• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Is there any kind of plot to make somekind of coalition against the mongols?
 
Uh, Justinian's reconquest was about 600 years before the Mongols showed up. And while the Cataphracts (somewhat based on Persian mounted archers/heavy cavalry) certainly used bows, I think they're better represented as heavy cavalry, since that was their most decisive role.
You're right, I mixed the Mongols with the Huns in my mind.
 
The English King had various holdings in France right from the conquest in 1066 up until Mary I lost Calais in 1570ish.

The Hundred Years war was really a continuation of past conflict, only this time Edward III claimed the throne of France. The disputes were over the sovereignty of English posessions in France - the english king held them as a fief from the french king, but wanted to hold them in full sovereignty.

You'll probably be surprised by the extent of the so called Angevin Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_empire), at the beginning of the 13th century - probably around the time that the screenshot is from!

Don't get confused though. The Angevins were buried in France. It's fair to say that a vassal of the French king was also king of England, not the other way round!!! :)

:eek:

Wow. Thank you for explaining the scenario to me. :happy:

I had understood that at certain periods in history the King of England was a vassal (of sorts, I guess) to the King of France, but never grasped the full extent of it all.

Again, thanks man. :D
 
I had understood that at certain periods in history the King of England was a vassal (of sorts, I guess) to the King of France, but never grasped the full extent of it all.
Even wierder than the position of the King of England, there were lesser nobles who held land in fief from both the King of France and the King of England; at least one even sent troops to serve on both sides in the wars! It says much about how it was not "total war" in that negotiations were organised to agree how this would work...
 
Even wierder than the position of the King of England, there were lesser nobles who held land in fief from both the King of France and the King of England; at least one even sent troops to serve on both sides in the wars! It says much about how it was not "total war" in that negotiations were organised to agree how this would work...

Talk about both sides having valid points, eh? :laugh:

:p
 
Don't get confused though. The Angevins were buried in France. It's fair to say that a vassal of the French king was also king of England, not the other way round!!! :)

I think Henry II might have a thing or two to say about that.
 
no resistance is futile? :p im dissapoint :p

seriously though I'm looking forward to them, didnt expect them to be in TBH.

btw Is it just me or are the CoA's a bit weird? (on the left under the char head. they seem to be a bit off.....like not in the middle of the Arms for some reason. (same in all other screens))
 
btw Is it just me or are the CoA's a bit weird? (on the left under the char head. they seem to be a bit off.....like not in the middle of the Arms for some reason. (same in all other screens))

CKI had the same problem. Most likely those crest they have used directly from there aren't been fixed so they wouldn't be totally centered on the COA.
 
Is it possible to make the mongols as strong as it fits into the game?
Like when I'm really strong (e.g. beeing King of Germany France, England... ^^)
before the mongols arrive I'll get strong mongols giving me sort of a
"levelboss"-Challange and if I'm weak/normal I'll get normal mongols?

If it's not in vanilla is there any "kingtiles = 5" trigger to make my own additional horde arriving if someone has more than 5 King-titles or anything else that indicates the strength?

----------

Did the mongols make it to Poland in your test game?
 
King,

This raises an interesting question.

Will auto-reinforcement be the norm? And if so, can that feature be turned off?

It's unrealistic in EU III (and one of the primary reasons I don't play that game). In CK II it would be staggeringly so.
 
Will auto-reinforcement be the norm? And if so, can that feature be turned off?

It wasn't part of CKI, and the threads on the earlier dev diaries on warfare, mercenaries, and holy orders have made it pretty clear that regular levies don't reinforce automatically, while hired troops do but very slowly.
 
King,

This raises an interesting question.

Will auto-reinforcement be the norm? And if so, can that feature be turned off?

It's unrealistic in EU III (and one of the primary reasons I don't play that game). In CK II it would be staggeringly so.

Depends on how you class auto reinforce. If I disband a levy and send it home it will then start to rebuild. The mongol assault troops never reinforce and thus will stop being effective eventually.
 

Wikipedia isn't exactly known for being a reliable source. Just so you know. :)

But to make the broader point, the horse-archers of the Byzantine's (or Eastern Romans) were nothing compared to the Mongols. As pointed out, they are more correctly classified as light or heavy cavalry. The mongol horse archers were unique and particularly devastating for 1.) their tactics and 2.) their bravery in the saddle. These men could shoot a bow straight and hit a target while at full gallop and facing backwards in the saddle. The Empire's cavalry were noobs in the eyes of these men from the Eastern Steppes.

Still, a lot of questions are not answered. For example would there be mechanism preventing mongols from annexing large ammounts of non-steppe land (historically they sticked to Pontic Steppes, simply replacing Cumans, and treating other conquests as tributary states)? It would be silly to have nomadic, horse-heavy Mongols in Finland or Alpes IMO.

That would actually be historically accurate. Most historians agree that Mongolian raids extended as far into Europe as the Alps and as far north as modern-day Finland. They weren't able to conquer and assimilate like they were in the east, but there is definitely archeological evidence to show they were raiding much farther in-land.
 
That would actually be historically accurate. Most historians agree that Mongolian raids extended as far into Europe as the Alps and as far north as modern-day Finland. They weren't able to conquer and assimilate like they were in the east, but there is definitely archeological evidence to show they were raiding much farther in-land.

Raids - yes. Permanent military presence, and direct incorporation into Horde's demesne - no. IMO Mongol demesne should be limited to actual steppes - otherwise they couldn't sustain large amounts of horses to feed. Yes - they could ride deep into Europe, but only to vassilse/create tributaries - not to create centralised empire of horse-lords controlling 2/3 of Europe.

Historically they raided deep into Poland, Hungary and Russia, but their demsne (to use game terms) remained on actual steppes, previously controlled by oter nomads (Cumans, Pechenegs). They couldn't permanently control urbanised and fortified areas with forested/hilly terrain, and so they were content with just getting regular tribute from local rulers (Rus').

Pontic_Caspian_climate.png


Just compare this climate/terrain map with historical territories of Golden Horde - basically the same. Of course, other principles should apply to Mongols invading Persia/Middle East.