Experience of Ilkhanid Mongols?

[Robert241167]

Hi everyone

After being a recent recruit to the shooty-mounted brigade I was lucky enough to be given some Mongols. I did like the look of the Ilkhanid Mongols with their internal knights and the superior light horse.

How are people finding them for general play and competitions? I was thinking of running them with an FC and 2 TC's or even just 3 TC's. I know people like to use all 4 generals and sometimes an IC to try and gain initiative but I like losing initiative to get first move and as they are mostly superior and drilled don't need the IC for tests or the umbrella effect.

So don't be shy, drop me your thoughts.............and yes that means you Mr Dave53 !!

Rob

[david53]

Hi everyone

After being a recent recruit to the shooty-mounted brigade I was lucky enough to be given some Mongols. I did like the look of the Ilkhanid Mongols with their internal knights and the superior light horse.

How are people finding them for general play and competitions? I was thinking of running them with an FC and 2 TC's or even just 3 TC's. I know people like to use all 4 generals and sometimes an IC to try and gain initiative but I like losing initiative to get first move and as they are mostly superior and drilled don't need the IC for tests or the umbrella effect.

So don't be shy, drop me your thoughts.............and yes that means you Mr Dave53 !!

Rob

Ah Rob you've joined the light side good for you firstly have a thick skin cause you'll be hated by most just a little less than those fielding Dom Roms.

Down to a few thoughts:

Personnally as you can't have steppe I too would'nt mind not wining PBI (Dave R the other one) never wants to win PBI so no worries there.

Now not wanting to take an IC IMO leaves you having to take the LH as superior as a mass LH shooting war with superior will take away the worry of not having an IC.

Three Generals is fine since this will be a small army in BG size. But with this army as your not going to fight with any troops until your at a advantage no worries about less generals than the standard army.

Sadly I would say do without the Knights but if your into them keep them back by your base line till you can seperate your enemy a bit with your light troops. Against Knight armies you will be out numbered by enemy Knights so use the LH to herd them about the table. Not to sure how many Cavalry your thinking of taking so do'nt know your plans for them but I would with past experience use the Cavalry on the flanks and the lights in the middle and maybe a couple of LH BGs on the wings.

I'm sure you'll have a great time playing them.

Dave

[Robert241167]

Cheers Dave, knew you wouldn't let me down.

I'm thinking 4 BG's Cavalry, 6 BG's Light Horse, 1 BG Knights and 1 BG Light Foot.

The Light Horse would be a mix of average and superior, the cavalry all armoured.

The knights give most opponents something to think about and even against knight armies if they fight my knights hopefully they would pursue them if they beat my knights. Pursuing knights are then out of the battle effectively.

Don't worry still using Ottomans for Britcon but will be practicing with Ilkhanids for a while after that just for a change.

Rob

[david53]

Cheers Dave, knew you wouldn't let me down.

I'm thinking 4 BG's Cavalry, 6 BG's Light Horse, 1 BG Knights and 1 BG Light Foot.

The Light Horse would be a mix of average and superior, the cavalry all armoured.

The knights give most opponents something to think about and even against knight armies if they fight my knights hopefully they would pursue them if they beat my knights. Pursuing knights are then out of the battle effectively.

Don't worry still using Ottomans for Britcon but will be practicing with Ilkhanids for a while after that just for a change.

Rob

With your experience of the Turks who also have 1 BG Knights you'll have good experience of the Mongols just like Ottomans without the Bow/Firearms.

See you on the 11th

[grahambriggs]

I've played around with using the Cilician Armenian ally. 4 Cheap BGs to bump the BGs up and another group of Kn. Menas that the Kn punch is heavy enough to do some damage. Also, it was then worth having some unprotected cavalry for support.

[Martin0112]

Well, I've played Ilkhanid 2 weeks ago on a tournemnt with pretty good success, winning 3 of 4 games.
I also had only 3 TC's, but all my LH were average only.
This may be reisky playing versus other shooty armies, but it was OK.
I had 7 BG's of LH, 1 LF, 3 BG's of best equipped mongols and one BG frankish knights as well as 1 BG kurdish cavalry.

The result of this was:
The knights and the lancers are nice to have, but they are not fitting into the army concept at all.
I redesigned the army to use 3 TC's, 4 BG's of best equipped Mongols and 9 BG's of other mongols as LH, 1 of them being superior.
Not sure if this will work, but I will try it...

Having only Agricultural is not too bad for Mongols, as you can use Open Fields instead of Opens, and I think, with LH they are even doing better then Opens, as LH is not stopped by Open fields, but you can fight with LH lancers on equal POA's there.
And evading vs. Cv is also easier with this terrain

[azrael86]

Sadly I would say do without the Knights but if your into them keep them back by your base line till you can seperate [sic] your enemy a bit with your light troops.

The flower of chivalry skulking at the back. Nice and historical.

[david53]

Sadly I would say do without the Knights but if your into them keep them back by your base line till you can seperate [sic] your enemy a bit with your light troops.

