The Mongolian Proposition
I suggest denying Mongolians any sort of crossbow and pricing their hybrids as if they were pure melee units (or rather close anyway). I think it would then be mandatory to allow the hybrids a medium-low charge (3-4) only. Balance might be easy to accomplish because the number of arrows and accuracy can be tweaked. Fast cavalry of cost ~300 florins will be necessary for the Mongolians to be able to mold the engagement, including stretching out enemy forces. On the other hand, expendable HA should be prohibited.
Edited by: Faust8 at: 11/8/05 0:51
Mongols do have quite some choices on fast cav, I think steppe cav will be priced 300, or maybe alans - I haven't checked it yet. Generic HA cost 400, even though at times I think they should be 500, but then I look at how generic archers cost heh
Mongols won't have crossbows for sure, they 'll have a grand array of foot archers, some of them hybrids, which will be better than say lbows or scandinavian mercs, but more expensive ofcourse. I 'm placing them near the 700 mark, for those "elite" ones. Hybrids usually dont get over 2 charge.
Re: The Mongolian Proposition
I meant hybrid horse . But yes, glad to see such fast cavalry.
In other words I envision an all cavalry army with 3/4 of its troops priced for their melee skills exclusively but armed with bows... hybrids for the price of non-hybrids. The remaining 1/4 shock troops. Infantry options are needed as well as an alternative to this... to use an American saying, in order to give the pitcher more pitches.
Edited by: Faust8 at: 11/8/05 17:13
Re: The Mongolian Proposition
Oh, heh
Well, I'm not sure about that, their is a stacking price thing when one unit is fast, has mellee skills, elite, missile weapon and such. It's not simply the cumulation of each advantage alone, but rather a complex picture which takes into account the other units and factions as well.
We had many thoughts about the mongols (including them having 60 men cav units for their Mongol HA ).
However nothing is decided yet, surely we'll be more lenient with some faction specific units regarding their missile abilities.
Re: The Mongolian Proposition
I realize the 'stacking' effect, but here is my argument:
A unit's general 'effectiveness' can be determined by its sum total ability in all possible scenarios* given that the army it is included in is 'optimized'. (*here, more likely and more common scenarios have a proportionate representation) This intuitively verifiable definition shows that a unit's effectiveness not only depends on its internal characteristics, but also the characteristics, nature, and abilities of the other units in the army. You can see this by imagining how Janissary Heavy Infantry is made more 'valuable', where value = effectiveness per unit price, by the inclusion of Alan mercenaries in an army. You can also see how maa would be made less valuable by the absence of any missile weapon whatsoever in an army. (In fact, the only time that they retain or enhance their value is if one of the now limited scenarios that they are effective in is played out... rushing!). I think everybody has an intuitive grasp on all of this.
So, my point is, is that without pavs or x-bows of any kind, units in a Mongolian army are devalued. By supplying certain Mongolian combat units with bows 'for free' this may be levelled, as the bows themselves will not be as *effective* in a Mongolian army as, say, a Hungarian army. I will give a concrete example. In VI, I would imagine a cavalry unit with the following stats:
Attack: 6 or 5
Defense: 4 or 5
Charge: 6-8
Morale: 8
Cost: 600-700
Elite
In fact now that I look at it, Steppe Heavy Cavalry v1 is basically the same thing . 4 of them is not enough however I think. And they are still somewhat too expensive to get to morale 6. I am thinking... include the 2 units I suggested above and a cav unit of 50 men:
Quote:So, my point is, is that without pavs or x-bows of any kind, units in a Mongolian army are devalued. By supplying certain Mongolian combat units with bows 'for free' this may be levelled, as the bows themselves will not be as *effective* in a Mongolian army as, say, a Hungarian army.
Still haven't decided on the 60 men GHHA, but regarding the above statement, I must also note that their faction specific archers will be capable of shooting a greater # of arrows from many angles-as HA based armies usually have a great advantage vs static ones in steppes at least- and from mostly fast cavalry. In contrast to with euros or even some eastern ones, they will be able to field an all cav army which will be more competitive vs infantry ones . For example you can take all cav with Hungarians but you deprive yourself of the best cavalry available, and also of the numerous foot troops that could help this army a lot, like Vlachs for instance.
With Mongols the goal will be to allow a mobile army that will depend on mobility above all but will have 2-3 heavy cavalry units, who could hold their own against knights, but still function better as an organical part of a steppe army, that is delivering the final blow, not winning the battle solely on how it is used. Thus when the player has to engage his heavy cav it'll already be a nearly decided battle that could change only through extraordinairy actions.
Naturally, this means two things: a) in team battles it 'll be hard to use a mongol army in full force; b) mongol HA and related units must be able due to more concetrated fire prevail against enemy missile and also have sufficient light support units. So it'll be reasonable to expect that apart from alan and steppe cavalry, mongol HA shall have szekely/faris-like qualities, but it remains to be seen how they 'll fulfill different roles.
Unless ofcourse we go for big size and give them more "bulk" stats
. But yes, glad to see such fast cavalry.
).
. 4 of them is not enough however I think. And they are still somewhat too expensive to get to morale 6. I am thinking... include the 2 units I suggested above and a cav unit of 50 men:
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies