-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Khuzait invincible? Council of the commons
- 主题发起人 Cruore
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
chepox2004
Recruit
they are based on mongols , what do you spect
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
Do the Khuzait ever NOT dominate the world?
Every campaign I've played, including Khuzait, they just dominate.
Plus, the council of the commons does not seem to be working.
Ive seen them get their heads caved in when they were fighting the North, Sturgia and Aserai all at the same time. I’m optimistic that the revolt system can make this more consistent with foreign control harder to manage.
People point to this, that or the other reason the Khuzait are often the top dog on the map, but it is a very layered issue. Taking away their Cav bonus for sieges and making the PC more aggressive to attack when the outcome is in doubt is assisting here. What I stated is extremely rare for them to be apart of, and if they increased the likelihood of faction declaring war on the expansionists versus the struggling kingdoms, this would also assist in anyone snowballing.
Do the Khuzait ever NOT dominate the world?
Every campaign I've played, including Khuzait
Right now, I'm dealing with Rule Battania.
It works, but differently than the description indicates. You get a very marginal amount of influence per supporter but supporters are bugged right now, so it is very hard to gain one.
I used to play with the Seperatism mod and a Khergit Khanate would almost always occur after the Khuzaits had taken Amprela, Tyal, and Onira. This would largely prevent them from expanding much more while keeping still keeping them very active on the map.
Same. I decided to start playing as an Aserai merc/noble because I got so sick of turning a corner and running into Caladog's 800+ army. Now it looks like Battania will take Ortysia.
Anushtegin
Sergeant
unpopular opinion: khuzaites emulating the seljuq conquest of anatolia/calradia is more interesting than having three carbon copies of the same faction occupying a third of the map.
more seriously though, i wish they'd move away from the hun/mongol khuzaites to fully embrace the timeframe and go full seljuqs, including the blob followed by burstign into independent cadet branches and/or atabeg states. one can dream...
more seriously though, i wish they'd move away from the hun/mongol khuzaites to fully embrace the timeframe and go full seljuqs, including the blob followed by burstign into independent cadet branches and/or atabeg states. one can dream...
A man of culture, I see
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Bannerlord is set in the 600-1000 time period so they're less based on Mongols and more based on the Gokturks, Khazars, Avars and Kipchaks.
Also, the Mongol invincibility meme is just that, a meme. Mongols never conquered more than 1/4 of Europe, and their conquests only lasted for about 20 years. They stopped at Poland and Hungary after the Europeans switched tactics from poorly armed footsoldiers/light cavalry and wood castles to crossbowmen, heavily armored cavalry, and stone castles that the Mongols were not good at besieging. They also barely conquered any of the Middle East thanks to their defeat at the Battle of Ain Jalut.
In terms of the way Bannerlord represents real-life Europe and the Middle East, the Mongols only would have conquered a handful of Empire, Sturgian and Aserai cities.
So the Mongols aren't a justification for the Khuzaits being overpowered. Though I also agree with @Apocal that the Battanians are actually a bigger issue now than the Khuzaits.
The Mongols conquered the whole of Song China, a state with more crossbows, stone fortifications and armoured cavalry than in the entirety of Europe, and they conquered all of the "middle east" i.e. Iran, Iraq, Anatolia, the Caucuses, Syria and much of Arabia with the exception of Egypt, which by the time they reached, the Mongol Empire was in a state of collapse and would never again be able to muster large armies.
They weren't "invincible" by any means, but in the period 1100-1300 there were very few states in the world who had the type of society necessary to reliably hinder a full scale mongol invasion. What made them so dangerous wasn't just the fact that they had horse archers (although that was part of it), it was the fact that they weren't limited by season, money or even supplies, so long as they could graze their animals. The people who had the best chance against the Mongols were actually other nomads, but by 1250 all the Central Asian nomads were working for the Mongols.
What "saved" Christendom in the end was mainly the fact that the Mongols mostly didn't care about Europe. It was basically a side project compared to the main prizes of Central Asia and China. The Golden Horde in Russia was probably the weakest and least relevant of the 4 Mongol successor states, and from what I've read about the internal ideology of the Mongol Empire (at least early on), their main targets were other steppe people, and China. Their other conquests were often nearly accidental.
In Bannerlord, it really bugs me that these clearly nomadic people have the exact same society as fully settled people. It would be so much more interesting if the Khuzaits didn't have static settlements at all, with their lord parties having manpower and resources attached to them. Defeating all of them in battle would basically wipe them off the map forever, but catching them would be difficult, and fighting them in the field would be disadvantageous.
Earth Dragon
Sergeant
This a point of massive dispute: The Mongol empire lost all steam or would have swept Europe.
Plenty of historians and scholars have showed that the geography and larger castles of Western Europe would have slowed/stopped them, as they were experiencing issues in Eastern Europe with the lighter fortifications.
The bulk of the foot soldiers were also from other cultures that were press ganged or volunteered. While the political system was extremely volatile in Europe and plenty of back stabbing was abound, Western Europeans would have been much more resistant to supply foot soldiers to attack the next kingdom over.
So while what was accomplished by the Mongols was phenomenal, they’d run into all the same issues all cultures do when trying to conquer and control other developed nations excessively far from their homebase. The bulk of their territory were lands that were consistently dominated by armies comprised of Mounted Archers and Light Cavalry. That’s never been the game in Western Europe
Plenty of historians and scholars have showed that the geography and larger castles of Western Europe would have slowed/stopped them, as they were experiencing issues in Eastern Europe with the lighter fortifications.
The bulk of the foot soldiers were also from other cultures that were press ganged or volunteered. While the political system was extremely volatile in Europe and plenty of back stabbing was abound, Western Europeans would have been much more resistant to supply foot soldiers to attack the next kingdom over.
So while what was accomplished by the Mongols was phenomenal, they’d run into all the same issues all cultures do when trying to conquer and control other developed nations excessively far from their homebase. The bulk of their territory were lands that were consistently dominated by armies comprised of Mounted Archers and Light Cavalry. That’s never been the game in Western Europe
Anushtegin
Sergeant
what do you think southern china looked like? flat plains and wooden palisades...? european armies of that time were peasant levies and feudal retinues. asian and medieval dynasties had standign armies that europe only had hundreds years later. the eurocentrism is ridiculous...
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Just because they accomplished it eventually, didn't mean it wasn't extremely difficult for them. That's why the Chinese specialized so heavily into crossbowmen and went to the effort of building massive stone fortifications, because they knew it was effective against the steppe peoples that constantly raided them.
My wording was very poor. I was looking at a map of the Mongol conquests at the time of writing that, but when I wrote "Middle East", in my head I was totally incorrectly thinking "Middle East and North Africa", a.k.a. what is represented in Bannerlord's world map for the Aserai.
I wouldn't consider that an accurate statement. They tried to invade Hungary twice and Poland three times, among other failed invasions, to the tune of tens of thousands of men killed.
You'll find that, again, the Khuzaits are not meant to be just "Mongols." They are primarily the Khazars, Gokturks, Kipchaks, Avars, etc. These tribes did end up settling in many instances- for example, the Byzantines formed alliances with the Khazars and actually sent engineers to build large fortresses for them, around which settlements formed. I think the Karakhergit minor faction are a good representation of what you're asking for, they're nomadic, they have no settlements. Minor factions need a little more depth but otherwise that would be a great representation of proto-Mongols and other nomads.
Then why did the Song use crossbows and massive fortifications through the entire country? China is enormous and its heartlands are insanely jagged hilly terrain, only the north ever needed to be organised to fight nomads. The primary tools that Chinese dynasties developed against nomads were large cavalry armies of seminomadic frontier people and political marriages, not crossbows. If the primary defense a country has against an invader is just a type of weapon, they have probably already lost.
Believe it or not that is small fry for the Mongols. The full field army of the mongol empire numbered something like a million men, spread into 3 fronts of which Europe was the smallest by a large margin.
My point is that China in the 1200s was almost unimaginably more developed and fortified than anywhere in Europe at the time, as well as having far worse terrain for nomads, but in about 100 years (which incidentally seems to be the standard for nomads conquering china) they had the whole thing under their control. If for some reason the Mongolian conquest ideology had included Europe as rightfully theirs, it's really a stretch to think that even a united europe would have stopped the mongols in the 1200s when a fully united China couldn't.