The flower of chivalry skulking at the back. Nice and historical.

True but considering it is a game my idea is still quite valid i feel.

Now since in sources there was only 200 Knights at the battle at Homs in 1281 (out of an army of 80,000 mongols and armenians) the only one that i can find were Knights Hospitaller were mentioned fighting alongside Mongols and mind you since they came from the fortress Castrum Mergathum were two sources give differing strengths one 600 horsmen in the 1280's and the other recording 200 Cavalry and 500 foot.

How are the four Knight Bases allowed in the army list Historical or would two be correct or do i just agree that FOG is a game.

BTW since History in that period is not 100% documanted and I don't have any first hand sources I could be wrong but thats what keeps historians writing books.

[azrael86]

[True but considering it is a game my idea is still quite valid i feel.

Now since in sources there was only 200 Knights at the battle at Homs in 1281 (out of an army of 80,000 mongols and armenians) the only one that i can find were Knights Hospitaller were mentioned fighting alongside Mongols and mind you since they came from the fortress Castrum Mergathum were two sources give differing strengths one 600 horsmen in the 1280's and the other recording 200 Cavalry and 500 foot.

How are the four Knight Bases allowed in the army list Historical or would two be correct or do i just agree that FOG is a game.

BTW since History in that period is not 100% documanted and I don't have any first hand sources I could be wrong but thats what keeps historians writing books.

Depends if you are playing actual or 'what if' (or just looking at previous lists!). Although it's pretty established that Europeans always exaggerated mongol numbers, either intentionally or because they didn't believe they could move that fast. So you could presume that the 80,000 might well be

20,000 mongols
8,000 armenians
Actually 2 base bg's could work well for a lot of armies, especially the 'good if they're winning" types. Although personally I would allow elites to fight on as a single base.

[DavidT]

Actually 2 base bg's could work well for a lot of armies, especially the 'good if they're winning" types. Although personally I would allow elites to fight on as a single base.

Non elephant 2 base BGs suck in FoG. Invariably they roll a bad death roll and the BG evaporates (they don't get the +1 modifier to death rolls which elephants get, which just about makes elephants useable). Worse, they are usually fighting alongside another 2 base BG which is then outnumbered 2 to 1 leading to its rapid demise as well. That's 4 AP lost from the army. I too believe that 2 base elite BGs should fight on as a single base. It would make them worth considering. Currently, their break point is no better than average troops - so much for being elite!

[rbodleyscott]

I have found 2 base elite Qapukhalki cavalry very useful in an Ottoman army. You just have to be aware of their frailties and use them accordingly.

I agree that the Ilkhanids should probably have only had a 2 base BG of knights in the list (although 200 out of 80,000 would not even justify a 2 base BG), but I was feeling generous. It does, at least, make the Ilkhanid list a bit different from the other Mongol lists.

And yes, it is a game. The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources. Purists and refighters of historical battles can stick to documented proportions. It is really none of their business if other players have a different agenda.

However, it is entirely possible that at some point in a campaign the knights might form part of a detached force, so that the proportions would be different.

[philqw78]

However, it is entirely possible that at some point in a campaign the knights might form part of a detached force, so that the proportions would be different.

But not possible for Viking beserks; German iron collar wearers; Tibetan exorcists; Roman scythed chariots; I could imagine some more if you like.

[rbodleyscott]

However, it is entirely possible that at some point in a campaign the knights might form part of a detached force, so that the proportions would be different.

But not possible for Viking beserks; German iron collar wearers; Tibetan exorcists; Roman scythed chariots; I could imagine some more if you like.

I have little doubt that the knights in an Ilkhanid army formed up as a substantial sized unit. (Even if proportionately challenged). The same probably does not apply to any of the above.

[Cerberias]

Liking the unprot/sup/bow sword/drilled cav in the mongols, with a smaller amount of light horse since they can skirmish quite well, pass cmt's to get into a single rank easily, evade and shoot well... aswell as being able to cause a lot more damage on a flank charge so cannot be ignored.

I've been thinking of trying with:

inspired + 2 tc
1x4 drilled knights
1x4 undrilled lancers
5x4 unprot sup cav
1x4 Arm sup cav
2x4 sup LH (stops enemy from marching, helps shooting from cav and helps catch enemy light horse)
1x4 light foot archers (tempt out enemys into charges mostly, and a good filler)
1x4 drilled crossbows as filler/protect camp from light horse

Knights and lancers work together as the punch, enemy cant ignore the unprot sup cav because they can flank well and still shoot, light horse push up hard to stop enemies marching then fall back to support cav shooting.

[philqw78]

I have little doubt that the knights in an Ilkhanid army formed up as a substantial sized unit. (Even if proportionately challenged). The same probably does not apply to any of the above.

I thought you thought I imagined them Richard. Or did I imagine that?

