How strong are Mongols in CK on 1.03b? If I have ability to mobilize 100 000 soldiers will they be challenge for my Polish Empire (I play on normal/normal)?
-
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.
In my Normal/Normal game the forces of several strong Russian princes and a surviving Byzantium (all of these AI) have managed to beat the Golden Horde back. I now await the appearance of the Il Khanate...
Dzoser said:
You can probably kick them out if it is normal/normal. better prepare for an real fight
Limulus said:Even if the player wins, it ruins the game because after victorious war with Mongols player controls half of map. Maybe somebody likes this, but I don't. It is not fun to be _forced_ to conquer half of Europe.
Exactly! I'm strong enough that I could drive them back, but I don't want to conquer the whole of the known world in the process -- I know it's a game, but I prefer a bit of realism.
Sorry to harp on about it, but making the Golden Khanate use gavelkind does make a difference, and, I think, is historical. The nice thing about this solution is that it only weakens the Horde over several generations, so you still get the initial wave of terror and massive conquest, but you know that it won't last forever -- after two or three generations you might be at war with the Golden Khan, but at least the Khan is at the same time having to protect his back from other Mongol successor states.
Historically the Golden Horde was only stopped because of the death of their great leader. Had he not died early, who knows where they would have stopped.
HÄI said:You can probably kick them out if it is normal/normal. better prepare for an real fight
So I can say that they aren't too powerful?
How much soldiers do they have when they appear in CK?
Each 150000 on normal. With the change of an equal amount of reinforcements should they loose too bad too early. Also, they can reappear if they are destroyed before a certain date.Dzoser said:So I can say that they aren't too powerful?
Sikker said:
To clarify, for anyone who's not so well up on Mongol history: It was Genghis Khan's grandson, Batu, who was in overall command of the invading armies, and it was the death of his father, Ogedei, successor to Genghis, which prompted the withdrawal. Batu had to pull his armies out, so that he could return to Mongolia and put his case for inheritance.
If Ogedei had survived a few more years, the Horde probably would have swept much further into Europe, though quite how they'd have got on without any great plains to pasture their herd animals is a different matter!
The problem for us is that the game doesn't accurately model the situation from the Mongol point of view. Ogedei's death at around that time wasn't that improbable, but the game has nothing to reflect that possibility. As the game stands, once the Horde has arrived, the only thing that can drive it back is concerted attacks from nations on the map. Let's pause for a moment to reflect on why the Horde didn't return to continue their invasion once the succession crisis was over. The reason has nothing to do with European military might, and much to do with Mongol politics.
There ought to be features in the game to reflect the possibility of the Mongols deciding to halt their invasion at any moment, regardless of what's going on in Europe and the Middle East.
yup yup
and a curious "Did you know that..?" fact is that Ogodei died from getting too drunk one of the nights of great feasts and looting
it's stupid though to make them reappear, 150,000 once - ok, twice - hardship , but when this happens for 3rd time it's impossible to stop them..
Then simply try to contain them until after the reappearance event becomes impossible. Just wipe out their big armies and let them happily fight some tiny wars until it is time to wipe them out.Riddermark said:
not really, i just let them take some of my provinces in russia and then the Euro nations decided to get rid of the mongols, which resulted in the transformation of Germany. Now they are smaller than Hungary and the capital is in apuila or something
and the capital is in apuila or something
Riddermark said:not really, i just let them take some of my provinces in russia and then the Euro nations decided to get rid of the mongols, which resulted in the transformation of Germany. Now they are smaller than Hungary
Germany or the Mongols?
Which aggressiveness setting are you playing on? IIRC their desire to make peace is less the more aggressive a game - but I might be wrong.ArmchairGeneral said:
The closest you get is some of the Mongol events that withdraw regiments from the fray due to a succession crisis or trouble in the homeland. The best of them (from a human player's point of view) can destroy four regiments. Of course, there is no saying whether it is a 197 man detachment from Yaik or a 14221 starter regiment that gets destroyed (goes away), and it is certainly not an accurate model, but it is better than nothing.Clydog said:
E.g. if such an event fires within the first year of an invasion, the Mongols will typically lose almost 40% of their force. It is the sort of thing that can completely turn the invasion around. Of course, typically, they do NOT fire early in the invasion when you really need it, but that is just bad luck.
Peter Ebbesen said:
Ah. The model's better than I thought, then! I suppose there are three elements to a Horde invasion that are affected by events:
1) the chance of an invasion happening at all
2) the chance of withdrawal
3) the chance of reinforcements
§1 seems reasonable to me -- world conquest really was part of Genghis Khan's plan, and he passed that ambition on to his sons.
§2 seems to be currently too low, and withdrawing only a proportion of the troops is odd. The chance of a total withdrawal should be very high (perhaps 1 in 3) within the first couple of years of invasion, but reduce significantly every year thereafter.
