This is ridiculous!

[Bonestaak]

Although the title would suggest this to be a rant thread it's not. Merely pointing out something game breaking and just hoping they'll fix it next patch.

As of now the GH conquered all the principalities and the entire Cuman Khanate. I'm curious whether they'll conquer the whole world because basically as of now I'm the only one who can make a stand against the horde in numbers that is. The SS suggests otherwise. :laugh:

Also the Ill Khanate conquered Persia and Khiva. They're going for Mesopotamia though they would have been far more further if it wasn't for their 110K stack camping in Algarve for about roughly 10 years or so (another bug).

 

[Deaghaidh]

Not that ridiculous really. A bit extreme but you went against the mongols with an equally sized army composed almost entirely of infantry. They chewed up and spat out such forces. At the time of their first wave of invasions, European powers were entirely overmatched. The mongols were more mobile, more disciplined, and more organized.

I could see a scenario in which the mongols lured much of your cavalry into a trap, then broke your infantry with waves of hit an run horse archer attacks. It happened repeatedly. Once they started running, they'd be dead meat.

The ridiculous part is an Irish lord being able to muster almost 100k troops in Lithuania.

 

[Beric Dondarion]

The ridiculous part is the losses the GH had, 4k losses vs. 62k?

 

[unmerged(26764)]

The reason you lost so badly (in addition to the super Mongol horse archer situation) has something to do with your troop composition. Your troops are obviously levies. You've got a lot of light infantry there. The Mongols have 50k elite horse archers. They have almost no filler troops. While you had "even numbers" your armies didn't start that battle even close to evenly matched. You were effectively outnumbered.

In my experience, if you want to beat Mongol horse archers this is what you need to do:

1. As a general rule, 2 to 1 odds in your favor will almost always work. You will win and they will take heavy losses. If you've got good troop composition, 1.5 to 1 might work.

2. Don't fight them with your trash levies. Use the trash troops to clean up sieges, or to serve as decoys that force him to split up his units so you can attack smaller stacks with your main force.

Fight with your retinue. And make sure you've designed your retinue correctly to win.

If you do fight with a lot of trash light infantry, you need to outnumber him by a lot.

3. I've had the best experience with heavy infantry. But ONLY with amazing generals. You need your heavy infantry to use shield wall during the skirmish phase, which will dramatically cut down their losses. Then they destroy horse archers during the melee phase. Only very high skill martial generals will consistently pick that tactic. Which is essential that they do.

4. You need to pick high skill generals. See above. Higher skills trumps good traits here. It is critical that your troops use shield wall to avoid getting wrecked during skirmish. If they pick anything else, you die. If they pick shield wall, they take acceptable losses. Then they need to pick good melee bonuses. If this happens, you win.

People who are complaining a lot about the Mongols are often just throwing tons of units at them and expecting to win. You won't. You can't play against them like you do normal opponents. You have to be very careful. You have to really micromanage your battles. But you can beat them, but only if you play very smart.

 

[Deaghaidh]

The ridiculous part is the losses the GH had, 4k losses vs. 62k?

As I said, extreme. But really, with a 7-1 advantage in cavalry (and likely a significant tech advantage in cavalry as well) the mongol force could dictate the terms of the engagement. Given a skilled commander, they could exploit that to brutal effect. And as I said, they really only needed to give the mass of infantry a demoralizing strike to start a fatal rout. Bait the Irish heavy horse with a feigned retreat, slaughter them in an ambush, and it's really all over but the dying.

It would be remarkable and historic, the sort of thing they study a thousand years later at West Point, but not absurd or impossible. So long as it doesn't happen every time, I'm fine with it.

I'd also like to know what the Irish commander's traits were, and what army techs you had, if possible.

 

[Bonestaak]

Not that ridiculous really. A bit extreme but you went against the mongols with an equally sized army composed almost entirely of infantry. They chewed up and spat out such forces. At the time of their first wave of invasions, European powers were entirely overmatched. The mongols were more mobile, more disciplined, and more organized.

I could see a scenario in which the mongols lured much of your cavalry into a trap, then broke your infantry with waves of hit an run horse archer attacks. It happened repeatedly. Once they started running, they'd be dead meat.

The ridiculous part is an Irish lord being able to muster almost 100k troops in Lithuania.

Ahh yes I got to agree with you on that part, absolutely right where was I with my head. You know I would have been perfectly satisfied if I would have just never expanded at all. Start of as a count in Ireland and get gobbled up by England later on in the game. Because that's how it historically went. Anything else would be ridicilous.

I'm pointing this merely out for gameplay reasons dummy. Of course I should lose the battle and by huge difference too. Yet 60K men murdered and on their losses merely 5000 is uhhhhhhh what was that word again... hmmm, oh yes 'historical'!.

 

[unmerged(228153)]

Quite unlike today, Lithuania was full of dense, nearly untouched forests back in the High Middle Ages; I can't even begin to imagine how an army of 100000 horse archers would be able to outmaneuver an army of 100000 Irish footmen in the woodlands, let alone how they would be supplied!