[david53]

Liking the unprot/sup/bow sword/drilled cav in the mongols, with a smaller amount of light horse since they can skirmish quite well, pass cmt's to get into a single rank easily, evade and shoot well... aswell as being able to cause a lot more damage on a flank charge so cannot be ignored.

I've been thinking of trying with:

inspired + 2 tc
1x4 drilled knights
1x4 undrilled lancers
5x4 unprot sup cav
1x4 Arm sup cav
2x4 sup LH (stops enemy from marching, helps shooting from cav and helps catch enemy light horse)
1x4 light foot archers (tempt out enemys into charges mostly, and a good filler)
1x4 drilled crossbows as filler/protect camp from light horse

Knights and lancers work together as the punch, enemy cant ignore the unprot sup cav because they can flank well and still shoot, light horse push up hard to stop enemies marching then fall back to support cav shooting.

I think you might just regret taking unprotected cavalry even if they are superior as they have to be in one rank at all times that there are shooters about.

I would'nt take foot at all they will slow you down, why tempt anyone stand in front of HF with your lights eventually you'll get the hits required and then they'll charge anyway. Also and defending your camp while your a LH army is low down on the priority table.

I can understand taking the Knights just but why the Lancers the Mongols are a shooting Cavalry army thats what they are best at doing you don't have enough Lancers to fight other Lancers.

I think two BGs of LH are way to few you'll get picked on by another steppe army even if your Superior, you can't catch other LH with only two BGs.

Mind its up to you these are just my thoughts I'm sure there are many on here have differing views

I have tried the following

3 x TCs

5 x Light Horse Bow/Sword Superior
3 x Light Horse Bow/Sword Average
3 x Cavalry Armoured Drilled Bow/Sword
1 x Knights Drilled Superior.

Mobile army shoot till your at an advantage and then charge in.

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

I think you might just regret taking unprotected cavalry even if they are superior as they have to be in one rank at all times that there are shooters about.

As long as you stay focused with them they are a useful addition - however, I would only take 2 BGs of them and not 5

[madaxeman]

I have little doubt that the knights in an Ilkhanid army formed up as a substantial sized unit. (Even if proportionately challenged). The same probably does not apply to any of the above.

I thought you thought I imagined them Richard. Or did I imagine that?

The Knights are probably in this list because the list is rendered less viable with them on the table. All the other examples of "colour" you cite would make almost unplayable lists into "almost-viable" or even "interesting" ones, and so all fail the "this is a serious recreation of battle, not just a game" threshold....

And yes, it is a game. The principle used in devising FOG lists was to allow a little more leeway than is entirely justified by extant historical sources.

doh!

[eldiablito]

Liking the unprot/sup/bow sword/drilled cav in the mongols, with a smaller amount of light horse since they can skirmish quite well, pass cmt's to get into a single rank easily, evade and shoot well... aswell as being able to cause a lot more damage on a flank charge so cannot be ignored.

Also, why look for a unprotected cavalry with swords? If you have any interest in fighting, you will rarely have a POA. You will be down in nearly every fight because of the armor issue and the swordsmen will barely tie it up in extreme cases. You would be better off taking them as LH instead! Meanwhile, your cavalry needs to be at least protected (and IMO armoured is better).

[Cerberias]

I keep them with swords because if you hit a flank charge you want to only be one poa down at the least, otherwise you could still lose the melee afterwards. You have to play quite well with the unprot cav, but they're easy to keep in one rank with the IC + superior + drilled status. The reason I take them is because i'm veering away from LH nowadays, because they're ignored easily in some situations, cavalry can never be ignored because a flank charge from cav is always going to be devistating. They force the enemy to peel off units to deal with them which splits up the enemy army, or risk a rolled up flank. You cant play them as agressively as light horse, but do more damage, and are quite cheap for each unit (52 pts). I'm tending to just use the light horse to support the cavalry with catching enemy light horse now, and to stop march moves early on so you can pin the enemy in places that you need them pinned.

Also, protected may be better in some circumstances, but in evade formation it makes very little difference, and the unprotected status may tempt enemy light horse to charge you, which holds them up. Protected cav cost more points, will still be a poa down against most enemy cav (which you shouldnt be fighting with these guys anyway, except in a flank charge), still dont want to go into two ranks, and make sure that enemy light horse won't be charging you rashly.

As for the knights and lancers, I always like to have punch in the army and they can be deployed last, exactly where you want them, the enemy cant pull units away from other parts of the battlefield because they need them to deal with the cav, so can smash through a weak point in the enemy army.

Basically, they have more options than light horse, although you cant play them as agressively. They pose more of a threat so they won't be able to leave one unit to deal with two cav because you will get a flank charge if you're patient with it and draw them out. Wheras you can quite often leave one unit to deal with two units of light horse because the threat of a flank charge is greatly diminished. All numbers, meaning that I have 8 fighting bg's, ones that all pose a threat so the enemy must divide up to deal with them, opening up gaps in the process for my much more manouverable forces to go through.