Can we do something about the khuzaits?

Users who are viewing this thread

I have a degree in Islamic History with a focus on the Crusades and the Mongols.

Appeal to authority to dismiss all of written history...and after dismissing a video with actual testing, you give a video to a person, talking standing in front of some swords on a wall? And you also make this claim after not knowing that the mongol invasion takes place at the same time as the crusades :ROFLMAO:

Clearly no point in talking to you about this topic anymore lol...I will take world history over your "opinion" Mr Professor posting on a game forum. :roll:
 
You sure this had nothing to do with Mongols superior tactics, and combined arms approach that allowed their heavy cavalry to reach and break the formations that their mounted archers could not disperse one way or another? Because no, they did not all use bows, and heavy mongolian lancers are a constant fixture of their battlefields.

You seem to forget that the argument that I came into was claiming their armor could deflect European lances.

Anyone attempting to say that their armor could deflect a lance needs to take a look at how easily the Mongolian bow could shoot an arrow that could pierce their armor. hey look, something on topic since this thread is bout the Khuzaits!


Oh snap. Guess I know who doesnt get my money in terms of genuine knowledge of the topic they are jumping into.

So which is it, can a lance pierce their armor making the argument against why the Crusades failed correct or incorrect...or does Middle Eastern armor magically fail only against Mongolian lances so it wasnt bows that defeated them, even though they defeated every single other opponent. Lets make up our minds here.
 
You seem to forget that the argument that I came into was claiming their armor could deflect European lances.
Not "forget," just straight up didn't read it.

Anyway, you throwing gems like:
Both sides fielded their armies and the Islamic armies were crushed on the field from Mongolian calvary which all had composite bows.
doesn't really help your case.
I guess I know who doesnt get my money in terms of genuine knowledge of the topic they are jumping into.
One person involved in this exchange immediately helped source a rather obscure reference. The other makes claims like "all Mongol cavalry used bows." I've seen James provide citations elsewhere for other less-known things that I'm familiar with and can verify the accuracy of as well.

Not much of a contest considering the above.
Which is it, can a lance pierce their armor making the argument against why the Crusades failed correct or incorrect...or does Middle Eastern armor magically fail only against Mongolian lances so it wasnt bows that defeated them, even though they defeated every single other opponent. Lets make up our minds here.
Don't have detailed enough knowledge of the subject to get involved in that one (details of Mongolian armor performance, that is).
 
Appeal to authority to dismiss all of written history...and after dismissing a video with actual testing, you give a video to a person, talking standing in front of some swords on a wall? And you also make this claim after not knowing that the mongol invasion takes place at the same time as the crusades :ROFLMAO:

Clearly no point in talking to you about this topic anymore lol...I will take world history over your "opinion" Mr Professor posting on a game forum. :roll:

I see you too have attended the Shi't'-in-gob School of Debate. I applaud your magnificent victory over this lowly uneducated peasant
 
Appeal to authority to dismiss all of written history...and after dismissing a video with actual testing, you give a video to a person, talking standing in front of some swords on a wall? And you also make this claim after not knowing that the mongol invasion takes place at the same time as the crusades :ROFLMAO:

Clearly no point in talking to you about this topic anymore lol...I will take world history over your "opinion" Mr Professor posting on a game forum. :roll:

I mean, you're obviously not a historian and have no actual knowledge of the period that doesn't come from watching youtube videos. Oh, and you're an ******* about your ignorance and I wish this forum had rules about people showing up to spout badly researched nonsense. The reason the world is literally falling apart right now is because folks like you exist in places of political authority.
 


This gives insight into the armour of Mongol warriors at the time.

Medium-light Lamellar armours, all Mongols were equipped with bows, heavy lances and maces, axes or swords likely looted from fallen enemies. Mongol tactics were primarily to annoy the enemy with arrows in order to get them to move, to exhaust them and inflict minor causalities and many injuries, while the Mongol cavalry charged into the flanks.

Comparing real life to games is idiotic though... if you want realism, go sign up to the Knight Battles in Russia

 
Of course I know Damascus steel, but my limited knowledge on metallurgy tells me that Damascus steel only look pretty, and many expensive daggers nowadays are made from Damascus. They are more for art display than actual battles. I don't believe that muslim soldiers were wearing mail made from Damascus steel back then. They were expensive and perform worse than normal steel for battle.

Wootz steel is easy to spot because of the pattern, and there are many techniques for re-creating similar patterns, but that is NOT what makes is superb. If anything that made people chase in circles as they succesfully recreated the pattern but had it fall short of the original properties. Funny thing is, that the truth is closer to what contemporaries blew off as the more obvious myth, that they were quenched in blood - because it's the quenching process, not the pattern that was key - but that was only "discovered" in Europe in XIX/XX c, and only after it was known, and microimaging processes developed was it finally found to be present in Wootz steel.

The real secret was not the pattern itself (feasible to reproduce and why contemporaries focused on this easy to spot factor) nor even what hid in it (which was unknown until post-industrial technology) but how they prepared the ingots in such a way that the end product took advantage of those properties.

 
I'm trying new things as I'm having crash problems in longer 1.4.1 games, so I'm going to try to derail the Khuzaits as a lone clan and see how they do. On my previous game I vassal for them and they were reedickyouless in 4-5 wars constantly and still expanding. So far Just a little tuff love has kept them in check, they expanded a bit but then lost it once I interfered.

Had to come back to this thread after starting a 1.4.2 playthrough. For the longest time now I've been playing everyone except the Khuzait, because of the need to contain them before they start wiping out factions (or at least, weakening them to the point that they fall apart). For 1.4.2, I figured: let's just trying a Khuzaiti player character merc'ing for Khuzaits - to indulge fully in the OPness. And... it's just so ridiculous. On a measly Clan Tier 3, 140ish horse archers with Khuzait cultural speed bonus can chain-farm enemy armies so fast, no opportunity can escape you. Losses in sensibly-chosen (all the way to 50/50 powerbar) battles are non-existent. The accuracy of a static line of horse archers is insane.

Per the diplomacy changes of 1.4.1 onwards, Khuzait expansion has put us at war with 4 factions simultaneously. And it just doesn't matter, the Khuzait are successfully holding their ground against 4 AIs. Khuzait power is absurd on the strategic layer (safe border to the East + cultural movement speed), on the autoresolve tactical layer (higher cav proportion leading to picking their battles and winning them more easily) and on the player-led tactical layer (strong troops at every progression level and the strongest T5 field army with full heavy horse archers). Given the importance of loot in financing your operations until the late game in 1.4.2, nothing comes close to a Khuzaiti-led horse archer army for printing denars.

How the Khuzait power imbalance hasn't been addressed in all these patches is mind-boggling.
 
Last edited:
Oof... you want to nerf the Khuzaits because they conquer everything? Is this what people did in the 13th century did when Mongols conquered the world?

"Chinghis Khaan Temujin's armies are too OP, please nerf"
To clarify, mongolians didn't conquer the world. They failed miserably in many places in Southeastern asia, Japan, Western Europe, India, and Northern Africa. The terrain of those places just weren't suitable for mounted archery. And to be honest, it wasn't the Mongolians who conquered many countries, but Ghengis Khan and his brilliant generals. Without them, the Mongolian tactics were little to no different from usual nomadic tactics that agricultural societies had been dealing with for centuries.
 
The Abbasids were conquered by the Mongols because their empire had been in decline for hundreds of years and Iraq was depopulated, not because they had bad equipment. When the Mongols faced the Mamluks (who were actual enemies of the crusaders, unlike the Khwarezmians) they were defeated again and again.
Mamluks generally had a tough time fighting mongols though. But if I were to rank the three armies based on their achivements:
Prime Mongols under Ghenghis Khan >>>> Crusaders under Richard the lionheart > Mamluks
 
Had to come back to this thread after starting a 1.4.2 playthrough. For the longest time now I've been playing everyone except the Khuzait, because of the need to contain them before they start wiping out factions (or at least, weakening them to the point that they fall apart). For 1.4.2, I figured: let's just trying a Khuzaiti player character merc'ing for Khuzaits - to indulge fully in the OPness. And... it's just so ridiculous. On a measly Clan Tier 3, 140ish horse archers with Khuzait cultural speed bonus can chain-farm enemy armies so fast, no opportunity can escape you. Losses in sensibly-chosen (all the way to 50/50 powerbar) battles are non-existent. The accuracy of a static line of horse archers is insane.

This can be done with any composition containing massed archers. The AI is horrible about countering it and you don't have to trade losses in exchange for kills, so as long as they don't reach your archer line, losses are minimal. There is another huge thread about it, focusing on Battanian Fian Champions accomplishing the same feat.

