Golden Horde!

[caravel]

Standard MTW/VI, no mod. My Question was: What are the experiences of ppl in the know? Does the GH actually go sideways into Kiev or attack directly?

Where the AI decides to attack is partly random, though the Horde being more aggressive will spread out and attack any surrounding provinces. Crimea borders with Kiev - the Horde will probably invade it.

Seaborne? The Horde? You kiddin' me? I have seen a Horde ship before, I believe, but maybe it is just a figment of my imagination. But anyway, I am ruling from sea to shining sea, as far as navies are concerned, even though those new-fangled cogs of the Frenchies and Germans are giving me a bit of grief, now and then.

The Horde can build ships if they capture a shipbuilder intact. They build muslim style vessels. I was merely explaining in my post as to how a province can be invaded.

[EatYerGreens]

I think what Glyndwr was getting at is that Crimea to Kiev doesn't involve a bridge battle and was asking whether the AI is smart enough to make a point of using this route?

Given the number of threads I've read where the Horde gets itself turned into dogmeat trying - and failing - to take Kiev via the bridge route, I would say that it isn't.

I'm wondering if the Horde get any more interesting when you play a faction on the western edge of the map and the Horde are out of your reach when they first arrive. For instance, I'm still playing English and they've reached as far as Brandenburg.

So, rather than one monumental (but potentially tedious) battle where I can get close to eliminating them in a single turn, I will be faced with several dozen individual battles against manageable-sized armies, most of which are less than one full stack. Since you can't catch cavalry with foot troops and my cavalry will mostly get shot down before they can engage hand-to-hand properly, then these could be equally tedious affairs, not to mention repetitious.

The worst part of it is that, if they have spread out this far, then you need to be in a position to lose them as a trading partner before you can even begin to take them on.

Killing them off completely, in two turns, is certainly a laudable achievement but it also removes a large chunk of 'politicking' (sp?) from the game, whereby they are a long-lasting, inconvenient, presence and you may have to set aside wars with your various neighbours and make a joint effort at getting rid of them. (Not easy to arrange, the way the diplomatic AI works).

[Glyndwr in the Soke]

I think what Glyndwr was getting at is that Crimea to Kiev doesn't involve a bridge battle and was asking whether the AI is smart enough to make a point of using this route?

Precisely.

Thanks for that feedback. Unfortunately, I may never finish this Eggy campaign now, since my new computer is taking over.

Will have to start a completely new one.

[Martok]

I know the feeling, Glyndwr. Having finally gotten my new computer this past weekend, I've had the happy experience of starting up a new campaign as the Spanish.

But back to topic: Unfortunately, EatYerGreens is most probably correct. I don't know that I've ever seen the Mongols invade by sea, and the fact that they always seem to attack Kiev over that bridge supports this theory.

[Vantek]

Sorry to bump a 2 year old thread but,

Back in vanilla MTW times they were pitiful - just two stacks of units, and no more than 16 MHA units.

What??? I distinctly remember a moment back when I first got vanilla MTW (perhaps even unpatched) where I played the Turks, knew nothing about the Horde, and was dismayed by the appearance of about fifteen stacks of high quality Mongol troops right at my doorstep! So could someone please elaborate on this comment?

On a related note, I have hated the Horde ever since. Epic battles that take many hours are not my style, nor is being at the disposal of a retarded giant, who clearly has the power to tear me apart, but fails to follow through due to having the intellect of a drooling braindead cretin.

So is there a quick way to reduce the number of forces they bring? I would like to be able to limit it to 4-6 stacks with the standard composition.

[oz_wwjd]

As the byzantines I've always left the turks holding Georgia for that exact reason,so they can be the first one to run into the horde,while I have extremely large garrisons in rum and Trezibond. That way I can control where they can hit,and it also works in my favour,as they soften up what's left of the turks.

[Vantek]

Well... What do you do as the Turks? :P

[Haccapelite]

@Vantek

When I played as the Turks I decided to approach the Golden Horde with a straight-forward attitude: I started teching up armenia to produce Janissary Heavy Infantry right from the beginning to make sure I would have them coming by the time Golden Horde would appear knocking on my gates. I conquered Georgia and started gathering troops there in the 1220's. By the time Golden Horde appeared in Lesser Khazar (or greater, I can't remember which one is the easternmost of those two) I had a capable army waiting for Khan and his nomads. A good amount of Saracen Infantry, Armenian Heavies, Turcoman HA's, JHI and Turcoman Foot Soldiers. With those men and the mountaineous (gosh, that's propably not even a word!) terrain in Georgia I succeeded to fend them off maybe 4-5 times before Khan decided Asia minor wasn't all that appealing after all..