But there's nothing in the game that suggests this. They have Mongol names, their unit types are have mongol names, they use the term Khan, tney look like Mongols, use Chinese weapons and one of the armours even has fake Chinese letters on it. Even the official description of their faction only matches the Mongol empire.
This comes from a place of frustration for me because I wish it wasn't like this. I'm kind of sick of the Mongols to be honest, I accidentally did the same course twice in university and got a double helping of these genocidal pricks. I would much prefer if the khuzaits were more representative of different steppe groups rather than just the Mongols, but right now that just isn't the case.
What? No, crossbows were not especially effective and their fortifications proved to be of limited utility -- that was a lesson learned a literal millennium prior, during the Han-Xiongnu War. That war started with the Han dynasty armies largely on foot, fighting with massed crossbows behind barricades. And while it worked tactically to prevent nomadic cavalry from carrying home a charge, it was a failure operationally. The barricades took time to setup and were not mobile once emplaced (think it more as an impromptu fort) while at the same there were very few ways of forcing the Xiongnu to fight against such a setup. In practice, the early Han armies and fortifications failed to meaningfully prevent large-scale raids by the Xiongnu, so they switched to an offensive strategy, which also failed due to the inherent difficulties of supply on the steppes.
It was only after wholesale military reform that they were able to defeat the Xiongnu. From foot-mobile, massed crossbow tactics centered around interior lines and fortifications to channel large-scale raids the Han military shifted to a large wing of nomadic cavalry of their own, with the soldiers therein generally being steppe nomads allowed (or forced) to settle inside Han territory in exchange for military service. It was the only way for the Han to actually end the constant raiding, by effectively making their army into steppe nomads capable of crossing the desert (and outside of the Ordos River region, it was very much a desert) and out-nomading the nomads, taking their herds, flipping their vassals, recruiting the men they captured and immediately putting them into service.
That was the context for later Chinese dynasties' strategic thinking. Most of China was poor horse breeding country (selenium deficient) so it was impossible to maintain an "in-house" cavalry capability. They needed access to the steppes (and steppe people) in order to raise a large cavalry force. But it was worth it to do so because cavalry were so effective at the operational level, especially nomadic cavalry. It wasn't something they were always successful at, so the 13th and 14th century Chinese dynasties (including the Song) built and maintained a lot of crossbows and fortifications, but ultimately what they needed was a source of high-quality cavalry -- and the Mongols of the time horded (lol) all of it.
(edit: by "nomadic cavalry" I mean their logistics were based primarily around herds and available pasturage, rather than settled agrian population or transportation links like rivers. It was the only way to perform long-range, long-duration expeditions out on the steppes where nothing grows but grass: people can't eat grass, but sheep can.)
最后编辑:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
First off I want to say you're strawmanning my argument by cherrypicking it down to just "crossbows" when I never even implied the primary defense against nomads was "just a type of weapon". I said heavily armored cavalry and fortifications as other effective ways of defeating horse-archer armies (crossbows alone would be of reduced effectiveness), and I never said it was the only way, nor that it was unbeatable. When it comes to crossbows being used across the whole empire I don't know exactly why, but I have two guesses. The first guess is reasons of standardizing what worked on the frontiers (crossbows were mass-produced and crossbowmen were trained in huge numbers). The second is from this quote: "When struggling to defend mountain-passes, where much noise and impetuous strength must be stemmed, there is nothing like the crossbow for success," said Zeng Gongliang.
"Of course, in mounted archery [using the short bow] the Yi and the Di are skilful, but the Chinese are good at using nu che. The crossbows can shoot their bolts to a considerable range, and do more harm [lit. penetrate deeper] than those of the short bow. And again, if the crossbow bolts are picked up by the barbarians they have no way of making use of them. The strong crossbow [jing nu] and the [arcuballista shooting] javelins have a long range; something which the bows of the Huns can no way equal. The drill of crossbow men alternately advancing [to shoot] and retiring [to load]; this is something which the Huns cannot even face. The troops with crossbows ride forward [cai guan shou] and shoot off all their bolts in one direction; this is something which the leather armour and wooden shields of the Huns cannot resist," said Chao Cuo.