Additionally, you get essentially the same impact you describe of the Khuzait cultural bonus just from running an all-cav party. As long as you yeet anything with two legs instead of four, you will always be substantially faster than an AI lord party.

How the Khuzait power imbalance hasn't been addressed in all these patches is mind-boggling.

Probably because they were steamrolling before their culture perk was working and continue to steamroll even when half their armies and lords aren't even Khuzait anymore.
 
To clarify, mongolians didn't conquer the world. They failed miserably in many places in Southeastern asia, Japan, Western Europe, India, and Northern Africa. The terrain of those places just weren't suitable for mounted archery. And to be honest, it wasn't the Mongolians who conquered many countries, but Ghengis Khan and his brilliant generals. Without them, the Mongolian tactics were little to no different from usual nomadic tactics that agricultural societies had been dealing with for centuries.

lolz, the salty post is most amusing. I don't know if you realised this but... Chinghis Khaan Temujin (the one you call "Ghenghis Khan") was Mongolian, as was his Brilliant Generals. You are right in one part though, our ancestors did not conquer the entire world obviously... no one ever has, no one ever will, it's an exaggeration to compliment the achievements of a people, whom everyone else thought were just bandit raiders capable of nothing.

Southeastern Asia? yeah... no one has effectively conquered Vietnam... not even the French managed to subjugate them... the same thing is with Afghanistan. Japan saved by 2 tsunamis, Western Europe was saved by the natural death of a Khagan, otherwise Subutai would have sacked Western Europe, just as Attila did to Germania centuries before. India was not conquered due to Afghanistan and the himalayas protecting India from a Mongol assault... but even then, India decided to befriend the Mongol Empire. and North Africa? the Mongol Empire got as far as Anatolia and Iraq.. but then fighting 2 entire faiths (Christendom and Islam) caused a stalemate.

Edit: Actually come to think of it... the Mughal Empire is descended from the Mongol Empire, as is the "Ottoman" Empire, whose Turks were brought into Anatolia as part of Hulaqu invasion into Persia and Anatolia, along with Jochi and Subutai's invasions into Tartaria (Russia). so... I would say the Mongol Empire it self didn't rule North Africa, all of the Middle East and India... but the empires that descended from our ancestral empire, did.

But sure, nice "clarification".
 
Last edited:
I have to step in and say you're completely wrong about just about everything you've said here. They did adapt to the environment - the desert is a dry heat and it's no coincidence that during and after the Crusades, long flowy surcoats and cloth coverings over armour were popular choices. These were very practical adaptations to the desert sun.
Well, relying only on surcoat to absorb heat apparently wasn't enough adaptation. They were still covered with mail and padding, many of them were wearing bucket helms(tin cans with holes) suffering from bad ventilation.

the win loss ratio for the crusaders weren't so great, and I think the heat caused more trouble to the crusaders than the lighter muslim troops. You can put on some thick clothings(not even mail) and do some outdoor exercises at this time of the year, it will become unbearable pretty fast.
 
lolz, the salty post is most amusing.
You are the one who is salty, I merely pointed out that your original statement was wrong, Mongolians didn't conquer the world.

I don't know if you realised this but... Chinghis Khaan Temujin (the one you call "Ghenghis Khan") was Mongolian, as was his Brilliant Generals.
I do realise that..... I meant that the success of Mongols wasn't due to revolutionary tactics, they were still using the same nomadic tactics like their ancestors. The difference was that the generals were very capable and that was the main reason Mongols were able to defeat many empires at that time. Japan actually fought Mongols and repelled them on land, so Mongol failure to conquest Japan wasn't only because of tsunamis. The reason for Mongol retreat from Europe is a myth. The death of Khan is only a theory, it could be the climate, terrain, sieges etc... The jungles of Vietnam proved to be too much for Mongolian calvary, they had a lot of trouble dealing with the terrain of Southern Song as well. Which sentence from my last post made you think that I was discrediting the mongols? These are all facts.
 
This can be done with any composition containing massed archers. The AI is horrible about countering it and you don't have to trade losses in exchange for kills, so as long as they don't reach your archer line, losses are minimal. There is another huge thread about it, focusing on Battanian Fian Champions accomplishing the same feat.

Additionally, you get essentially the same impact you describe of the Khuzait cultural bonus just from running an all-cav party. As long as you yeet anything with two legs instead of four, you will always be substantially faster than an AI lord party.



Probably because they were steamrolling before their culture perk was working and continue to steamroll even when half their armies and lords aren't even Khuzait anymore.

Respectfully, I've run massed archer comps of every single faction. Of course they're effective, and the AI is terrible at dealing with it. But the combination of Khuzait cultural speed (+10% of Base speed, so typically +0.4 to 0.6 movement speed) and Khuzait archers being on horseback (as opposed to the roughly 2/3 as powerful 'Footmen on horse' speed effect) means that the Khuzait army catches up to everyone much faster. You waste significantly less time narrowing the gap, and have a much more effective uptime pounding whichever faction is unlucky enough to be opposing your Khuzait force. Which means more loot faster, in 1.4.2 where loot is one of the best sources of income. As rough guidance, an army of 170 horse archers with the Khuzait cultural bonus has 6.7 movement speed. My equivalent 170 Battanian Fian comp moves at about 5.2.

When it comes to the battle itself, massed archer comps are (Battanian Fian Champion aside) vastly inferior to the Khuzait mounted version, precisely for one of the reasons you mention. "As long as they don't reach your archer line" is important to foot archers; not at all for the Khuzait mounted version. Keep them static, fire till the enemy is close, then reposition. Fire only when static so the ammo wastage is minimal (their accuracy worsens when on the trot). Khuzait heavy horse archers don't care if the enemy approaches their line, and will always get to deliver 2 quivers worth of damage.

I've done massed Battanian Fian Champion, they're admittedly awesome but a much greater pain to assemble - and even when you have it, you narrow the gap on the campaign map much slower than the all-cav + culture bonus Khuzait version.
 
Last edited:
Well, relying only on surcoat to absorb heat apparently wasn't enough adaptation. They were still covered with mail and padding, many of them were wearing bucket helms(tin cans with holes) suffering from bad ventilation.

So were many of the Muslims. The heavy cavalry and infantry of the Ayyubids and later Mamluks was thicker than anything the crusaders wore until the 1300s. Look at how poorly "ventilated" this guy is.

4478741401_3d6093a369_b.jpg


The Seljuks invaded at around the same time as the crusaders, they were from a place that gets far colder than europe (around the aral sea) but you would never say that their eventual defeat was due to them not adapting to the heat. In fact what's even funnier is that the empire that finally defeated the crusaders was led by and comprised of warriors who were born and raised in Ukraine.

People put too much emphasis on things like equipment and acclimatisation when discussing the crusades. If a soldier is hot they'll just take stuff off. There is this orientalist myth about certain places (Russia, China, the Sahara), where people assume that their inhabitants win wars because of the climate rather than the army. When you say that the crusaders had armour not suited to the climate, you're also insinuating that they were too stupid to take any of it off when they were too hot, and just sat around getting heatstroke.

There is a famous quote from a french chronicler called Fulcher of Chatres where he says that catholics who had stayed in the levant for a few years were completely indistinguishable from the locals. This is backed up by Usama ibn Munqidh who says almost the exact same thing.
 
You are the one who is salty, I merely pointed out that your original statement was wrong, Mongolians didn't conquer the world.


I do realise that..... I meant that the success of Mongols wasn't due to revolutionary tactics, they were still using the same nomadic tactics like their ancestors. The difference was that the generals were very capable and that was the main reason Mongols were able to defeat many empires at that time. Japan actually fought Mongols and repelled them on land, so Mongol failure to conquest Japan wasn't only because of tsunamis. The reason for Mongol retreat from Europe is a myth. The death of Khan is only a theory, it could be the climate, terrain, sieges etc... The jungles of Vietnam proved to be too much for Mongolian calvary, they had a lot of trouble dealing with the terrain of Southern Song as well. Which sentence from my last post made you think that I was discrediting the mongols? These are all facts.

" I do realise that..... I meant that the success of Mongols wasn't due to revolutionary tactics "

Actually, revolutionary tactics were used in the battle field. The feigned retreat (which is the common nomadic tactic you maybe talking about) is common yes... but Mongols brought the revolutionary "Shock and Awe" before it was ever conceived by any nation civilisation. Mongols were also the first to produce a form of a "Blitzkrieg" using very fast cavalry to raid and attack positions before the enemy even knew what hit them.

