enough! Monglos stop doing this for me!

[YANZHAOYINGYANG]

12,000 troops destroyed by 3,000 Mongo-Sparta army

[Maizel]

Lal pwned.


Get skillzzz plox.


Nah seriously man, this is massive haha. I don't think I've ever seen such a big defeat.

[Miraj]

Whoa.

The superman mongols should be toned down in 1.5. Their stats in BC 1.0 and 1.05 were vanilla hence why they are so crazy.

[Heinz Guderian]

Whoa.

The superman mongols should be toned down in 1.5. Their stats in BC 1.0 and 1.05 were vanilla hence why they are so crazy.

Nooo! The mongols were bad-asses, the only thing that could stop them was a death in the family. I like having something in the game that makes me struggle.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Wow.... Wish I had guts like you........ People should'nt ever use assasins. If even you can't take the heat, you should still stand there
and get Pawned! Please don't Nerf Mongols ......It Too hard for making new Signature.

[Kennylz]

Nooo! The mongols were bad-asses, the only thing that could stop them was a death in the family. I like having something in the game that makes me struggle.

I second this wholly. If you are going to tone down their stats then please add even more stacks to keep them formidable.

[mastaace]

Whoa.

The superman mongols should be toned down in 1.5. Their stats in BC 1.0 and 1.05 were vanilla hence why they are so crazy.

i said it before! i said it before!
good decision!

[pajomife]

Whoa.

The superman mongols should be toned down in 1.5. Their stats in BC 1.0 and 1.05 were vanilla hence why they are so crazy.

And the textures?Is the only vanilla skin unit.

[ssari]

Hmmm intersting and very bad situation, but you dont write units in this war

[Request a new user name]

I take it you did not assassinate the Mongol Generals first and your next mistake was to fight a mobile battle.

Some advice, assassinate the Mongol Generals and spam out Khwarzm Guards. They alone are armored enough to withstand a shooting match and survive.

Concentrate all your firepower on the Mongol General first and kill him, then systematically destroy his army.

[Lupu]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW, I understand your sig, tortas!

[Samariten]

Mongols should not be toned down at all they are suppose to kick youre butt and by the looks of it (no offense) but you suck if you loose 12.000 against 3000. do it again and do it right....i also agree with Tortas you ruin the whole point with the invading mongols if u assassinate their generals where is the fun or challenge in that?

[Request a new user name]

Mongols should not be toned down at all they are suppose to kick youre butt and by the looks of it (no offense) but you suck if you loose 12.000 against 3000. do it again and do it right....i also agree with Tortas you ruin the whole point with the invading mongols if u assassinate their generals where is the fun or challenge in that?

First off, the Mongols only managed to win because their foes were politically unstable, when the ran into foes who were politically stable such as the Mamelukes, they got their asses handed to them as they could not compete with a Sedentary Army that is far better trained and equipped.

Second, I do not ruin the point of the game with Assassins. The purpose of the game is to build a long lasting Empire.

You do not do that by setting examples of chivalry on the battlefield, you do that by making examples of chivalric commanders off the battle field.

I do not fight fair, nor do I take prisoners. Those who oppose me die, anyone who is a political threat to me dies, anyone who accept bribes dies, you get the ideal I hope.

My campaigns have very few pitched battles as I have already won by removing enemy generals at the start and destroying their political stability so that they have internal revolts in addition to me on them.

To face me one must be very paranoid and hire spies to watch their spies that are spying on me and also garrison heavily their rebellious spots.

Finally:

Nations do not survive by setting examples for other nations.
Nations survive by making examples of other nations.

[Samariten]

First off, the Mongols only managed to win because their foes were politically unstable, when the ran into foes who were politically stable such as the Mamelukes, they got their asses handed to them as they could not compete with a Sedentary Army that is far better trained and equipped.

I dont not agree on that all nations he conquered was politically unstable. Genghis Khan showed deep interest in gathering good intelligence and understanding the motivations of his rivals. He also adopted new technologies and ideas that he encountered, such as siege warfare from the dynastys in china. Also the numbers of his manpower and the horseman skill the mongols possed where keys to victory to build the largest empire in the world.

When defeated by the mamluks for the first time the great khan mongke died so Hulagu had to return with his mayor force back to select a new khan. The one left behind was lured into a ambush at the battle of Ain Jalut and as mamluks are excellent warriors they were able to defeat the mongolian horsemen but the other nations that fell under mongolian rule didnt have armys of rabble. I agree that the mamluks was far better equiped and trained then the mongols and they were also excellent horsmen.

Second, I do not ruin the point of the game with Assassins. The purpose of the game is to build a long lasting Empire.