The point of this rambling is that you should start preparing for the GH well in advance and secure good defensive positions in order to minimize the threat of the GH.

The best way to defeat the Horde is by taking the fight to places where they are not capable of using their own advantages, eg. thick woods. I was playing as the Swedes and ignored the horde untill they had conquered the entire eastern steppes. After that they attacked the baltic coast provinces under my rule. I had a couple of huge battles in Lithuania, where I defeated the horde with a small number of Chivalric Foot Knights deployed in a forest. Needless to say, my boys made minced meat out of those poor mongols charging foolishly into the forest.. After destroying the backbone of their armies, I swiped them out of the face of the earth within a few decades.

[Knight of the Rose]

Well, I should know better that to support this thread necromancy, yet some of the topics raised are relevant and kinda new(ish). So why don't you Vantek post a new thread about defeating the Horde, or technically lower their numbers if that's your call.



/KotR

[Vantek]

What's wrong with thread necromancy?! Better keep all inquiries about the same subject in one thread... This thread, even if 4 years old, is, after all, about the Golden Horde!

[chris34au]

i don't see why it's an issue either but it seems to be frowned upon around here. there's some really great threads in archives but i found out a few months ago that bumping older threads is considered rude or something. still not sure why. it's not like there's a ton of new posts/threads that are being bumped by the older ones. i'm happy when i check this forum after a couple of days and there's one or two new posts to read.

btw, sorry for going OT.

[Vantek]

It's bad when the thread is not about a concise topic, or is truly outdated, but this thread is informative and about a specific topic, so indeed I do not see what would be the point of making a new thread just to ask a couple of questions about the horde.

In more offtopic kind of forums it is sometimes a form of spam when people bump old threads, either as deliberate spam, or just in a "hey remember this cool thread" sort of way. But this is nothing like that.

[caravel]

What's wrong with thread necromancy?! Better keep all inquiries about the same subject in one thread... This thread, even if 4 years old, is, after all, about the Golden Horde!

This would lead to huge multipage threads that would be a chore to read through, plus you're replying to a post from 2006 and a member that has not been active for approx 14 months.

There are many, many threads about the Golden Horde, a good proportion of which are more recent than this one.

i don't see why it's an issue either but it seems to be frowned upon around here. there's some really great threads in archives but i found out a few months ago that bumping older threads is considered rude or something. still not sure why. it's not like there's a ton of new posts/threads that are being bumped by the older ones. i'm happy when i check this forum after a couple of days and there's one or two new posts to read.

btw, sorry for going OT.

It's known as forum etiquette. It is not just on this forum that it is frowned upon. Personally I have less of a problem with it, but I would draw the line at any thread over 12 months old. In such cases it is better to start anew with your own thread. It's hard to explain it, but older threads are seen as archives and it is undesirable to have more information appended to them. You can start your own thread and link to the older thread for reference if needed.

It's bad when the thread is not about a concise topic, or is truly outdated, but this thread is informative and about a specific topic, so indeed I do not see what would be the point of making a new thread just to ask a couple of questions about the horde.

We encourage you to make your own threads so that separate issues do not become confused. It is often the case that one person jumps into the thread of another person and "hijacks" that thread taking it away from it's original subject/purpose. If the thread is an older thread then it's necroposting and many of the opinions and/or information posted therein may now be outdated or disproved.

In more offtopic kind of forums it is sometimes a form of spam when people bump old threads, either as deliberate spam, or just in a "hey remember this cool thread" sort of way. But this is nothing like that.

Yes, this is certainly not spam as you raise valid points and contribute well to the thread - but as Knight of the Rose has said it is a better idea to make your own thread and a clean start.

This thread is now drifting well off topic (and after my contributions more so).

So what about the Mongols?

[Vantek]

I still don't see why, but fair enough, if it's etiquette, then it must have good reasons. I'll try to not do it again.

This time, I'm actually posting because a post in this thread got my attention. Is even that wrong? Should I have posted a new thread, and linked to this thread, quoting that post??

So what about the Mongols?

Yes :) As I said I am a little tired of the humongous battles which I don't really have the time to play (I won't really take command of any battle where I'd have to use more than two full stacks), as well as constantly facing the same type of soldiers... Almohads are too easy, Egyptians are too easy, and Turks have to face the Horde... Urgh I want to play a muslim faction!!!

[caravel]

Have you tried any of the various mods available?

If you want a good challenge and you liked STW there is always the Samurai Warlords mod.

[Vantek]

Well, technically, they are Japanese, not Muslim :P

[caravel]

Well, technically, they are Japanese, not Muslim :P

Indeed but we've run out of muslim factions and the SW mod is a very good and challenging mod...

I'm trying to think of the mods that actually have extra muslim factions and the one that seems to spring to mind is the BKB Super Mod. I'm not sure if XL or Medmod have any extra muslim factions? I'm sure BKB's mod had at least two Maghreb factions though...

I seem to remember that the Volga Bulgars in XL were a muslim faction, so that's potentially one extra one. They were small and challenging as well - but of course deep in Mongol territory.

Good luck.

[Vantek]

I seem to remember that the Volga Bulgars in XL were a muslim faction, so that's potentially one extra one.

=)

They were small and challenging as well

=D

- but of course deep in Mongol territory.

>:(

[sharpshooter]

Thread necromancy rules! Heh. This one has a lot of interesting stuff - with a lot off topic, but interesting nonetheless. I do appreciate the reasons for archiving, and agree with forums doing it. The pity is that then lots of info gets buried, and there isn't a gradual adding to the pile, so to speak.

Oh, fighting the Mongols - as the Turks, in particular. My method is for MTW/VI vanilla (no mod).

If the Turks started on Early it's easy, coz you'll have JHI, masses of resources, and the choice of where to fight - the Kiev bridge being an obvious place.

The fun comes with the High campaign. My method is a very low scale response to the invasion, which, I will say, I have done several times and it has never failed me. The same method works for the Poles and Hungarians. It's a micro tit for tat method of fighting them. If you don't have a large army in Armenia or Rum they shouldn't appear there, unless you'll already very successful. I think the likelihood of an Armenian invasion increases if you've already wiped out the Crusader States and the Egyptians, and got Constantinople. So a slower expansion prior to the Horde's arrival is how I play it.

The key is Georgia. I take Georgia early, and start building ships out of it. Time any building to finish before the Horde arrives.

When the Horde arrives I break the watchtowers there (so he can't see what my armies are when he takes it). I'll also take Khazar to break any watchtowers if they have them. I then place an army, single stack, in Trebizond, composed of Saracen Inf, XBows and Armenian Heavy Cavalry (+2 V from Armenian MHB). I also place a decent garrison in Armenia. Don't put a massive army in Trebizond or Armenia.

In Georgia I leave a single Saracen Inf with the Keep.

First the GH will probe with a single MHC. Autocalc gives victory to the SI. A second probe follows, with 2 MHC. Autocalc also gives victory. Meanwhile the main horde army is moving around beating up the Russians. Failure to take Georgia brings them back, and this time they're serious.

They invade with around 6 or 7 units of mixed MHC, MHA and MI. I retreat the SI to the Keep. The next bit is critical. Despite any huge numbers that may be in Khazar only counter-attack with enough to beat the GH army in Georgia. No more. Watch out for the GH jumping into Armenia when you counter-attack, which is why it gets a decent garrison after the Horde arrives. If they do take Armenia they are liable to then bring reinforcements into Georgia, or attack it again in numbers, so reinforce Armenia.

This is also the reason for not having a massive army in Trebizond or Armenia. If the Horde sees kinda similar numbers to it's own army it won't reinforce. If it sees several stacks, although it doesn't know the composition it is liable to reinforce.

Counter-attacking into Georgia with a few SI, XBows and Armenian Heavies will produce victory. If you take a larger army in they are liable to massively reinforce from Khazar when you counter-attack.

Immediately withdraw everyone except a single Saracen Inf again - change the one with 1 or 2 stars if you like him, or he may get Eager to Retreat if you have to withdraw again.

At this point the GH may start to lose interest in Georgia, as it is such a poor province. If not, repeat the cycle exactly. You will keep Georgia, even though the GH may occupy it once or twice.

This tit for tat strategy also works for the Hungarians in Moldavia, and the Polish in Volhynia. A single Slav Warrior in Moldavia will autocalc beat the MHC first probe. The key is the counter-attack with just enough troops for victory, so avoiding an immediate massive reinforcement from the GH. It is also essential to remove the counter-attack force immediately, or the GH will attack it with vastly increased numbers.

Rinse and repeat.

The next challenge for the Turks on High is what to do after you've taken Khazar, say around 1240. Mongol numbers in the adjoining provinces will outnumber them - fine for a single pitched battle (which they don't do), but suddenly it's very hard to see what to do next. You could bring a much larger army in, tying up lots of resources. Unpicking the region can be done in a certain order and a certain way - but that for another thread if anyone is interested, and might be a spoiler for newer players.

Off-topic bits from the post above are interesting, but I guess should be separate threads. I did find a way to keep the challenge of MTW fresh, but this obviously isn't the place for it.

[Vantek]

You speak as if Golden Horde has close to the intellect of a human being! In my experience, their behaviour is completely void of reason...

[Knight of the Rose]

It is called immersion. Some of the older games have it, but a couple of years back it was replaced with graphics in the great paradigme shift in gaming.

/KotR

[Heidrek]

the Horde!

I love the Golden Horde. When I first encountered them I thought I had the game pretty well sewn up, then suddenly a butt load of stacks appear out of nowhere in my weakest areas! I nearly crapped myself!

Proceeded to lose a string of territories to their predations, then figured out the best ways to bleed them.

In a nutshell, Halbardiers + Forests > Golden Horde.

Even their toughest cavalry get shredded if they try and engane your Halb's while in a forest, it's pure suicide. If you have a few units of halb's so you can prevent yourself getting flanked the horde will eb forced to either charge into a mincer with their cav. or hold back and fire arrows at you all day. to very effective against halb's at the best times and nearly pointless if you're in a forest as well.

[gollum]

The best units against the horde for me are actually spears of reliable morale and medium armour, backing up arbalasters, with the arbalasters doing all the killing and the spears doing the pinning and protection.

Halberdiers are terribly slow, have a lot of armor and they have very low morale; all these are big minuses against the Horde that usually makes up for very long battles with reinforcements having to march over to wherever you are camped that can make you take the Halbardiers right out as soon as they reach your main army due to fatigue. In addition Halbardiers fare not as good as spears against Heavy cavalry charges because despite their anti-cavalry bonus their polearms do not negate the charge bonus.

Ideally for me its a good number of feudal seargents or equivalent interspersed in waves of reinforcements with lots of arbalesters and if available Billmen or Varangians as back up to help out those times that the Mongol heavy horse waves are intense with a compliment of light horse (steppe cavalry, alans or equivalent) to chase Mongol Warriors everytime one of the attack waves brakes. A few bow units to fill in the reload times of the arbs and some heavy cavalry to deal with any MHC that managed to reach the arbs dont hurt either.

Its also optimal to let teh Horde have khazar and make a stand against it in Georgia and Kiev that they have to deal with the bridge and hilly terrain respectively rather than facing them in the open steppe. Even if you use forests the Horde can still achieve encirclements there, while in hilly terrain or bridges they are at a severe disadvantage. This helps to take the brunt of the attack before taking the fight to them and kick them back to wherever they came from.

[Vantek]

Halberds are monsters and a little overpowered TBH. Any kind of spearmen are strictly worse in my experience. Spearmen might last a little longer, but there will be more of the enemy horsemen standing as well. Unless I'm missing something it's not so easy to do the killing with arbalesters once the enemy has already engaged. Arbalesters will be useful for killing HA/foot soldiers and the general, not engaged MHC per se.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Vantek
Halberds are monsters and a little overpowered TBH.

The only halberdier that is overpowered is the Billman. He has (in addition to the standard +3/+1 anticavalry bonus polearms get) 2 morale and decent attack (2) with armor-piercing bonus, armor(3) and speed to win against almost anything if properly supported.

The vanilla halberder has 0 morale and a (relatively) small attack value(1), but a lot of armor(5) and is very slow. The ratio of speed/armor=stamina in MTW. Halberdiers are the easiest units to rout and they are an absolute pain to attack with, and in comparison to other units they are practically useless, all the more against cavalry because they dont deny the charge and cannot force engagement.

Spears no matter how slow they kill, always deny the charge, which is a key property in SP.

With arbalesters you can obliterate the MHC if in hilly terrain with a favorable slope. You can use widely spaced spear units in front of them that pin the MHC while the arbalesters shoot through the gaps. In addition if the slope is good enough you can rout the MHC without even the need f spears other than occasionally because you can deploy the arbalesters in depth, even if the MHC reach the first line the get volleys from behind.

The most key aspect in their use though is to coordinate the volleys. Group all thearbalesters so you can command them with one click and toggle fire at will off while you set them in hold position/hold formation. Then wait until the enemy is at the range of your choosing and then selsect the arbs group and toggle fire at will on. If teh MHC units are less than 3-4 they rout instantly as they receive 30% to 40% casualties at once.

[caravel]

Halberdiers suffer from pathetic morale, very slow speed and are useless in the desert IMHO. Which is why I almost never train them. The best anti cavalry flankers available to the catholics are Chivalric Foot Knights. You can get these simply by dismounting Chivalric Knights on the battlefield. I'm sure that some of the various Crusading Order Knights dismount to CFKs as well, I'm sure Hospitallers are the only exception as they dismount to HFKs.

Arbalests or Pavise Arbalests are still the best missile units to field against armoured units.

The best catholic faction for anti mongol defence are the English. Billmen and Longbows are pretty much designed to take down heavy cavalry and when combined with Arbs and CFKs the enemy doesn't have much of a chance.

[gollum]

Originally posted By Asai Nagamasa
The best catholic faction for anti mongol defence are the English.

Bingo.

[Jxrc]

Halberdiers suffer from pathetic morale, very slow speed and are useless in the desert IMHO. Which is why I almost never train them.

Indeed, unless they are build in a city with a reliquary or cathedral, Halberdiers are pretty much a liability IMHO. They cannot absorb charges at all and are quite likely to rout if charged head on or flanked.

The best anti cavalry flankers available to the catholics are Chivalric Foot Knights. You can get these simply by dismounting Chivalric Knights on the battlefield. I'm sure that some of the various Crusading Order Knights dismount to CFKs as well, I'm sure Hospitallers are the only exception as they dismount to HFKs.

A bit too slow to be used as flankers but fair enough. Would say that Swiss halberdiers are the best for other catholic factions than the English though. Knights of Santiago, Teutonic Knights and Knights Templar can dismount into CFK. Nice to get in the early period (and the only reason to use Knights Templars who are not that impressive while mounted) but I find it hard to use them as I should because those units cannot be replenished ... They kind of become parade units for me ....

Arbalests or Pavise Arbalests are still the best missile units to field against armoured units.

Indeed

The best catholic faction for anti mongol defence are the English. Billmen and Longbows are pretty much designed to take down heavy cavalry and when combined with Arbs and CFKs the enemy doesn't have much of a chance.

Would not use longbowmen against the GH. Not enough anti-armor and they run out of amo too quickly. They are fine against "normal" size armies but not against an "early" GH. Any catholic faction can deal effectively with the GH if you get enough time to prepare. Started an early campaign with Poland on sunday afternoon. Took Moldovia, Kiev, Crimea, Lithuania, Prussia, Pomerania and Volhynia through a round-trip with my first king and consolidated (just took what I could grab without starting a war during the following 100 years - Livonia, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Rhodes and Malta). Money was very tight until I managed to have fleets coming from the Black Sea and the Baltic connected. Due to delay in development, I was only able to build arbs and CS from Poland and Kiev in 1210. Managed to muster something like 24 abrs and 15 CS in Kiev, let Crimea with a garrison of one CS and one X-bow. The Gh showed up with about 10,000 men in Khazar (plus something in Volga but I could not see). Next turn they attack Kiev (going for Crimea first would have spare them the bridge battle but the GH is silly). No big suspense there since they lost more than 3,000 men before pulling out. Next turn, the GH became even sillier since the Khan with one single stack (my two units duly retreated to the castle) attacked Crimea while the bulk of its forces attacked Georgia (held by the Byz). I split my army located in Kiev into two, a big stack for Crimea, the rest for Khazar. THe GH retreated from Khazar while the can was routed and captured (14,000 florins well earned) after a bridge battle for Crimea ... The GH tried twice to retake Khazar but many of the MHC had already been killed and my general was five stars so that it was no challenge at all (lost 1,500 men twice ...) it just took time. Then it was 7 a.m and I had to go to work (not a great idea tio spend the night killing MHA all night but got carried away )

[Vantek]

Hmm... I've never had problems with Halberdiers' morale... I mean even if I did, exactly who am I supposed to replace them with?

You can use widely spaced spear units in front of them that pin the MHC while the arbalesters shoot through the gaps.

:S this sounds absolutely impossible!! Pics?

[drone]

Would say that Swiss halberdiers are the best for other catholic factions than the English though.

Faster, better attack, and much better morale. Get them some extra armor, and you are good to go. The only downside is the logistics of their supply chain...