the Mongols

[Ision]

The Mongols

Have you ever wanted see Bismark humbled, Catherine beg for mercy, and even Caesar himself paying tribute gold for fear of his life? Is there a streak of the tyrant in you, a desire to wreak havoc and throttle all those that stand in your way? Is your vision of the perfect empire a vision of, “…a boot stamping on a human face – forever”? If you answered yes there is a solution to your desires – the Mongols. The very name of the CIV itself conjures up images of huge empires, horseback warriors, and feared rulers.

Expansionist and Militaristic, the Mongol traits are tailor made for the warmonger. The access to scout units gives the Mongol a large advantage in locating crucial resources and luxuries. On average the Mongol will locate and map-out his rival CIVs at an accelerated pace. Added to this are the expansionist advantages with goody huts. A typical Mongol game will see you with an early tech lead and possibly even a free settler. This early tech lead translates out to giving the Mongol a variety of early strategies unavailable to many CIVs. Along with this, the Mongol-starting tech of Pottery gives him instant access to granaries and the resulting benefits of faster settler creation. The Mongol is very commonly the largest and most sprawling of the Ancient Age empires. The Mongol CIV is also good for getting Wonders. No, you don’t build them – you take them from others! For governments, no need to haggle with congress and such, straight Monarchy followed by a switch to Fascism/Communism is always a good strategy with this CIV.

The expansionist trait works on the militaristic trait by allowing that CIV an early cushion in research, superior terrain knowledge, and the faster creation of new towns. This in turn allows the Mongol to create an effective military force far faster than most of his rivals. The early access to cheap barracks and archers gives the Mongol the option of launching an ultra early archer rush on his nearest neighbor. The Mongol can alternate his early settler creation with early wars, thus expanding his empire both internally and at the expense of his neighbors. A quick beeline to horseback riding may give the Mongol an early mobile force that few CIVs can withstand at such an early stage of the game. God forbid the Mongol pulls off 3 or 4 early MGLs! You may find yourself with a domination or conquest win in record time! Those cheap early barracks allow a steady stream of veteran combat units – usually pouring out from a steady stream of newly created/conquered towns that are far more numerous than all the other Civs. You really can re-create a huge sprawling Middle Age empire that mirrors their actual history!

On the downside is what I consider to be mediocre UU. The Keshik is a 60 shield 4-2-2 knight level UU with a terrain advantage on mountains. Of all the Knight level UUs available with Chivalry, the Keshik is the weakest. Barring an unusually mountainous map, the unit simply does not have the same impact as the Japanese Samurai or Chinese Rider. Even the Indian War Elephant with its extra hp and no resource advantage is a better deal. That said, the unit is 10 shields cheaper than the standard knight, and the terrain bonus can be handy at times. It can still be used quite effectively. The second downside is the most obvious. The Mongol traits are totally geared towards speed and war; their infrastructure building is slow and expensive. I suppose if you’re enough of a masochist, you could use this CIV for a builder strategy, but why bother. Those players that enjoy a more flexible approach in their games are better served elsewhere. The Mongol is for the serious warmonger.

So how do the Mongols fare with C3C? After playing a few games with Mongols again, I have come to the following conclusions:

The expansionist trait is more valuable now, that combined with the greater power of armies accentuate the warmonger traits of the Mongol even more. Among Civs to warmonger with, the Mongols are certainly a top tier choice. Better than most, but outclassed by many. The superior UUs of many of the other CIVs used for warmongering are a minus for the Mongols. Also, most of the better warmonger CIVs lend themselves more easily to a builder/peaceful style if need be. The Mongols are far more constrained in their options.

Summary; The Mongols are a solid warmongers Civ with great appeal to the historically minded. However, while a top tier CIV for warmongering, they are on the bottom end of that tier. This combined with their poor performance as a builder/peaceful Civ choice places them among the bottom 10 (3rd tier) in overall performance.

