Mongol and shooting !

[Sabratha]

I thought horse armies in FOG2 were not very competitive, so I feel this was a move in the right direction. Did it move too far though? Not sure. Most armies in this period have less drilled troops, also less light troops while at the same time having more MF archers and xbowmen. That may be part of the reason.

[Horde]

Weren't the mongols 'overpowered' in real life?

I will argue that they weren´t. Their approach to warfare was identical to other nomad peoples before them and after, and its well suited to open spaces and can defeat certain kinds of troops. In Genghis Khan times there was a snowball effect that created, briefly, an enormous political unity across Eurasia that could mobilize great armies, that included many veterans and proffessional warriors. Its the same, as far as I know, than Caesar legions or Napoleon´s Old Guard. They fought essentially with the same equipment and tactics than other troops of their culture, but were better. The game shows this making Mongol troops better than Cuman ones.

Also, their approach to warfare is not universally succesful or suitable to every sociopolitical conditionn. When fighting in the long war of the conquest of China the Mongol conquerors, the Yuan dinasty, adopted other kind of troops than horse archers and heavy horsemen. As did the Moghul in India, settled Magyar, etcetera.

[bodkin]

There are armies such as the Hungarians that can successfully challenge the Mongols but it seems like it's always a costly victory. The main problem for me is that those Mongol/Tartar light horse are above average quality by default. They seem very resilient and are beyond just a skirmisher annoyance.

[SimonLancaster]

I just played a very close game against the Mongols in the DL. I routed three cav units on turn 23 and then another right on turn 24 to win. Ironclad did great with them. Cavalry were darting all over the place pulling me out of position. Their cavalry with bows does a lot of damage. But, overall, I don't think they are overpowered.

Currently, in the DL, the Mongol players have these records:

Eric B, Div B: 4 wins and 2 losses.
Ironclad, Div C: 1 win, 2 losses and 1 draw.
Speedy, Div D: 1 loss.

[gribol]

I think, that Best equipped cavalry is definitelly overpowered.
Bow+Lance in one unit is definitelly too much.
Thats unbalanced and ahistorical unit.

[SpeedyCM]

I just played a very close game against the Mongols in the DL. I routed three cav units on turn 23 and then another right on turn 24 to win. Ironclad did great with them. Cavalry were darting all over the place pulling me out of position. Their cavalry with bows does a lot of damage. But, overall, I don't think they are overpowered.

Currently, in the DL, the Mongol players have these records:

Eric B, Div B: 4 wins and 2 losses.
Ironclad, Div C: 1 win, 2 losses and 1 draw.
Speedy, Div D: 1 loss.

I've finished 2 games now and I've found them to be really hit and miss.
In my match against the Teutons my Mongols were slaughtered by Teutonic Knights and Knights and Sergeants that would charge and pursue 2 to 3 units each which put most of my army out of position and unable to respond effectively with archery and vulnerable to follow on rear and flank charges.
In my match against Scottish Highlanders and Norwegians it was pretty much the reverse other than a couple of units that were shot up by crossbowmen and highlanders I was able to concentrate archery and disrupt units then follow up with a charge, the highlanders with no cavalry were unable to effectively counter the cavalry especially as they only had a few rough terrain squares to deploy on the rest being open.
The 3rd match I'm playing will likely be a draw as my opponent is deployed on a couple of large difficult sloped rough terrain hills so I have no opportunity to attack.

[companion]

I just played a very close game against the Mongols in the DL. I routed three cav units on turn 23 and then another right on turn 24 to win. Ironclad did great with them. Cavalry were darting all over the place pulling me out of position. Their cavalry with bows does a lot of damage. But, overall, I don't think they are overpowered.

Currently, in the DL, the Mongol players have these records:

Eric B, Div B: 4 wins and 2 losses.
Ironclad, Div C: 1 win, 2 losses and 1 draw.
Speedy, Div D: 1 loss.

I've finished 2 games now and I've found them to be really hit and miss.
In my match against the Teutons my Mongols were slaughtered by Teutonic Knights and Knights and Sergeants that would charge and pursue 2 to 3 units each which put most of my army out of position and unable to respond effectively with archery and vulnerable to follow on rear and flank charges.
In my match against Scottish Highlanders and Norwegians it was pretty much the reverse other than a couple of units that were shot up by crossbowmen and highlanders I was able to concentrate archery and disrupt units then follow up with a charge, the highlanders with no cavalry were unable to effectively counter the cavalry especially as they only had a few rough terrain squares to deploy on the rest being open.
The 3rd match I'm playing will likely be a draw as my opponent is deployed on a couple of large difficult sloped rough terrain hills so I have no opportunity to attack.

Maybe having a tournament rule allowing players to (conditionally) select allied army roster would make the games more fun to play.

After all, historical Mongolian army recruited a lot of "allied" infantry forces when invading a mountainous region.

[Jagger2002]

In league play, some of these armies are simply not designed to fight horse armies. They never faced them historically and are organized to fight similiar armies. Those type matchups are just not going to produce a competitive fun game. I can imagine being the Scots and just sitting there while being peppered by bows without response for the whole game. Not fun. Although I think the problem is a league design problem rather than a horse army design problem. You almost need separate divisions with restrictions grouping together armies that are competitive. Say horse armies and their opponents division and non-horse armies and their opponents division.

[rbodleyscott]

In league play, some of these armies are simply not designed to fight horse armies. They never faced them historically and the matchup is just not going to produce a competitive fun game. I can imagine being the Scots and just sitting there while being peppered by bows without response for the whole game. Not fun. Although I think the problem is a league design problem rather than a horse army design problem. You almost need separate divisions with restrictions grouping together armies that are competitive. Say horse armies and their opponents division and non-horse armies and their opponents division.

Agreed. Themed tournaments always work better than ones simply constrained by date.

[SimonLancaster]

In league play, some of these armies are simply not designed to fight horse armies. They never faced them historically and are organized to fight similiar armies. Those type matchups are just not going to produce a competitive fun game. I can imagine being the Scots and just sitting there while being peppered by bows without response for the whole game. Not fun. Although I think the problem is a league design problem rather than a horse army design problem. You almost need separate divisions with restrictions grouping together armies that are competitive. Say horse armies and their opponents division and non-horse armies and their opponents division.

I don’t see so much difference in the armies that you might differentiate. I mean, are the Hungarians going to do better than the French or English v the Mongols? The lists as they are currently are not so different from each other. Quite a lot of spearmen, and some armies have access to more light cav and cheaper lancers, etc.

[Jagger2002]

Personally, I would go with the Hungarians over the French. I just took a look at both. The Hungarians have 16 horse archers and 8 light horse while the French have 2 mounted Xbows and no light cavalry. The Hungarians have 7 formed archers/Xbows and 5 light archers vs the French 4 XBows and 4 light archers/Javs. The Hungarians might lose but they have the tools to put up a decent fight. I suspect the French would be picked to shreds with their lack of bows, light cavalry and archer cavalry. Their defensive spearmen aren't going to have much of an impact outside of serving as pin cushions. I think the English might do a little better than the French but I would still take the Hungarians if facing the Mongols. And I just tried a test game using the Bulgars with Cuman allies vs the Bohemians. They aren't the Mongols but they sure can really put out some arrows in quantity.

Actually I think the horse armies are probably a lot of fun to play. I had fun with the bulgars but the problem is it isn't much fun if you are the target and you don't have the tools to respond. One thing about horse armies, I strongly suspect terrain really has a big impact.

[gribol]

One thing about horse armies, I strongly suspect terrain really has a big impact.

Indeed. In forest the will not win.

[SimonLancaster]

Personally, I would go with the Hungarians over the French. I just took a look at both. The Hungarians have 16 horse archers and 8 light horse while the French have 2 mounted Xbows and no light cavalry. The Hungarians have 7 formed archers/Xbows and 5 light archers vs the French 4 XBows and 4 light archers/Javs. The Hungarians might lose but they have the tools to put up a decent fight. I suspect the French would be picked to shreds with their lack of bows, light cavalry and archer cavalry. Their defensive spearmen aren't going to have much of an impact outside of serving as pin cushions. I think the English might do a little better than the French but I would still take the Hungarians if facing the Mongols. And I just tried a test game using the Bulgars with Cuman allies vs the Bohemians. They aren't the Mongols but they sure can really put out some arrows in quantity.

Actually I think the horse armies are probably a lot of fun to play. I had fun with the bulgars but the problem is it isn't much fun if you are the target and you don't have the tools to respond. One thing about horse armies, I strongly suspect terrain really has a big impact.

4 Crossbows and 4 Light Archers is quite a lot. I just won a game v the Mongols with the Germans and I think I had 4 Crossbowmen, 1 Raw Crossbowmen and 1 Light Archers. I might lose next time but once you get to 6-8 bow units and some good support I think you have a decent chance.