The post about assasinating generals was my opinion and not directly at your gameplay, i didnt say it is not effective i said that I think it ruins gameplay if people use them at the khan since me myself prefer to meet him at the battlefield. You are taking my post to hard since it wasnt a kick at you but merely an opinion which gameplay i prefered perhaps i was abit unclear in it and i try to be better at it in future. I do though enjoy that you seem to use assassins and spys alot since some people doesnt use em at all....

[Heinz Guderian]

^ i agree with Salahudin Yusuf bin Ayub.

[Request a new user name]

I dont not agree on that all nations he conquered was politically unstable. Genghis Khan showed deep interest in gathering good intelligence and understanding the motivations of his rivals. He also adopted new technologies and ideas that he encountered, such as siege warfare from the dynastys in china. Also the numbers of his manpower and the horseman skill the mongols possed where keys to victory to build the largest empire in the world.

Khwarzm Shah Ala ad Deen Muhammed was an idiot. First he allows his Govener Otrar to get out of control instead of punishing him, this encouraged other Goveners to disobey him. So when Genghis came calling he had to garrison cities with his Army because his Goveners were disloyal and many of the Generals were abandoning their troops.

Second mistake was not promptly punishing the defiance before it got out of hand and dragged the Mongols into the fray. He should have had his political enemies executed for sedition and had inspectors make sure his Generals weren't misappropriating funds for their own use.

These factors ensured the end of his Kingdom.

When defeated by the mamluks for the first time the great khan mongke died so Hulagu had to return with his mayor force back to select a new khan. The one left behind was lured into a ambush at the battle of Ain Jalut and as mamluks are excellent warriors they were able to defeat the mongolian horsemen but the other nations that fell under mongolian rule didnt have armys of rabble. I agree that the mamluks was far better equiped and trained then the mongols and they were also excellent horsmen.

King Bela's Army was certainly rabble, sad thing was if he hadn't stupidly succumb to his nobles and the church he would have had his 40,000 well trained Cuman troops who could play the Mongols game.

So King Bela instead of executing his Nobles and killing any Clergy that stood in his way, as well as telling the Church to stop interfering in secular affairs, took an army of 100,000 thrown together peasants with little training and indifferent officers.

Result was predictable: Disaster as officers abandoned their men and the rabble started retreating. Better 40,000 men you can trust to stand and fight than 100,000 you can't.

The post about assasinating generals was my opinion and not directly at your gameplay, i didnt say it is not effective i said that I think it ruins gameplay if people use them at the khan since me myself prefer to meet him at the battlefield. You are taking my post to hard since it wasnt a kick at you but merely an opinion which gameplay i prefered perhaps i was abit unclear in it and i try to be better at it in future. I do though enjoy that you seem to use assassins and spys alot since some people doesnt use em at all....

Well lets just say, I take my Empires seriously as if I have a real stake in it.

[gaius valerius]

First off, the Mongols only managed to win because their foes were politically unstable, when the ran into foes who were politically stable such as the Mamelukes, they got their asses handed to them as they could not compete with a Sedentary Army that is far better trained and equipped..

This is just wrong in so many ways. First of all no. Chin wasn't politically unstable, nor were most parts of the muslim world (like the Khwarezm), many of the great empires had indeed fallen but there wasn't any destructive internal war raging on that would sufficiently explain their weakness.

Second your assessment of the Mameluks is of the hook. Yes they had a stable empire but as I stated above this had little to do with the Mongolian succes.

The defeat has other reasons:

a) Syria knows little pasture, it is in fact the furthest place the Mongolians could get relying on pasture, plus the pasture present was overgrazed (Mongolians had specific breed of horses relying on pasture, so no oat and stuff).

b) Mongolian army along the way had many mercenaries. Plus Hulegu and the biggest part of the army had gone back since the Khan was dead.

c) They underestimated the Mameluk strenght. Tell me my friend, do you know what a Mameluk is? It is a slave, a slave in general imported from the Eurasian steppes (at the time mainly Qypchaks IRRC). Do you know what this means? That these Mameluks are actually nomads... And indeed, so are the Mongolians, and yes, they are basically... related. Meaning they kinda are on par when it comes to military tactics. So the Mongolians were up against a foe that fought in a similar fashion, or at least understood how the Mongolians fought. So they'd underestimated their opponents.

Now when you combine a, b and c, you get a military disaster.

[Request a new user name]

This is just wrong in so many ways. First of all no. Chin wasn't politically unstable, nor were most parts of the muslim world (like the Khwarezm), many of the great empires had indeed fallen but there wasn't any destructive internal war raging on that would sufficiently explain their weakness.

Lets see the Chin were a financial basket case which hadn't been making regular payments to troops allowing some to be bribed on the great wall.

Khwarzm Shah split his forces up into penny packets just to keep his Goveners in line allowing his Army to be destroyed in detail. Generals abandoned their troops and no clear orders were sent out as to who should provision what and thus Khwarzm was doomed.

a) Syria knows little pasture, it is in fact the furthest place the Mongolians could get relying on pasture, plus the pasture present was overgrazed (Mongolians had specific breed of horses relying on pasture, so no oat and stuff).

There were two million acres of grass that the Mongols could have used if they so desired in Syria, they did not utilize it. So that is untrue. A simple look at a map would show why. The Euphrates River, tributaries of it and the Med. It was even more lush back then.

b) Mongolian army along the way had many mercenaries. Plus Hulegu and the biggest part of the army had gone back since the Khan was dead.

Because the Mongols had a rather unstable way of succession. Its one weak leader away from collapse.

c) They underestimated the Mameluk strenght. Tell me my friend, do you know what a Mameluk is? It is a slave, a slave in general imported from the Eurasian steppes (at the time mainly Qypchaks IRRC). Do you know what this means? That these Mameluks are actually nomads... And indeed, so are the Mongolians, and yes, they are basically... related. Meaning they kinda are on par when it comes to military tactics. So the Mongolians were up against a foe that fought in a similar fashion, or at least understood how the Mongolians fought. So they'd underestimated their opponents.

Some were, most weren't and came from everywhere. Further there was subdivisions as well with Heavy Mameluks to light Mameluks with a good mixture of different fighting styles and weapons from all over allowing a General to utilize a wide variety of disciplines and to train his Mamelukes in defeating each.

[Bastables]

This is just wrong in so many ways. First of all no. Chin wasn't politically unstable, nor were most parts of the muslim world (like the Khwarezm), many of the great empires had indeed fallen but there wasn't any destructive internal war raging on that would sufficiently explain their weakness.

Second your assessment of the Mameluks is of the hook. Yes they had a stable empire but as I stated above this had little to do with the Mongolian succes.

The defeat has other reasons:

a) Syria knows little pasture, it is in fact the furthest place the Mongolians could get relying on pasture, plus the pasture present was overgrazed (Mongolians had specific breed of horses relying on pasture, so no oat and stuff).

b) Mongolian army along the way had many mercenaries. Plus Hulegu and the biggest part of the army had gone back since the Khan was dead.

c) They underestimated the Mameluk strenght. Tell me my friend, do you know what a Mameluk is? It is a slave, a slave in general imported from the Eurasian steppes (at the time mainly Qypchaks IRRC). Do you know what this means? That these Mameluks are actually nomads... And indeed, so are the Mongolians, and yes, they are basically... related. Meaning they kinda are on par when it comes to military tactics. So the Mongolians were up against a foe that fought in a similar fashion, or at least understood how the Mongolians fought. So they'd underestimated their opponents.

Now when you combine a, b and c, you get a military disaster.

Several military disasters, the war between the I khanate and the Mamaluk Kingdom included 3 separate invasion attempts of Syria. The Ilkantate also had Armenia Antioch and Seljuk of rum as their allies/vassals. The Mamaluk's were aided by the understanding and war's carried out by the Golden horde in their attempts to reclaim pasturage in iran against the Ilkhanate.

Here's the thing several military disasters and one pyrrhic victory against the mamaluk state, lot's of different reasons for it but the Ilkhante's wars verses the Mamaluk state were abject failures. They fought the Mamaluk’s out numbered and when they had number superiority and lost consistently. Where as before they would win if they were out numbred or if they out numbred their opponets. It’s interesting that the militaries that defeated Mogolian major invasions were both Heavy Ghulum military kingdoms.

[Kennylz]

Several military disasters, the war between the I khanate and the Mamaluk Kingdom included 3 separate invasion attempts of Syria. The Ilkantate also had Armenia Antioch and Seljuk of rum as their allies/vassals. The Mamaluk's were aided by the understanding and war's carried out by the Golden horde in their attempts to reclaim pasturage in iran against the Ilkhanate.

Here's the thing several military disasters and one pyrrhic victory against the mamaluk state, lot's of different reasons for it but the Ilkhante's wars verses the Mamaluk state were abject failures. They fought the Mamaluk’s out numbered and when they had number superiority and lost consistently. Where as before they would win if they were out numbred or if they out numbred their opponets. It’s interesting that the militaries that defeated Mogolian major invasions were both Heavy Ghulum military kingdoms.

Is that last sentence suggestive that Western European heavy cavalry might of faired well against the Mongols?