Below are the links to my other reviews:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=102619
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103204

[vmxa1]

The worse part of playing Mongols is having to look at the khan.

[Generalissimo]

The Mongols Show great skill in pissing me off.

[TheArsenal]

I’ve never played a full game as the Mongols because although I am partial to fast moving UUs, I am not a fan of the militaristic or expansionist trait (although I have not used it in C3C), particularly together.

Originally posted by vmxa1
The worse part of playing Mongols is having to look at the khan.

No kidding. When I play against the Mongols it is almost worth it to keep Genghis polite all game so I don’t have to look at that horrible mug screwed up in annoyance or fury. Can barely look at him at then.

[Generalissimo]

hehehe

I think im the only one here that finds the Khan cool

[dexters]

When you're playing a civ, the personality is all you and it all comes down to the combination of civ traits (which is really a bunch of modifiers) and the UU. IMO, other civs share the expansionsit trait too, will you have to be repeating yourself when you say.. write about the Americans?

I think you might want to include a section on AI personality of a given civ and talk about civ traits generally.

[Ision]

dexters,

Yes the personality is up to you. Nevertheless, certain trait dynamics lend themselves far better to a certain personality style. If a person likes warmongering, he can do it with ANY Civ, however the Mongols will serve him better than 2/3rds of the others in this endeavor. So, in a short review it is logical to focus on this fact at the expense of others. Each trait combo presents a different 'dynamic', the dynamics of Expansionist & Militaristic are different than exp/ind or exp/com ect... Naturally any trait combo that shares one of its 2 traits with another trait combo - will have a degree of similarity.

And, yes I will be repeating myself quite often; for example Greece and Korea or Zulus and Mongols will be similar (NOT identical) in the review style. Bear in mind that my reviews are meant only as an 'overview' of each CIV, not a detailed and comprehensive essay. Some of the comments I make are for ther sake of giving each review it's own flavor, and thus avoid them becoming 'bad reads' or boring. My Prefaces and quotes are an endeavor to give each review a touch of the 'novel', and avoiding the 'math-book' feel of many posts.

The reviews are already quite lengthy and time consuming. I do them for the benefit of 'newbies', to contribute to the CIV community in general, and for my love of this game.

However, give it a try yourself, and you may find that it is not as easy as it may look. To voluntarily take on the task of creating 31 CIV specific reviews has turned out to be more work than I originally anticipated.
Especially, if your being as careful as possible not to give erroneous information. I am always trying to balance out being too detailed (and therefore writing a 'War & Peace' length article) with trying to be as comprehensive as possible within a medium length essay. I then try to balance out a review that will be appreciated and informative to both the novice and expierenced player.

For the most part, the CIV communities response to the 3 reviews I have done thus far (Greece, Mongols, Egypt), have been overwhelmingly positive.

Ision

[dexters]

I didn't mean to be negative, merely suggesting some of my own views. But if you feel this way is the right way for you to go, you certianly have my support and I'll be reading your future posts.

[bongo]

Ision , how do you find time for this? Anyway, I'm impressed.

I'm playing my first c3c game now, as the mongols Just a 'lucky' draw after my standard 'random everything' start. My impression of the mongols? Much as your review I guess. I had good use of my scouts in the beginning, gaining contacts, techs from huts and via diplomacy. Building is a pain in the arse though. Only reason I'm #1 is the fact that I am beating my neighbour to a pulp on a constant basis, stealing their wonders, extorting them for techs and money...It helped getting Statue of Zeus as well.

Keshiks aren't that bad if you use them the right way. Ok, crossing mountains/hill as it were flat land doesn't sound very useful. Just remember to attack from the mountains, then you regain that lost defence, AND keep the movement points.

Keshik armies are wonderful btw

[Ision]

.

[Paddy]

thanks...

I have not played the Mongols for some time, I just may soon in an upcoming PBEM

[Mad Bomber]

Ision:



Great review, but I think you are wrong to diss the Keshik. Trading 1 defense point for a 10 shield discount is worth it, especially for a civ dedicated to warmongering as the mongols are. Think about it, you can build 15% more of them as compared to standard knights with the exact same production. This means that you can use more of them in their primary role of attack. This UU only seems to be weak, with another civ it is, but with the mongols its almost perfect.

[Arrian]

I haven't played the Mongols in Conquests. I played them a couple of times in PTW.

The Keshik is one of my least favorite UUs. Frankly, in most circumstances I'd rather have normal knights.

The trait combo is also one of my least favorites. It does have a certain symmetry to it, though: seek and destroy.

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

Arrian:

Considering your playing style I would have thought the Mongols a perect fit. I must admit that I don't like playing the Mongols as they either are a real pain or hopelessly inept depending upon how their earliest wars come out. The Keshik is needed for the Mongols though as their production is usually less than most other civ's.

[Arrian]

MB,

My playstyle isn't nearly as warmongerish as many seem to perceive it to be.

I fought a LOT in PTW, but I was still primarily a builder at heart. The fighting was always just a means to an end, and for the most part if my choice was between a library and another unit, the library got built. Perhaps the main reason for me sticking with Monarch level for so long was that I could often fight AND build at the same time on that level.

In Conquests, I've gone even more builderish, given that MGLs can no longer give me insta-great wonders, but SGLs can I still fight, but often much later than I did in PTW. I'll pick a really early fight if I can bop a settler team early, or if I have an AI *right* on top of me, or if I find that the only source of iron on the continent is in my neighbor's hands. Otherwise, I'll build up peacefully and unleash hell later on.

Anyway, as mentioned before, the Mongols are horrible at building, which is what I'm really after. I'm better at using a builder civ to warmonger than a warmonger civ to build.

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Arrian
MB,

My playstyle isn't nearly as warmongerish as many seem to perceive it to be.....

I fought a LOT in PTW, but I was still primarily a builder at heart.....

I'll pick a really early fight if I can bop a settler team early, or if I have an AI *right* on top of me, or if I find that the only source of iron on the continent is in my neighbor's hands. Otherwise, I'll build up peacefully and unleash hell later on.

Anyway, as mentioned before, the Mongols are horrible at building, which is what I'm really after. I'm better at using a builder civ to warmonger than a warmonger civ to build.

-Arrian

I agree with your position. I hate playing the Mongols as well. I don't consider myself either a warmonger or a builder but I incorporate both styles into a centrist type of play (Build to Fight, Fight to Build, is my motto) . I had thought you a bit more on the warmongering side but apparently I am incorrect in my assumpion.

[Phoenix]

Anyone else notice the info about the Mongols in the civilopedia is wrong? The Mongols only rarely slaughtered the inhabitants of a city. Compare them to some of their contemporaries and they were hardly barbarians. Put Chinggis Khan next to Charlemagne and it's obvious which one was more of a tyrant. Most cities surrended to the Mongols without a fight. The smart ones in any case.

Taking skilled artisans from their home was something that everybody did up until the early modern time. You could put that comment in every civilizations info. There are some really good books about the Mongols, but they are vastly outnumbered by the crappy ones.

I love playing as the Mongols on Pangea. Nonstop warmaking and expansion. Usually the game is over by the time I reach communism. But every once in awhile there's an actual superpower on the other end of the continent that puts up one hell of a fight. It can be the most fun you'll ever have playing civ.

I actually like the Keshik. If you play the Mongols like I do you never really bother making roads, and I usually end up with a good deal of mountains on my maps. Having a unit that can just breeze across them and retreat back just as fast is a serious advantage.

Must have for the Mongols - Pyramids, Sun Tzus War Academy, Temple of Artemis. Obviously Statue of Zeus helps, but it is not necessary. If someone else builds one of these wonders, you know what your next target is. Heh heh.

[Daddy-O]

Bump. Too bad Ision quit this game and these reviews. Who needs a strat guide with this site?