The French 1155 AD list with Breton allies has 5 Crossbowmen, 3 Light Archers, and 2 Javelinmen.

The English have zillions of bowmen and skirmishers. English 1155 AD with Welsh (North) allies has 3 Longbowmen, 2 Crossbowmen, 1 Archers, 1 Light Longbowmen, 2 Light Archers and 2 Javelinmen.

Hungarian 1155 AD list has only 3 Def Spear and 2 Irregular Foot for its standard infantry! Then you have the expensive Dismounted Knights. I am not sure if you could protect your Crossbowmen and Archers easily. Hungarian 1200 AD list with Bohemian allies takes you to 4 Def Spear and 1 Arm Def Spear plus Irregulars.

The thing about the French is they have access to 7 Raw Spear units to bulk out your army. I would think that the Mongol cavalry would be better than most of what the Hungarians can throw at it. Let's see if there are any interesting results in the Digital League this season.

[Dux Limitis]

I think, that Best equipped cavalry is definitelly overpowered.
Bow+Lance in one unit is definitelly too much.
Thats unbalanced and ahistorical unit.

I don't think it's ahistorical because according to the artifacts in below some of them did carry the lances while carry the bows.The only thing I wanna argue about is in game the Mongol best equipped cavalry wore the 14-15th century Ottoman armours and the armoured horse archers unit just used the ghilman's models from the last game(FoG2 Ancient).Why nobody cares about that?That's the real "ahistorical" thing here.At least they should wore the lamellar armour and brigandines also some horse armours(According to the artifacts too,some are not here).

[Athos1660]

The only thing I wanna argue about is in game the Mongol best equipped cavalry wore the 14-15th century Ottoman armours and the armoured horse archers unit just used the ghilman's models from the last game(FoG2 Ancient).Why nobody cares about that?That's the real "ahistorical" thing here.

If so, because this is a very small detail and the devs team has very limited ressources while providing huge historical accuracy.

Nobody asks AAA studios like Creative Assembly/SEGA in the TW series for such an historical accuracy. In Empire TW for example, their 'Pike and Shot' units of late 17th/early 18th are 100% Pike !!! Being a game mechanic, not just cosmetics, it is imho far more inaccurate

[Dux Limitis]

The only thing I wanna argue about is in game the Mongol best equipped cavalry wore the 14-15th century Ottoman armours and the armoured horse archers unit just used the ghilman's models from the last game(FoG2 Ancient).Why nobody cares about that?That's the real "ahistorical" thing here.

If so, because this is a very small detail and the devs team has very limited ressources while providing huge historical accuracy.

Nobody asks AAA studios like Creative Assembly/SEGA in the TW series for such an historical accuracy. In Empire TW for example, their 'Pike and Shot' units of late 17th/early 18th are 100% Pike !!! Being a game mechanic, not just cosmetics, it is imho far more inaccurate

That's so,but it's still necessary to be done when the ressources permits,maybe in the future,but just pointed out here first.

[SimonLancaster]

Current Mongol player stats in DL:

ericdoman1, Div B: 5 wins and 2 losses.
Ironclad, Div C: 1 win, 2 draws and 1 loss.
SpeedyCM, Div D: 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss.

[CONSTANTINIX]

My personal opinion is that mongol is not a "meta" good army.
It could be good in the open but you will rarely see good players offering such opportunity.

They (and I will do the same) pick as much long distance shooting units they can and offer no flanking opportunity by keeping they flank safe with hills or forests infested by skirmishers or bowmen. Knight are hidden behind spearmen waiting than one of your unit is sticked in closed combat. You will have to fight face to face spearmen units with supporting units behind and in my matches it doesn't give good results.

Globally, you will have the choice to attack on fortified positions or to wait in the open hoping your opponent will be more bored than you ... Personally, I attack in most of my matches (not the one where all the opponent units are on hills with difficult slopes ) but I will be happy to win more than 2 matches in this season in division A

ericdoman1 is a top player (he s on the verge on winning the LA DL league Div A) so it might be the reason of his good scoring in div B rather than the choice of the mongol list.

[rbodleyscott]

Also the Mongol best-equipped cavalry are certainly under-priced, and the price will increase when the first DLC is released. (Increase is currently being beta-tested).

[pompeytheflatulent]

Is it possible from a technical standpoint for the game to automatically generate maps one size larger if one of the sides is a horse-nomad army?