§3 new troops should only arrive if a total withdrawal has occurred (in other words, these should not be 'reinforcements' at all, but a new invading army). I'd scrap this as a separate event, and have it as part of §1.
In practise, for the "reinforcement" events to occur, the horde has to be so weak as to be practically destroyed, and what you get is a new invading army.Clydog said:
I agree with the above posts and I have a proposal to change *** a bit *** the mongol thingie ...
suppose the mongols attack Europe and the system works like in 1.03b, and the whole thing goes on ...
when the mongol khan dies without being assassinated - create a mongol "contesting" event where *** roughly *** 2/3's of the Khans army will retreat and will *** roughly *** respawn 1/3 after 3 years,
suppose you assassinate the mongol khan, there will be no withdrawal of the troops and no "contesting" event. So christianity hoping for a miracle to remove the mongol hordes, won't force that "miracle" by assassinating the khan. The "contesting" event only fires when the Khan is not murdered...
my intention is to keep the current system in 1.03b, but to create a period of weakness when a Mongol Khan dies...leaving room for the neighbours to strengthen or to counterattack when they have become humoungous,
suppose a super Ill khanate rules 50% of Europe - when the Khan dies, the majority of armies are removed and the rest of Europe tries to take land back, after 3 years the new Khan will have a new army ready to defend his land,
suppose the mongols attack Europe and the system works like in 1.03b, and the whole thing goes on ...
when the mongol khan dies without being assassinated - create a mongol "contesting" event where *** roughly *** 2/3's of the Khans army will retreat and will *** roughly *** respawn 1/3 after 3 years,
suppose you assassinate the mongol khan, there will be no withdrawal of the troops and no "contesting" event. So christianity hoping for a miracle to remove the mongol hordes, won't force that "miracle" by assassinating the khan. The "contesting" event only fires when the Khan is not murdered...
my intention is to keep the current system in 1.03b, but to create a period of weakness when a Mongol Khan dies...leaving room for the neighbours to strengthen or to counterattack when they have become humoungous,
suppose a super Ill khanate rules 50% of Europe - when the Khan dies, the majority of armies are removed and the rest of Europe tries to take land back, after 3 years the new Khan will have a new army ready to defend his land,
i suggest instead of a 150,000 army again, send like 1/2 or 1/3 of that..
it's just too much, even on EASY setting, they took whole Germany,France and Spain!
It's just not interesting to have one huge tribal empire.. stupid
Jasmo said:
I agree, the terrain factor should have an impact. Then there was the logistic problem too that might have caused the defeat at the hands of the Mameluks. Attrition should happen when the Mongols are camping outside open terrain. As it is know the Mongols are more of aliens attacking earth than men of flesh and bone.
Some form of penalty for having a too vast Mongol empire should also be implemented. Beyond Hungary and the Holy land it would be difficult to maintain the empire simply because the methods for communicating would suffer a lot. Perhaps an increased risk of rebellion and creations of mini hordes could be a solution?
When the Mongol Empire was at its mightiest, it was possible to communicate meaningfully from China to Russia, with separate hordes both nominally and de facto being part of the Mongol Empire without it suffering from massive rebellions or the creation of a lot of mini hordes. There were remarkably few hordes for the area covered even after the Mongol Empire lost its importance. You have to reach near the end of the CK timeframe before Mongol splitering was a really big problem. I fail to see how an extra stone throw from Hungary or Jerusalem would make the big difference.Judge said:
I, playing as a Byzantine Prince of Campania, waited for a non-Mongol ruler of the Golden Horde, raised four armies of 15,000-20,000 each, sent one to the west, two to Central Europe, and one to their heartland. Once the larger armies were defeated, some forces were split and additional forces were raised from vassals to replace losses.
A non Mongol ruler means that they lose their bonuses and therefore huge inefficiency and attrition. While doing that the Il-Khanate was unable to attack as its neighbours seemed somehow to deny it access (how is access denied in certain instances?). I did have over 150 vassals which helped a little as well as a Byzantine liege that sponged on my military successes though was able to soak up the smaller Mongol armies.
I find that a large army of 15,000 will do well against a Mongol of nearly any size. Larger forces guarantee victory but attrition and losses are huge. They never seem to have marshals so if a player can last the distance he will win.
One worthwhile strategy is to split their territory - other states seem to deny them passage.
A non Mongol ruler means that they lose their bonuses and therefore huge inefficiency and attrition. While doing that the Il-Khanate was unable to attack as its neighbours seemed somehow to deny it access (how is access denied in certain instances?). I did have over 150 vassals which helped a little as well as a Byzantine liege that sponged on my military successes though was able to soak up the smaller Mongol armies.
I find that a large army of 15,000 will do well against a Mongol of nearly any size. Larger forces guarantee victory but attrition and losses are huge. They never seem to have marshals so if a player can last the distance he will win.
One worthwhile strategy is to split their territory - other states seem to deny them passage.