" The difference was that the generals were very capable and that was the main reason Mongols were able to defeat many empires at that time. "

Not exactly, this was partially the reason yes. Mongols had smaller military forces than their opponents. It was the use of terror, reconnaissance, espionage and deceptively fast raids and attacks that brought large bulky empires to their knees. We saw that with the Khwarazeim Empire, who were militarily superior, technologically superior and had mountainous terrain that would be very problematic to Mongol forces... but they were still defeated.

" Japan actually fought Mongols and repelled them on land, so Mongol failure to conquest Japan wasn't only because of tsunamis."

It is true that the Japanese did fight on land against the remnants of the Mongol fleets. Note that word "Remnants". Just as the Greeks in the battle of Thermopylae did not actually fight a million Persians, the Japanese did not fight the full force of the Mongol fleets, who were mostly destroyed by the tsunamis and then were attacked during the nights when attempting to recover and reorganise.


"The reason for Mongol retreat from Europe is a myth. The death of Khan is only a theory, it could be the climate, terrain, sieges etc... "

In your opinion perhaps, but not most historians. This event happened several times, stopping the conquests in many wars... it even happened at the oh so famous battle of Ain Jalut, when Mongol Forces were decimating the forces of the Mamluke slave kingdom... a Khagan died... Hulaqu Khan withdrew to elect a new Khagan and the commander Kitbuqa was left in charge to deal with the Mamlukes, ultimately failing to secure the victory.



" The jungles of Vietnam proved to be too much for Mongolian calvary, they had a lot of trouble dealing with the terrain of Southern Song as well "

Yeah, the jungles of Vietnam proved too much for everyone who invaded Vietnam... from Han China to the Mongol Empire, to France and the USA... no one has ever succeeded in fully subjugating Vietnam, just like Afghanistan. Some lands are just not meant to be conquered.



"Which sentence from my last post made you think that I was discrediting the mongols? These are all facts."

" They failed miserably in many places in Southeastern asia, Japan, Western Europe, India, and Northern Africa. "

^ This made me think you were insulting my people's history when this statement is incorrect. There were great failures for sure... but this was not in many places... and it certainly does not outshine the fact, that a people who were little more than sparsely populated nomads, managed to unify the steppe tribes into a great nation empire and then fight against vastly superior foes, like China, Persia, The Abbassid Caliphate, the Crusader States, as well as all the other great confederations, like the Khazars, Cumans, Tartars, along with the "Slavic/Viking" kingdoms like the Kieven Rus.
 
Respectfully, I've run massed archer comps of every single faction. Of course they're effective, and the AI is terrible at dealing with it. But the combination of Khuzait cultural speed (+10% of Base speed) and Khuzait archers being on horseback (as opposed to the roughly 2/3 as powerful 'Footmen on horse' speed effect) means that the Khuzait army catches up to everyone much faster. You waste significantly less time narrowing the gap, and have a much more effective uptime pounding whichever faction is unlucky enough to be opposing your Khuzait force. Which means more loot faster, in 1.4.2 where loot is one of the best sources of income. As rough guidance, an army of 170 horse archers with the Khuzait cultural bonus has 6.7 movement speed. My equivalent 170 Battanian Fian comp moves at about 5.2.

Yes, I said that you move much faster with only horsemen in your party. The Khuzait cultural bonus is weaker than the Cavalry bonus.

When it comes to the battle itself, massed archer comps are (Battanian Fian Champion aside) vastly inferior to the Khuzait mounted version, precisely for one of the reasons you mention. "As long as they don't reach your archer line" is important to foot archers; not at all for the Khuzait mounted version.

I've never had a problem keeping opponents in a battle that was 50/50 on the power bar from reaching my archer line and that was when I was using Aserai Master Archers, mostly.
 
Yes, I said that you move much faster with only horsemen in your party. The Khuzait cultural bonus is weaker than the Cavalry bonus.

The incremental +0.4 to +0.6 movement speed bonus from Khuzait culture is by far the best in the game. By itself, it adds between 1/2 and 2/3 as much as the movement speed gap between a full army of 'Footmen on horse' and a full army of 'Cavalry'.

If it genuinely added 10% to just the 'Cavalry' bonus of an army, as intended in the tooltip, I'd be fine with it - but it adds 10% to the 'Base' speed of any Khuzaiti-led army, even a pure infantry one. It's broken.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom