The depiction mongols

[ray243]

As I have read up about the mongols, the tactics of the mongols seems rather modern, with their use of agility and skirmish/squad centric tactic.

The mongols seems to be operating as s squad more often than a large battlion in their early days.


So do you think that CA has failed us in regards to what made the mongols so powerful?

Its tactics as compared to its upgrades?

[Dead Sun]

So do you think that CA has failed us in regards to what made the mongols so powerful?

I think CA made a good game...
The fact that it is quite hard to reconstruct Mongol tactics on the M2TW battlefield may also be an answer to your question

[Tsarevna]

I think everything about the Mongols is misrepresented due to general ignorance about them in movies, tv shows, and games made in the West in general.

The mongols just "appear" from the East in Europe, like they are there to burn conquer, and build an empire. The real, historic reason for attacking Russia was that the Mongols had a problem with another people to the south, (Khazaks if I remember right?) and they sent emissaries to the Russians, asking them if they would please not interfere militarily in the war between Mongols and Khazaks. Basically, the emissaries were asking for a non-aggression pact to put it in today's terms.

The Russians of one particular town (it was not a united country back then,) took the emissaries and hung them from the walls of their town for an answer.

Mongols were considered racially inferior and so the "civilized" people treated them like crap. This happened in the Persian empire too, if memory serves, the Mongol emissaries were beaten up and had their hair cut as an insult when they tried diplomacy.

The game does not touch upon this at all, just introduces them as aggressive, primitive barbarians on horseback with nice bows.

The game also has no mention of the Mangudai, said to be elite troops that would willingly take near-suicidal missions to penetrate deep into enemy territory and try to lure them out to the open plains where the horsemen could get them.

The Mongols were religiously tolerant, and embraced cultural diversity. They were successful because they didn't scorn things that were different, they embraced them.

-If they were to be accurately depicted in the game, they would easily conquer cities by having them surrender most of the time without a fight, then those cities would have effective, efficient governors put in place, the ability to build all types of temples, churches, guilds and philosophical institutions from all belief systems in the same town, and there would be a new building much like a "pony express" depo where messengers would get fresh horses. This building would decrease corruption because governors of distant cities could never claim ignorance of what the faction leader wanted, and detailed reports and tallies of taxes and spending reaching the faction leader in a timely manner would dissuade most city officials from even trying to cheat.

The Mongols always tried diplomacy first, sure they wanted to be in control of your town, and exact taxes from you, like any other empire. But they didn't want to use violence unless they had to (and when they did, boy were they good at it!) In this game, they just try to kill you like a pack of rabid animals, it's unrealistic to say the least.

[Angrychris]

mongols were a group of migrating people looking for new land to live, same thing happened with the barbs and western rome. happens many times in history in various regions with almost the same results of domination.

[HighLord z0b]

mongols were a group of migrating people looking for new land to live, same thing happened with the barbs and western rome. happens many times in history in various regions with almost the same results of domination.

Actually, the mongols weren't migrating, they were building an empire. Other steppe people had moved westwards looking for land (Alans, Pechenegs, Kipchaks etc.) but not the Mongols.

[cottontail]

The depiction of the Mongols isn't 100% accurate, but considering that they are not even a playable faction ( would have been awesome if they were), it is fine.

[Angrychris]

say they were looking to conquer, they were still migrating.

[Tsarevna]

say they were looking to conquer, they were still migrating.

Then why is their capital city in Mongolia, a permanent city, something they decided to build after conquering other nations?

They built an empire so they wouldn't be slaves to somebody else's empire, plain and simple. They didn't run out of food, get driven away or have climate change happen that forced other groups to migrate.

They simply stood up and took charge. They were a nomadic people that decided to build a capital city in the same place they previously dwelt; that city was called Ulaanbaatar.

It's still the capital of Mongolia to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulanbatar

[bleach]

ray243,

Yes you would be correct in saying the Mongols were more modern in their tactics than other empires of their time. Certainly they were more cunning than any of the empires they destroyed during their expansion years.

Though I don't think the issue with M2TW is not the Mongols per se, but that CA failed to deliver a competitive AI period. Any 'general' with a basic understanding of tactics can shred the AI armies with ease, no matter how many bonuses they get. The Mongols are particularly badly represented because they happened to be the smartest empire of the time period, but still operate like all the other nations. Oh well, onwards and upwards, Empire will be better and there are good mods out anyhow.

Yeah the mongols did rely on hit and run and skirmish tactics which can't really be replicated by M2TW. It would have been nice to be able to enter battle, shoot some arrows and then retreat without the game considering it a loss and making your troops move randomly away.

Actually this is quite easy for the player to do with TW games. It's essential for players who use Parthia in any of the RTW mods. The trick is getting the AI to recognize when a battle is a lost cause and telling its troops to retreat.

[The Noble Lord]

Actually, the CA made very good job in portraying the Mongols.

[Silent Assassin]

Actually, the CA made very good job in portraying the Mongols.

Exactly my thought

[HighLord z0b]

No they weren't because that would mean they were leaving their homeland (mongolia) which they weren't, they were just expanding it. Ghenghis built a new capitol, he didn't move to a new place.

[ray243]

I'm talking about the tactics of the mongols...and the mongols are a squad based formation, as compared to a massed formation.

[HighLord z0b]

Sorry, I was replying to Angrychris.

Yeah the mongols did rely on hit and run and skirmish tactics which can't really be replicated by M2TW. It would have been nice to be able to enter battle, shoot some arrows and then retreat without the game considering it a loss and making your troops move randomly away. It would also be nice to be able to send some troops just to raid an enemies territory to make some money and then retreat without having to siege the castle. Also the battlemaps aren't big enough to deal with the large scope of the mongols strategies (hit and run, hit and run again, lure enemy into a ravine then counter attack for example).

However as far as medieval battle simulators go TW is still the best, and the above could apply to virtually any army. You could also go on about how without proper supply lines a lot of strategies are just not going to work.

[Kratos]

Quite hard to accurratly portray with the engine of this game.

[gil-galad]

Timurids units were very nice and accurate but timurids settling down in europe or anatolia? Historically first he destroyed and sacked Golden Horde... Twice and went back. Second he defeated Ottoman army and made a big mess in turkey and went back again. I'd rather see them destroying everything and went back, again and again never settling down
Also are there anyone who thinks Ghengis Khan destroyed Persian Capital (literally) just becuse they humiliated his emissary? C'mon don't be so naive, he just wanted a reason. But I must give the mongols the credit they probably weren't half of the Timur when it comes to brutality that guy had 4000 city guards buried ALIVE just because he promised the garrison commander that if they surrender without a fight there will be no bloodshed

[Angrychris]

migration Anoun1 migration
the movement of persons from one country or locality to another

[Lysimachus]

Link me to this thread then.

[Five_of_Swords]

of course its typical imo that ppl actually overestimate the strength of the mongol army compared to europe. As was typical with the arrogant europeans, a handful of gothic knights and polish retainers were sent to defeat the entire mongolian horde, absurdly outnumbered. They were crushed, of course, but the amount of casualties they managed to inflict, and the fact that they almost had victory in one part of that battle, imho made gengis decide he had expanded far enough and he didnt wanna actually mess with western europe. The typical story is that he had to go home to prevent some dispute over the proper heir, but I find that hard to believe. The mongols wouldve been happy to invade europe, but they chose not to. They were very resourceful and had an excellent grasp of military tactic and strategy, but understand that europe was not bad at war either... in fact, in the middle ages it seemed like pretty much the only thing they cared about...

[HighLord z0b]

of course its typical imo that ppl actually overestimate the strength of the mongol army compared to europe. As was typical with the arrogant europeans, a handful of gothic knights and polish retainers were sent to defeat the entire mongolian horde, absurdly outnumbered. They were crushed, of course, but the amount of casualties they managed to inflict, and the fact that they almost had victory in one part of that battle, imho made gengis decide he had expanded far enough and he didnt wanna actually mess with western europe. The typical story is that he had to go home to prevent some dispute over the proper heir, but I find that hard to believe. The mongols wouldve been happy to invade europe, but they chose not to. They were very resourceful and had an excellent grasp of military tactic and strategy, but understand that europe was not bad at war either... in fact, in the middle ages it seemed like pretty much the only thing they cared about...

Well you're a bit mistaken about a few things there;
Ghengis was dead and had been for quite a while, so it certainly wasn't his decision not to invade europe. The army was lead by the general Subutai and an heir to the throne Batu Khan.

"The "typical story is that he had to go home to prevent some dispute over the proper heir" wasn't some lowly dispute, Batu Khan was one of the heirs so he lead his army back to try and stake his claim as great Khan. Certainly not just "some dispute".

Also the Hungarians had an army of 60 000, not "a handful of gothic knights and polish retainers" and they weren't facing the entire horde, just a part of the mongol army. Whilst the europeans did inflict many casualties on the mongols, that was mainly from crossbows rather than knights. In any case they still lost the battle.