you usually do the retreat on the strategic scale. I.e. target is 4 hexes away - you move forward 2, shoot, and then move back 2. Usually they're invulnerable, but they do squish ridiculously easily if you advance into hostile territory, don't leave movement to run away, and get surprised.

I may be wrong on this (haven't played as the Khan yet) but I don't think Keshiks come with move-after-attack; they have to be promoted from Horsemen to get that. Not that that's particularly prohibitive given how easy/beneficial it is to get lots of early horses, but thought I'd point that out. And if someone tells me I'm wrong then I've learned something.

[edit: actually the reason I brought that up and then forgot to mention is that if they ever patch it so that units don't carry over non-UU abilities on upgrade (like former Pikes still having a bonus against mounted or units upgraded to rocket artillery still needing to set up to fire), you won't be able to do hit-and-run with Keshiks. So the squishiness will probably be more of an issue in that case.]

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think paying CS is a waste of money; it is much better to use the money to rush troops or happiness buildings.

Depends on whether you need the Food and Culture. In most cases you do.

But you may have a point that it makes sense to roll a CS that you wouldn't ally. It's 100% guaranteed to have a luxury, and it should pop that tile on turn 20 IIRC. I'm normally not a huge fan of taking cities I can't self-raze and replace, but with the Mongols' +30% to CS attacks you can probably drop it after a successful Warrior rush elsewhere, or take it with minimal Warriors on turn 20 or so from a good start.

 

[jpetela]

delete.

 

[cman2010]

i voted for the greeks. I thought the mongols get a movement bonus for horses as well as the cs bonus, I think the horse movement bonus could be usefull.

 

[bryanw1995]

Actually I'm really not a fan of the Keshik, I think it was much more powerful in real life. There is no retreat mechanic that makes it hard to actually attack this guy, and the melee rating is somewhat soft. It's also a bit of a nuisance that to take cities you have to decide on a combined arms approach that also uses some horsemen for the actual capture. That being said the Khan is an absolute BEAST, one of the best UU's in the game.

Move 5 on a great general is already sick, but the double medic is nuts.

My biggest problem with the Mongols though is I hate their Civ Ability.. bonuses against city states really aren't that useful to my playstyle for two reasons:

A) It's not all that useful to attack city states since it tends to make the city states you want bonuses from mad at you

B) It's not like the extra bonus is needed to attack city states

My favorite horse rush civ is Babylon.. I find the ability to get writing and libraries up on the way to rushing horseback riding (pop a great scientist) when you have early horses is pretty amazing, and when you get your horses started that quickly, it often makes up for the fact that you don't have a unique unit that is useful in the rush. They're also a much better all around civ so if you miss out on horses you have tons of good alternatives (e.x. ok I don't have horses so now that GS doesn't pop horseback riding he helps me find out if I have iron). I like civs that don't have to go all in on a specific play.

the CS bonus is definitely one of the weakest, but remember that they also are +1 move on all mounted units. so you have 5 move horsemen, 5 move khan, 5 move keshik, and 4 move cavalry. the +1 move on mounted is great.

imho keshiks are way overpowered, I have consistently wiped out waves of enemy artillery/rifles with a few highly promoted keshiks. 5-6 moves, logistics, +1 range are all easily attainable since they can attack almost every turn and then retreat out of enemy range. I stopped playing mongols other than deity b/c they're just too easy to wipe the map up with.

 

[bryanw1995]

I may be wrong on this (haven't played as the Khan yet) but I don't think Keshiks come with move-after-attack; they have to be promoted from Horsemen to get that. Not that that's particularly prohibitive given how easy/beneficial it is to get lots of early horses, but thought I'd point that out. And if someone tells me I'm wrong then I've learned something.

[edit: actually the reason I brought that up and then forgot to mention is that if they ever patch it so that units don't carry over non-UU abilities on upgrade (like former Pikes still having a bonus against mounted or units upgraded to rocket artillery still needing to set up to fire), you won't be able to do hit-and-run with Keshiks. So the squishiness will probably be more of an issue in that case.]

yep, you're wrong. keshiks get full 5 (or 6 once promoted) moves just like other mounted units. it's like a 5+move catapult, but they're promoted so quickly and they end up closer to trebs in actual strength.

 

[JudgeDeath]

I voted the Geeks.