meh I got no problems with Mongols being OP. Given they were literally the Medieval version of a global superpower, they should kinda be unstoppable lol.
Bad argument, this is a game, and games HAVE to be balanced.
Also, they were not a Superpower, they were a Horde. A Superpower would mean great Economical and Cultural development, for a prolonged period of time.
I think historians agree that the Mongols were one of the reasons Asia fell behind when compared to Europe, since they looted the continent into barren poverty, several times.
1 Like
Balance aside, you are kidding right? At their peak they ruled over half the known world and oversaw the cultural and economic growth and integration of the territories they ruled over.
3 Likes
So integrated were they, that they immediately started slughtering eachother, and had several wars with mass troop movements that completely destroyed Asia.
The Mongols did not grow anything, the people they conquered did. All the way from Atilla to Timur, Steppe peoples have mostly only destroyed everything, and built up nothing.
There are exceptions, like the Turks and the Magyars, but they are exceptions nonetheless.
2 Likes
Whether they did all the building or their conquered subjects is neither here nor there, there are many empires that rule over other people who perform all the labour for that said empire, that doesnât make the mongols any different. And the fact that there was infighting is also irrelevant and not something exclusive to mongols. Pax Mongolica is actually a thing and historians would tend to agree regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
1 Like
Most of those empires at least lasted long enough to implement cultural changes, and develop new cultural or technological items.
The Mongols were just parasitical in their relationship with the conquered peoples.
It lasted only until Ghengis died, then they started killing eachother, and their subjects.
It is actually quite telling, the Mongols themselves could never rule all the territory they occupied, because they could not even rule themselves.
Temujin was what made the Mongols strong, like Atilla was to the Huns. Without these singular leaders, they reverted to petty tribes deeply in love with fratricide.
1 Like
Are these stats functional yet does anyone know? (well the 1v1 random map ratings list looks broken)
It seems less broken that it used to be but there is still no way to know if the axis starts at 0 nor to know what is the actual value, so itâs still worthless.
1 Like
Thatâs some seriously shifting goal posts there, but regardless most of what you say even if 100% true is completely irrelevant in relation to whether or not Mongols were a global superpower. They could be as parasitical or benevolent as they wanted, doesnât change the fact that they were an empire and they were the largest one at their time of existance.
Again irrelevant. There are many empires that did not last long after the death of some great leader that founded the empire. Macedonians come to mind with Alexander, the Huns also as you mentioned, The Visigoths with Allaric as I am sure there are othersâŠ
Whether the Mongolian empire lasted 50 years or 500 years and whether it had 1 great ruler or 100 great rulers it doesnât change the fact that it forever changed the geopolitical and cultural and economic landscape of the world it came into contact with and the legacy of their rule had lasting impacts which is pretty thoroughly understood by historians. The 13th century was for all intents and purposes a Mongol century just like how the second half of the 20th century was an American and Soviet century.
But they were not a Superpower, since they did not rule united for very long.
Alexanderâs Macedonia was also not a Superpower, even though it basically conquered the entire Ancient World.
A Superpower hs to have at least several decades in which it has cultural and economic hegemon.
None of the areas the Mongols conquered, assimilated to Mongol culture in any significant degree. Rather it was the other way around.
A Horde conquest is more like militarized migration, rather than empire building.
The Visigoths reign Western Europe for 300 years, and did change itâs culture and language. They even changed Europeâs religion.
The Mongols and Huns did never have such effect, rather they just slaughtered millions and disappeared into the shadows of History afterwards.
Attilla never even had an empire, he had a large gang of thugs and a buch of enslaved tribes. His realm fell when he did, because he was the only thing keeping it together from the very beggining.
2 Likes
Pax Mongolica started way after Genghisâs death. Ogedei, Guyuk and Mongke Khan were all capable succesors. Even after the disintegration of the empire, the khanates (not petty tribes as you claim) ruled succesfully for over 100 years.
5 Likes
They ruled fragmented and with a lot of infighting, like Alexanderâs successor kingdoms.
And just like the Macedonians, they became the people they conquered (culturally), rather than impose their own culture like a Superpower would.
By whose definition are you working with here? This seems pretty arbitrary⊠and anyway regardless the Mongol century lasted more than âat least several decadesâ so even by your own definitionâŠ
3 Likes
Exactly. A lot of the things JonOli is saying are just baseless assertions that go completely against everything actual historians say about this period.
2 Likes
Lets take a modern example. Would you consider Nazi Germany a superpower? They lasted merely 12 years and only occupied the âempireâ they build for 6 years. But the length of their rule is irrelevant. They were an empire, and they were just as destructive and parasitical as the Mongols (arguably more). But it would be pretty arbitrary to say that they werenât a superpower, albeit a very short lived one.
1 Like
Fun fact: two of the Khanates (Golden Horde and Chagatai Khanate) are also represented by the Tatars. Some of its pop were turkic people.
FE did a good job at representing the last steppe people which makes the porper name: âThe Last Khansâ.
But I think we re going a bit off topic
4 Likes
I think they should at least decrease the fire speed from 20% to 15%, and also for their unique tech in imp (siege move 50% faster) they must decrease it to 30% or 35% because their seige looks like cars with this +50% faster!!!
So the mongols need:
-decrease the fire speed bonus civ for the mangudai and cav archers from 20% to 15%.
-decrease the speed for the siege imp unique tech from 50% to 30% or 35%.
3 Likes
I wouldnât mind siege move speed nerf
2 Likes
Took me a while to realize what happened because I never checked my quote.
AOE3 is by far the least AOE-like game in the trilogy.
It was too limiting and now some people would love to see AOE2 become a mess like AOE3 has
1 Like
Personally, I really enjoy playing against Mongols. I enjoy playing a map grabbing positional game to force them to fight where I want them to as opposed to trying to chase them.
I think the Mangudai killing everything makes for a fun and a unique challenge, and that itâs clear that the civil isnât overpowered. As for wether people enjoy playing against or as them, thatâs play style and personal preference. Honestly, them being such a unique civil seems to me to be a bonus to the game. If you dont enjoy playing them, itâs not like you need to very much.
It seems like itd be a shame to change a unique but balanced civil to a vanilla one. I mean, if balance is everything we could eliminate half the best parts of the game and turn it to literal chess. And Iâd hate it.
1 Like