Mongol economics

[philipjd]

Just trying my first late era Mongol campaign, 6.3, savage/lingering/watchtowers.

Its turn 18, I've just wiped out the kwarezmians (spelling) and working on the turks... I'm down to 7 full stacks with a scattering of 'decent' 1 or two unit garrisons from the original horde. I;ve 'sacked' every place I;ve taken and casualties ahve been, overall, fairly light.

However, I am now 500,000 in the red and still losing 20k per turn (army cost is 48k/turn), now that 'overspend' will reduce back to a surplus in another few turns, but there is no way that that deficit will get cleared within any reasonable timeframe.

Other than the first few cities/forts taken Ive not been able to even repair any damage done when taking the cities/forts, so absolutely no development has happened yet.

Sooo... two possible strategies - disband your armies almost as soon as you get them (which defeats the point of the horde) or cheat (add_money to wipe out the deficit), neither of which are any good in my opinion.

Just wondered what others think of the campaign?

[Meneth]

You can afford to stay in the red for quite a while. Your army will slowly decrease from attrition, but by the time you need more forces, you'll probably be back in black. Your profits will slowly improve due to your army dieing of attrition, and due to your settlements growing.

[philipjd]

That much I already know.. but 500k+ is a huge 'red' balance to clear before you can start building or recruiting

Especialy when the game only ever seems to give you, maybe, 15-20k surplus /turn even when you own most of the world except when certain trigger events happen (see my economic nerfing thread).

[Medkirtys]

That much I already know.. but 500k+ is a huge 'red' balance to clear before you can start building or recruiting

Especialy when the game only ever seems to give you, maybe, 15-20k surplus /turn even when you own most of the world except when certain trigger events happen (see my economic nerfing thread).

Early Byz campaign, you can get 50k very soon

[philipjd]

true, but the early campaign Byzantine economy is the best in the game. and I'm now on turn 25 with an 'overdraft' of 600K and still losing money

[Medkirtys]

Well, I would advise you stop sacking, as that reduces income, rely only on free upkeep as garrisons, either shift all your forces to frontline, or disband them

[mudfly]

It's necessery to sack/exterminate because after a while you can't afford Pagan temples/priests to convert your settlement, which will make your cities/towns to revolt.

[Neptune7]

Not the kind of game I like to play. An in the Red game..I like to build..I will try the mongols out one of these days. I don't know how successful I will be, because I will be disbanding my army very quickly to get in the black..

[philipjd]

.I like to build..

DItto, I understand that the mongol invasion was devastating for the regions they took, but there must be an opportunity to get back into 'build' mode...
It almost feels like a single wave washing up a beach then going back out to sea, allowing those still there to march back in unopposed.

[Fakir]

There's this Mongolian restaurant in Vancouver that's doing really great business. Maybe set up a few of those.

Also, it should be pretty obvious that you must disband every unit of heavy cavalry right at the start. Their upkeep is ridiculouw and they aren't very useful in siege battles, which will pretty much be your only battles. For field battles, also, you don't need them either.

[rockman4417]

A mongol invasion w/o cavalry? Lame

[Spartan90]

A mongol invasion w/o cavalry? Lame

They're next to useless in sieges, as they can't use their mobility to their full potential. And yes, most of your early battles are sieges.

[barcamartin]

I guess you'll still have quite a lot of cavalry afetr disbanding the lancers and stuff, and the Mongol horse archers aren't to be played with. Also, the bodyguards work well as substitute heavy cav, and they replenish. Sounds like a fair strategy, and would save you many thousands.

[philipjd]

The cost difference between the horse archers and lancers is not that great - both are roughly 600/turn.

My point is that if you play them 'right' then it is a very short term 'stomp' then you will lose a lot of ground until your cash balance is back into the black, if it ever does get there before you lose.

[Meneth]

The cost difference between the horse archers and lancers is not that great - both are roughly 600/turn.

My point is that if you play them 'right' then it is a very short term 'stomp' then you will lose a lot of ground until your cash balance is back into the black, if it ever does get there before you lose.

I'll try doing a Mongol campaign, and see if disbanding most of the heavy cavalry, and possibly some of the light cavalry, works well.
I'll post again later.

[Fakir]

I know it sounds a bit disappointing, but if we consider the discrepancies between the real golden horde and it's in-game representation, it all makes sense.

First of all, heavy cavalry would not have been paid nearly as much in the actual golden horde as they are in the game, for upkeep. In SS, this is done to balance the devastating power that such heavily armed (and armoured) cavalry have in the game. Because one unit of Crusader Knights can change a battle, they cost 600 a turn. But this is not the only reason for the high cost. In Feudal Europe, knights were of high status, and therefore were given a much higher salary than the mongolian cavalry. While their Mongolian counterparts were also armoured, they were trained soldiers, rather than high ranking members of society. We must consider that a great part of the success of the mongolian civilization was the fact that every man was, more or less, a soldier first, before anything else. Furthermore, in the steppes horses were very abundant, so they did not that extra bit of luxury that they did in feudal europe (also influences cost). They were widely available, and it is said that most soldiers had at least two horses.

Now take into consideration that heavy cavalry would have been a rarity, as their use in Mongol tactics would be very limited. One major consideration that must be made is that in a real siege, mounted units can dismount. Mongolians learned to ride horses anytime from when they were 3 years old and up. Any unit that was primarily meant to be infantry, would have been mounted when travelling across the steppe.

Mongolians dominated field battles without competition. They simply could not be matched due to their numbers, their organization, their innovative tactics, and yes, their extensive experience. Heavy cavalry would not have been necessary at all in such engagements, given the abundance of missile cavalry and light cavalry. On a field battle in the steppe, you did not require heavily armoured horsemen to charge an enemy that is already on the verge of routing.

Furthermore, heavy armour was very rarely used in mongolian armies. This is very logical, considering the nomadic nature of their military. Most horsemen and horsearchers, for example, were known to wear silk beneath their light armour. This kind of silk would not tear, so when an arrow penetrated a soldier, the arrowhead could be removed together wih the silk, greatly increasing the chance of survival and ability of the wounded soldier. What would they need heavy armour for? They didn't fight in the european way, man-to-man, with heavy swords and maces.

If at any place armoured units would come to use, it would be in sieges. And in such a scenario, they would dismount and act as infantry. If that were possible in the game, then there might be a reason to keep the heavy cavalry units around.

[Olaf The Great]

You would think the Empires that extend off the visible map would get an economy bonus based on how large their "Real" Empire is.

In Europa Barbarorum, there are special buildings on the edge of the map which give trade bonuses based on the province, Kwarezmians had an Empire that stretched off the map, so they should start with these buildings in Urgench, Khiva, and the other persian cities that border India and Central Asia. I think the Mongols should get a script which works for the first x turns they show up, that gives money until the breakup of the Mongol Empire, along with those +trade buildings.
Other places for those "buildings" would be Egypt, Morocco, Arabia, and Scandinavia.

[philipjd]

I've come across two definitive statements over the composition of mongol armies, one that infantry comprised of a third of an army, which was a surprise to me, so perhaps it related to a later era, the other that the armies comprised of 60% horse archers and 40% lancers, the lancers did not engage until after the archers had disrupted the opponent sufficiently so that, effectively, the lancers would complete the destruction, not initiate it, this second composition matches the descriptions of the tactics used so is more 'believable' in my opinion.

I'm now on turn 32, the economy was running at a 1k negative at turn 29, then two more armies appeared on turn 30 taking it significantly back into the red. I control all of the east from Kutaisi/Ceasarea/Adana/Antioch/Aleppo, Quayrisa (sic), and also south of Tiblisi/Baku/Urumchi including the south coast of the persian gulf. Other than the two new 2/3rd stack armies, I have one full army split over Kutaisi/Baku/Tiblisi, another in Ceasarea/Adana and the last in Antioch/Aleppo, with a remnant in Shiraz which will be transferred up against the Cumans.

With war against Cumans, Egytians, Turks (rump remaining only) and Kievans.

The 'overdraft' is 650k. I am not hopeful that the campaign is sustainable.

[Medkirtys]

Cuman lands are not worth conquering

[philipjd]

true, but if they are attacking me then I am stomping them in true mongol fashion