EDIT: Vallinn's post is very good.

 

[Deaghaidh]

Quite unlike today, Lithuania was full of dense, nearly untouched forests back in the High Middle Ages; I can't even begin to imagine how an army of 100000 horse archers would be able to outmaneuver an army of 100000 Irish footmen in the woodlands, let alone how they would be supplied!

They sent armies through the Gobi Desert IIRC. I don't see forests stopping them much. Logistically it'd be a challenge, but one they could face. They couldn't live off the land long, but the mongols preferred to keep their forces in motion anyway. And the mongols were remarkably good at reconnaisance-in-force.

Besides, I think a ponderous western-europe style army might actually have more trouble. Those 100k can't possibly all be locals after all: for most of them it would be just as alien terrain as the mongols.

I'm pointing this merely out for gameplay reasons dummy. Of course I should lose the battle and by huge difference too. Yet 60K men murdered and on their losses merely 5000 is uhhhhhhh what was that word again... hmmm, oh yes 'historical'!.

Gameplay wise, the Mongols are supposed to be the frustrating "end-boss" that can actually challenge a juggernaut like you were at this point. I'd say they are more or less working as designed here.

 

[pauli133]

They sent armies through the Gobi Desert IIRC. I don't see forests stopping them much.

...because those are totally comparable.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

They sent armies through the Gobi Desert IIRC. I don't see forests stopping them much. Logistically it'd be a challenge, but one they could face.

I don't think the Mongol Empire ever actually sent an army of 100 000 men through the Gobi desert.


That said, I can see a numerically evenly matched force to be routed given a sufficient superiority in cavalry, technology, and leadership on the Mongol side. Which looks like this is what happened in the OP.

(Of course, this wouldn't happen all the time, or at least not to a devastating effect as shown in the OP. Then again, I doubt that in RL history, a ruler could re-raise the same number of troops over and over the way you can in CK2.)

 

[Raczynski]

The ridiculous part is the losses the GH had, 4k losses vs. 62k?

Historically, battles often turned into massacres once one side was routed.

 

[Rozmarzony]

Yep, it is.

And they keep going forward.

 

[Dogia]

What killed you was the almost 40k light cavalry that kills the fleeing army in the pursuit phase

 

[Raczynski]

That's a curiously historically reasonable map for a CK game, Rozmarzony

 

[cyrileom]

Plus the 50k Horse Archers that kills the army in the skirmish phase and causes the rout in the first place.

 

[unmerged(275616)]

The cause is definitely troop composition. The Mongols weren't so tough against 100,000 Cataphracts.

 

[Shadow Dancer]

lol,

I think this directly relates to the other thread about what holdings to build. This should be another reason to be building Baronies especially inland!

edit ( yes of course Tactics, Terrain, General Traits play a major part but not if everybody for example is light infantry.) There isn't enough gold in the world to buy you victory, men and cold hard steel win battles.

 

[Deaghaidh]

...because those are totally comparable.

They are major logistical obstacles, having found a way to pass through a massive desert, i'd not bet against them figuring out a forest. They wouldn't be as effective as they would on open plains, and I wouldn't think they could occupy or defend such terrain well, nor maintain such numbers. But storming through, winning a big battle, then riding on? Absolutely possible.

What would hamper the mongols pressing into europe wouldn't be forests, it would be damp weather. Iirc, their style of bow suffers greatly in prolonged wet conditions.

 

[nalivayko]

...because those are totally comparable.

They are not. However, Russian forests are very comparable to Lithuanian forests... them being Russian forests in the first place and only "borrowed" by Lithuanians for a century or three. If Mongols can massacre tens of thousands of Russians in Vladimir-Suzdal region, they can do so to Irish in Lithuania. Historic? No. Plausible, yes.

 

[unmerged(515410)]

Zzzz Mongol supermen theory. Once civilized states got used to steppe tactics, they actually, shock, beat the Mongols. It should be possible, but rarely is, to beat the mongols in a pitched battle.

The main problem I have with them is that the fundamental weakness of the Mongol empire was really the same thing that gave them their strength - their nomadic steppe lifestyle. Horse archers and great cavalry are the main reason they established their empire - but those same steppe traditions of dividing the empire meant that Temujin's empire would inevitably descend into civil war after civil war endlessly upon the death of the Khan. I don't see that happen very often in my games, really. Attrition is another major issue - it's close to impossible to supply 100000 horses and men in a giant forest with no grazing opportunities whatsoever, but they just don't take attrition, which is pretty laughable. The main reason they handled attrition so well historically is because their armies were never really that large - they only put 20000 thousand men in the field at the battle of the Kalka river, and Batu's invasion was really only around 35000 thousand men. Again at Mohi most recent estimates put their numbers at 30000. They most assuredly would have suffered significant attrition if they were to take around 100000 horse archers into dense forests with no grazing grounds, no crop fields to plunder, and 12F degree temperatures.