@Apocal The Wujing Zongyao, written during the Song dynasty, offers the crossbow as the most effective method of fighting against the steppe nomads, while Thomas the Archdeacon said the same based on his experiences at the Mongol Siege of Split. So yes, I would definitely call crossbows "especially effective" when used in conjunction with either stone fortifications or heavy cavalry. Obviously fighting fire with fire and turning nomadic yourself to fight nomads was a very successful option too, but that doesn't preclude crossbows as something that worked in their own right- effective horse archery is something that requires lifelong training, while learning to shoot a crossbow is much more simple. If you can't raise your own horse archer army then crossbows supported by either heavy cavalry or stone castles are your next best bet, like what stopped the Mongols in Europe. You know what didn't stop the Mongols? The Kipchak/Cuman horse-archers they rolled over.
I'm confused. I assumed either you came here to contradict my statement that the Mongols could be stopped; or to imply that the game's representation of Khuzait conquering range is accurate with its real life equivalent.
What-if scenarios aren't really relevant to either of those, because the Mongols obviously never focused their full strength on Europe, and if they had, they would have been stopped in Asia instead. So either way they would have been stoppable.
Well, like you said, Mongols weren't settled whereas the Khazars were, so that's a suggestion! The names are not actually explicitly Mongolian, with the exception of Kheshig, which (I think) was a Mongol invention. The term "Khan" was used by the Gokturks, well before the Mongol Empire. The term "Torguud" comes from the Turkic Keraites. "Qanqli" comes from the Kipchaks. "Tarkhan"/"Darqan" is a term from the Khazars. I think what's important to note is that there are going to be a lot of similarities in language and equipment to the Mongols in these various pre-Mongol groups because they inhabited a similar area to the Mongols. The first Gokturk Khaganate, for example, spread from Europe over to China, so Chinese cultural influence would have been just as likely for them as it was for the Mongols.
The description of the faction actually matches the Pannonian Avars much better than it does the Mongol Empire. The Avar Khaganate was formed by nomads who entered Europe while fleeing the expansion of the Gokturk Khaganate.
I know the lore in the M&B series has very tenuous continuity, but if it's any help, Warband (set in the 1200s) has an explicit mention of an eastern "Great Horde" who are causing the Khergits to flee westwards. This would make that Great Horde the Mongol equivalent in M&B, while the Khergits are equivalent to the Kipchaks that the Mongols ended up displacing.
最后编辑:
The Song consistently lost to both Jurchens (Jin) and Mongols.
The Mongols were stopped in the Levant by the Mamluks under Beybars, the majority of whom were Cuman-Kipchaks and utilized as horse archers.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I'll repeat the part you skipped over replying to: "I never said it (using crossbows, fortifications, and/or heavy cavalry) was the only way, nor that it was unbeatable; just that it was an effective option. Obviously fighting fire with fire and turning nomadic yourself to fight nomads was a very successful option too, but that doesn't preclude (crossbows, fortifications, and/or heavy cavalry) as something that worked in their own right."
The Mongol conquest of the Song took over 600,000 troops (with heavy casualties) and 45 years, and the Song put up a "fairly successful resistance" which was one of the longest periods of time it took the Mongols to conquer any nation (apart from Hungary and Poland which they never succeeded in fully conquering, lol). The Song didn't lose "consistently": the Mongols did lose multiple battles during the invasions, managed to lose multiple conquered areas back to the Song in the 1240s, and suffered major setbacks due to prolonged sieges. They even lost a khan in the process, the only time this happened. This was all despite the fact the Song central government was also trying to deal with numerous fractious forces from within: political infighting, peasant uprisings, and the Mongols utilising bribery to get Song soldiers and commanders to defect without fighting, a situation in which the most effective method of fighting is a moot point.
Crossbows+stone fortifications+heavy cavalry were effective at dealing with horse archers, even if they weren't a guarantee of victory (which I never implied). My original point was that it was more effective than trying to use light cavalry.
最后编辑: