Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Mongol Unique Unit

[Locutus]

As explained in the main discussion thread, we should decide on some of the Unique Units for the Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack ASAP so the graphics people can start working when they're ready. So that's what this thread is about: deciding what the Unique Unit of the Mongols should be. I think I picked the most logical choices but feel free to post alternatives (if 'Other' becomes very popular we could have a 'second round').

For each civ I added a very brief description to give an impresssion of the importance of each unit. Note that I had to make 20 odd descriptions for 5 threads so I didn't bother doing extensive research or anything, 95% of the info is from the top of my head. So it's quite possible I made some mistakes or left out vital information or whatever. I very much encourage others with more knowlegde and time to post more elaborate explanations and/or point out my mistakes (some pictures could be useful as well, esp. for the graphics people).



Explanations:
The Mongols at various points in their existance used all sorts of Siege Weapons and used them with great skill. The weapons they used ranged from simple Stone Throwers to primitive Explosives, depending on when and where they fought. Taking on a heavily fortified city was for most armies a very expensive and long-lasting operation but the Mongols took a record number of cities in a record time.

Horse Archers were the main body of the Mongol armies. They were fast, light, manouverable, deadly, enduring and yet well-armored (with silk armor). Their commanders were extremely skilled and by means of ambush and tactical retreats managed to at times overcome armies ten to twenty times larger and more powerful then their own.

Composite Bowmen: in those occasions where Horse Archers didn't suffice (FE in street fighting) the Mongols left their horses behind and fought on foot. Their Composite Bows were extremely powerful and accurate, superior to any contemporary (non-siege) ranged weapon.

The Rider could symbolize the Mongol Horse Archers as well as all other forms of cavalry that were deployed by Mongol armies. IMHO the only reason to do this would be to make sure no pre-made units go unused when the Chinese UU is changed. Pretty much all Mongol troops were Riders of some sort (unless besieging a city), so IMHO it wouldn't exactly be unique (but that's just my view)...

[orange]

Cavalry Archer, no contest.

Replaces Horseman? 4.1.2?

[GePap]

I would second cavalry archers- perhaps 4/3/3 knights since the Mongols were able to cover vast distances very quickly and outmanouvered their opponents most of the time.

[The Hyper Duck]

Definitely a horse archer...maybe renamed to Mangudai

[orange]

IMO that's way to powerful. The Mongols conquered well, but they weren't able to hold the territory in that sense...the 4/3/3 you propose makes it as fast as cavalry, as powerful as the knights, and as powerful defensively as a pikeman. WAAAAAAAY to powerful. It should be an improved horseman for taking out spearman and taking territory, but not being able to defend it with those units. That's my opinion anyway.

[Jrad]

How about 4/4/2? Upgraded defense, representing the armor...not availible though until Gunpowder, as these show the obsolesence of Bow-And-Arrow weaponry. It's name? Armored Knight or something...Requires Horses, Iron to build. Strength lies in the fact it can't be counter attacked until Military Tradition, but can't move against Musketeers too well. Similar to real life...the Mongols had trouble expanding into Poland and Germany (But they tried) because of the weaponry of the day. The Mongols were ejected when opposing armies could get a decent attack against them, or when the Mongols were inept at a battle.

[Pompey]

I also support a Mongol Mounted Archer. I wouldn't make it as powerful as a knight though seeing as the Mongols were no match for a knight in a conventional battle. The Mongols relied on speed and guerilla (hit and run) tactics. Perhaps then the Mounted Mongol Warrior/Archer (or would Mangudai be better?) should have a combination of bombard capabilities and greater movement rates. I suggest a "treat all terrain as roads" special effect. Not sure how the bombard thing could work seeing as it can damage units in cities also (which the Mongols did mind you) but it is a good option to an all out attack unit. This unit could wear down opponents from a distance, flee and resume again...it could then move in for the kill...much more like the real life equivalent. We must remember that the medieval civilizations had no ready solution to the Mongol threat...this is why they lost so many times. It should therefore be okay to make the Mongol unit stronger than other special units. Only modern day units would be able to deal with them or larger armies..which is in fact what most civilizations pooled against the Mongols..larger armies.

I myself have made these modifcations and they work fine. For the graphics I used the Chinese Rider which is a shame but the best I could do. If anyone has any better graphics option let me know. I have removed the Iriqouis and made the the Mongols. A leader picture would also be great. I am currently working on this but any help would be great.

Lastly, the Chinese should NOT have the Rider unit. This is the Mongol unit by far. The Chinese should have a rapid-fire Archer unit (on the Age of Kings model) or a siege engine of sorts.

Just some thoughts...

[Genghis John]

Mongols: Horse Archers... definitely.

Their main advantage was speed. I think an extra movement point would make them a powerful force, especially once they get into enemy territory and get no bonus movement for roads.

Both historically accurate, and not to overbalancing for game play I think...

GJ

[Rex Exitium]

I'm all for the Cavalry Archer/Mangudai. It makes the most sense to use the Mangudai as their special unit since it's both historically correct and the Mongols used it to great effect.

In Age of Empires II the Mongols use it as their primary attack unit while the Chinese use the Cho-ko-nu (multi-shot composite siege crossbow) crossbowman.

[Rex Exitium]

Originally posted by orange
IMO that's way to powerful. The Mongols conquered well, but they weren't able to hold the territory in that sense...the 4/3/3 you propose makes it as fast as cavalry, as powerful as the knights, and as powerful defensively as a pikeman. WAAAAAAAY to powerful. It should be an improved horseman for taking out spearman and taking territory, but not being able to defend it with those units. That's my opinion anyway.

The Mongols used the Mangudai to great effect in the middle ages (11th-13th century) and decimated most if not all of the cities which were on the Silk Road. When they reached Baghdad they burned it to the ground and slew all of its inhabitants.

Their advance towards Europe was relentless until for no explainable reason, Ghenghis Khan ordered his troops to turn back to take Egypt, where for the first time the Mongols were defeated by a large army of Egyptian Mamelukes (warrior slaves) lead by the Mameluke king. As a non-sequitur I would like to add that the Mamelukes who were formerly slaves took over the Egyptian throne and became their own masters.

In any case they're a lot better than any old Horseman as they managed to take head on armies of Turkish horsemen and European knights.

The Mangudai are trained in the ways of archery and horseriding from the age of 6 and become proficient in shooting arrows accurately towards their targets while mounted on their horses. That's a pretty difficult feat to accomplish.

In all aspects pertaining to reality, arrows from their composite bows are much more accurate and damaging compared to regular bows due to their longer range and velocity of flight hence a higher Attack rating when compared to regular archers.

Their horse mounted ability and proficiency and skill in ambush, evasion and guerilla warfare garners them a higher defensive skill than regular warriors. Consider this: They're trained in the arts of warfare since childhood, so it only makes sense that they're much better warriors than those trained at a much later age, since they've had so much more time to perfect their skills in practice and excersize.

Due to the fact that they mount the high-breed of Mongolian horses and that they wear light armor as opposed to heavy iron armor, they certainly have more mobility than the regular Knight.

Taking all of this into consideration, I have absolutely no idea what their stats should be. Any clues?

[orange]

Originally posted by Rex Exitium


The Mongols used the Mangudai to great effect in the middle ages (11th-13th century) and decimated most if not all of the cities which were on the Silk Road. When they reached Baghdad they burned it to the ground and slew all of its inhabitants.

Their advance towards Europe was relentless until for no explainable reason, Ghenghis Khan ordered his troops to turn back to take Egypt, where for the first time the Mongols were defeated by a large army of Egyptian Mamelukes (warrior slaves) lead by the Mameluke king. As a non-sequitur I would like to add that the Mamelukes who were formerly slaves took over the Egyptian throne and became their own masters.

In any case they're a lot better than any old Horseman as they managed to take head on armies of Turkish horsemen and European knights.

The Mangudai are trained in the ways of archery and horseriding from the age of 6 and become proficient in shooting arrows accurately towards their targets while mounted on their horses. That's a pretty difficult feat to accomplish.

In all aspects pertaining to reality, arrows from their composite bows are much more accurate and damaging compared to regular bows due to their longer range and velocity of flight hence a higher Attack rating when compared to regular archers.

Their horse mounted ability and proficiency and skill in ambush, evasion and guerilla warfare garners them a higher defensive skill than regular warriors. Consider this: They're trained in the arts of warfare since childhood, so it only makes sense that they're much better warriors than those trained at a much later age, since they've had so much more time to perfect their skills in practice and excersize.

Due to the fact that they mount the high-breed of Mongolian horses and that they wear light armor as opposed to heavy iron armor, they certainly have more mobility than the regular Knight.

Taking all of this into consideration, I have absolutely no idea what their stats should be. Any clues?

Great history lesson, but it basically agrees with what I'm saying. On attack, the mongols were very powerful, and if they get a 4/1/2 unit when others are using horseman archers and spearman, they're going to get a great advantage. But, there is no reason to give them a huge defense number because in battle the knight easily crushed the cavalry archers, even Mongols. The Mongols conquered by offense, and had little or no defense, not even in the area they conquered. It was like nomadic conquering.

That's why I suggest 4/1/2

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Rex Exitium
Their advance towards Europe was relentless until for no explainable reason, Ghenghis Khan ordered his troops to turn back to take Egypt,

I agree with everything you said (Mongols having trouble expanding into Europe, as Jrad said, don't make me laugh! ) but (as I explained in this thread a while ago) the retreat from Europe was not unexplained and it was not ordered by Genghis.

Genghis was long dead when Russia and Europe were attacked, the retreat of the Mongols after they had reached the outskirts of Vienna was triggered by the death of Odegei, the successor of Genghis. By Mongol law, Sudegei and Batu (who led the invasion into Europe) were obliged to return with their armies to Karakorum and select a new Great Khan. It was only after that, once the new Khan had been chosen, that the Mongols sent their hordes into Egypt. But these hordes weren't the same as the ones that were sent into Europe: those went back to Russia to govern the Golden Horde khanate. Egypt was attacked by the Il-Khan khanate (and the Mameluks actually had some (but not much) support from Golden Horde troops, who had allied themselves with various European and Middle Eastern nations).

[sachmo71]

Horse Archer...3/1/3 with. Every 2 units garrisoned in a city cause one unhappy citizen, thus encouraging the offensive.

[orange]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Horse Archer...3/1/3 with. Every 2 units garrisoned in a city cause one unhappy citizen, thus encouraging the offensive.

That's relying a little to much on history. We should assume that the Mongols could be civilized in a game of Civ 3...even if they would be (probably) militaristic expansionistic in the game...

The natural resistance and unhappiness of the city from foreign occupation should be all the effect needed. No need to tamper with the game files for just the mongols.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by orange


Great history lesson, but it basically agrees with what I'm saying. On attack, the mongols were very powerful, and if they get a 4/1/2 unit when others are using horseman archers and spearman, they're going to get a great advantage. But, there is no reason to give them a huge defense number because in battle the knight easily crushed the cavalry archers, even Mongols. The Mongols conquered by offense, and had little or no defense, not even in the area they conquered. It was like nomadic conquering.

That's why I suggest 4/1/2

Not exactly. Knights did not crush the Mongol horse archers, because they couldn't get in range. The Mongols could easily ride in retreat ahead of the knights, peppering them with arrows the entire time, which the western mounted archers couldn't do. Granted, they didn't have the amount of thick metal plates that the Knights, but what they did wear (generally lamellar with silk underneath) was easily adequate to give them the same level of protection when combined with the difficulty of catching them. Even other military units with ranged weapons had a difficult time, as the Mongol bow in general had better range and power, and so they could stay out of the range of their opponents and still do damage..

[Mankind]

submarine archer, MIG with a pike...?



horse archer [witrh probably different name]

[orange]

Originally posted by archermoo


Not exactly. Knights did not crush the Mongol horse archers, because they couldn't get in range. The Mongols could easily ride in retreat ahead of the knights, peppering them with arrows the entire time, which the western mounted archers couldn't do. Granted, they didn't have the amount of thick metal plates that the Knights, but what they did wear (generally lamellar with silk underneath) was easily adequate to give them the same level of protection when combined with the difficulty of catching them. Even other military units with ranged weapons had a difficult time, as the Mongol bow in general had better range and power, and so they could stay out of the range of their opponents and still do damage..

That's why they have the increased movement. In hand to hand combat, a knight should take a mongol archer apart. The Mounted Archer can attack and run 2 squares away. Then if another knight runs 2 squares, it will only get to one square behind the mounted archer, allowing it to attack the knight.

Make sense?

[Arbaal]

The fact is there wasnt a single unit in the era of the Mongol hordes that was equal to the Mongol mounted archers.

Midevil knights were slaughtered by the Mongols. Fact is the ONLY reason the Mongols did not take over all of europe was that the generals were called back because Ghengis died.

The Mongol riders were able to ride without using their hands, and overran most of China, Russia, the Middle East and Europe with ease, China being the country that took the longest to overcome.

Seige engines were used but the mainstay was the mounted archers. They had the best communication system of the time, a precurser to the Pony Express 100s of years before hand.

They used tactics such as taking military prisoners, arming them, and sending them out as the first wave. Sending them out against their countrymen, making them choose death at the hands of the Mongols or a fighting chance.

Usually fear tactics were used of such a unheard of nature that those captive were far more afraid of the Mongols then attacking their own armys. Civilians were also sent out.

Thus making say a Chinese army kill 100,000s of their own people before they even faced the Mongols.

A Mongol unit in Civ3 would be the most powerful unit of its age, able to best any other unit in one on one combat if attacking.

Why? Because they were, no one posed a threat to the Mongols and only Japan was able to avoid being taken over. (Which was long after Ghengis death.) Ghengis controlled the largest empire that the world has ever seen.

They should have a higher attack then any other middle age mounted unit, with a higher defense because in Civ3 movement does not allow you to avoid attacks. But the fact remains a knight would never ever get in range of a Mongol mounted archer to even hit him.

Theres some city in Europe where they still ring the church bell each year, at the exact moment that the man that was ringing it to warn the townspeople to flee was shot through with a Mongol arrow.

Arbaal

[GePap]

I still think the Mongol units should be 4/3/3. If one looks, the Knight is already 4/3/2 (the Chinese rider is a knight +1 defense, which makes it 4/4/2) An attack of 4 is good for this age, 3 is fine (normal) but what would make them killer is the extra attack move. Of course if we want something radical, keep it 4/3/2 but let it attack twice like a tank...OK, maybe not, but a defense of 1 is too low (it could be taken out by normal archers, not possible). If no one wants the xtra move, make it 5/3/2.

[orange]

I would say 4/2/3 is reasonable.

Were they powerful? YES! But only because they were constantly on the offensive. The Mongols hardly ever needed to go on the defensive. Giving them a 4/4/3 unit is unreaslistic, the defense is way to high, and if medievil knights were on the attack and reached a horde of mongol Archers, they would probably win! (assuming equal numbers). The reason the mongols were so powerful on the attack was because they could attack and flee before being caught.

They were successful for strong attack and fast movement NOT DEFENSE.