Misplaced Mongols

[LzPrst]

The Mongol UU is placed in the wrong time. Absolutely wrong. Just plain... wrong.


Allow me to give a short summary here. UU's are supposed to correspond to a specific time of military advantage had by a certain civ. For example the Romans get their Praetorian with Iron Working, establishing the Classical Age, meant to represent their military strength from around 300BC-500AD. And so on. The Mongol UU comes with Horseback Riding, which is also a Classical technology, placed somewhere around the same time period, depending on research priorities. So this would indicate that the Mongol military greatness would lie around the Classical era, roughly somewhere between 500BC-750AD (given room for slow civs).

Just to make it clear. Genghiz Khan rode out from Mongolia in the 12th century, founding the Mongol Empire in 1206. Kublai Khan lived from 1215-1294. These two leaders of the Mongols are without doubt the representives for Mongolia's greatest might, militarily and otherwise. 13th century. Yet the Mongol UU comes hundreds of years before. The Mongol UU should come with Guilds as Knights, representing Mongolian superior weapons capabilities during the Medieval era, NOT the Classical one. The Mongols raided and crushed several Chinese Dynasties, the Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East, Northern India (Moghuls) and Eastern Europe. This all happened from the time of Genghiz Khan, roughly, the 13th Century.

The Arab UU comes with Guilds, replacing Knights. Yet the Arabs had their greatest military victories in the 8th century. So the Arab military strength comes according to Civ4, later than the Mongol. Which is rather ahistorical, to be kind. Could someone clear this up for me? Now of course, it would be arguable that the Camel Archer is from the time of the Crusades, but regardless, the Mongol Keshik is just completely off chronologically....

Any thoughts to starting a protest movement?

[snoopy369]

I think the keshik is fine. It allows for good gameplay. It's realistic in the tech required (they're nothing more than mounted archers anyway). They certainly are a poor replacement for knights, that's not their purpose at all.

[onodera]

If your theory was true the Russians wouldn't have Cossacks as their UU, but something like Red Armyman.

[Cyrus The Mike]

acctually... you make a good point and so does Onodera. Yet I think we need another mounted unit inbetween horse archers and knights. I say that because the Mongols has both a mounted infantry (the Keshik) and a mounted archer (normal horse archer)

[LzPrst]

well medieval european knights were pretty much coexistant with the mongol empire/armies. and yes, the mongols were mounted archers, but they were damned good ones. in fact so good that they smashed just about all armies they encountered, so the mongol knight should be a Keshik, and the Mongol horse archer should just be a regular horse archer (but with xp bonus from Gert). as for the russian ones, probably yes, but cossack works as well since they were instrumental in a largescale expansion and has arguably more flavor than a Red Guardsman.

by the time the mongols in civ4 reach the time they became a military power in historical time, the Keshik is absolutely useless against the Longbowmen, Knights, Macemen, Pikemen and other medieval units running around. i just feel there is a certain inconsistency, that's all.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

civ3's keshik could take out cavalry on the attack, no chance on defense though.

[enderw]

The Mongol's biggest advantage came from their superior bow technology. The Asiatic bow was as powerful as an English longbow, but compact enough to be carried by cavalry. It might make sense to upgrade their longbow, but I'm not really sure what that should look like. Strength of 8, movement 2, +1 firist strikes and a city attack bonus instead of a city defense bonus maybe?

Give their military success they should have a unit that gives military domiinance about as much as praets do.

[snoopy369]

The point was that the keshik will be unrealistic in one way or the other; either in time period or in function/requirements. The mongols didn't have Guilds or Feudalism, did they? If you had the Keshik as a knight replacement, you'd have people complaining that they were unrealistic in their requirements.

Keshik is a very useful unit when it appears, and therefore is reasonable for the game. Honestly i never build a HA (unless short metal) unless i'm playing the Mongols ...

You'd also have to change their abilities, because there's no way a Knight with the ability to walk on hills as terrainmovecost=1 will make it into this game. HA are weak enough compared to the times that it doesn't really hurt to give them that quite interesting and useful ability; Knights with that ability would crush everyone around them. Realistic for the mongols perhaps; good for Civ, no.

[gpfsmurf]

Mongols certainly had Feudalism. I don't know about Guilds though.

Keshiks and Knights were very different. Whereas Knights were heavily armored, Keshiks were light and extremely mobile.
They didn't fear pikemen though, as they attacked from range. They also had armor-piercing arrows...

Anyways, you can't have a realistic Keshik AND balanced gameplay at the same time.

I completely agree with LzPrst that they are not placed at the right time though.

[Cyclotron]

Well, the Mongols certainly used heavy lancers. Were I to design a Mongol unit as a knight replacement, it would have a few first strikes to simulate the archery bit (rather like the samurai). I'd probably up the unit's base retreat chance by a bit, too.

I think that the matter of the Mongols not having guilds is somewhat less important than giving them a unit that actually represents them, chronologically and materially.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the keshik is fine. It allows for good gameplay. It's realistic in the tech required (they're nothing more than mounted archers anyway). They certainly are a poor replacement for knights, that's not their purpose at all.

I never get how people can find uses for horse archers Every time i try getting horseback riding and think ''ok, ill try it AGAIN'' they let me down. And its no surprise, HA are merely mounted swordsmen. Horse archers are one of the strongest units of all time IMO and im not seeing it ingame. Because by the time you field them in good quantity i see spearmen

The keshik should just be a knight with free mobility promotion and maybe a first strike or two. Those that complain about it being overpowered should consult the list of mongol-conquered nations....wny are the romans the only ones with a super-UU??

[Blaupanzer]

The Roman praet is for newbies, so they have a chance. Most of the other UUs are moderately better but not overwhelming. LzPrst is right about timing, however.

[Chopper]

The thing about horse archers is that they are archers and therefore would be shooting at spears from a distance not in melee. Same goes for attacking other melee units. THere is scope for tweaking the HA somewhat without giving it any City taking bonuses.

[HoldSteady]

Originally posted by onodera
If your theory was true the Russians wouldn't have Cossacks as their UU, but something like Red Armyman.

Well, and if this was true, then one ahould be able to build those in neverdepleting numbers (ie, are cheap, or, you can trade 1 populace for a few of them) and fight with a bonus on arctic and tundra tiles. This, off course, is just me being silly.

[LzPrst]

yes, horse archers are in fact way underpowered in civ. as well as misplaced. remember that the mongol horse archers defeated the muslim armies, the chinese and eastern europe. with horse archers. in the age of knights. european knights were target practice for the mongols. as was any infantry. mounted tribes were a force to be reckoned with until the 1900's. (dont believe me? read the history of the formation of Saudi-Arabia).

so. yeah. fix the horse archer.