Fun fact: The original Mongol jingle (the one in this video's opening) is actually a stock sound clip. It can also be heard in the 1930s Soviet documentary about Ushguli, Georgia, called Salt for Svanetia, or at least the 1950s redone soundtrack. The version I watched is uploaded for free on RU-vid.
I appreciate the inclusion of a sort of starter build order for people trying to get into the civ, it makes it much more likely they'll give the civ, and thus the game, a shot. Good stuff!
Another gem of a video! Mongols are kind of OP honestly. Having recently moved from HD to DE, I discovered the steppe lancer with sheer horror and had no idea how to deal with them alongside cav archer.
To be fair I never use them, not for lack of appreciation, but I prefer the old Huss+Mangudais, being the saved gold in more mangudais, or camels if the enemy I face use heavy cav wich is annoying to deal with mangudais, and have those humpy boys in between makes everything easier. However go melee against swordsmen makes the Steppe Lancer a not so bad option to get trash regular cavalry to add to light cavalry instead of heavy cav wich is more expensive, but only with highly raned armored infantry like Malian infantry or Huskarls, to give sn example
I find Mongols are a great counter to Byzantines, Byzantines suck so I guess a lot of civs are a good counter to them but I have never seen anyone mention mongol vs byzantine.
@@doomdimensiondweller5627 Mongols lack good anti archer units. They don't have paladin and miss the last cavalry and archer armor upgrades. Although hussars have more HP they end surviving less arrows. And bizantines are an excellent archer civ with all proper upgrades. Also they have discounted halberdiers to manage cavalry and FU discounted skirmishers to deal with Cavalry archers. Is their slow start that drags them down although discounted spearmen and 20% extra HP in feudal might help a bit. Also in water maps Bizantines are dominant, with all dock techs plus 25% fire rate of fire galleys and +1 range with the Unique tech.
I just thought... A cool bonus for Mongols or Huns would be to gain resources from destroying buildings. Would fit their raider thene, and support their agressive playstyle. Maybe Mongols get gold from destroying buildings, while huns get food or wood.
Even tought it's implied in what's already in the video, to me it would be nice spend some more words dedicated expressly on what are the best counter to the civ. Thank you for the good work!
Ngl, based on the thumbnail I thought they gave the mongols a unique monastery that looks closer to a Tengri shrine than the current Buddhist temple they have.
I would actually rate the Mongols as a C at trash wars due to more than just the trash units themselves. Mongols lack every Imperial Age economic tech (Crop Rotation, Two-Man Saw, Guilds), which makes affording trash harder, and the lack of Guilds makes it expensive to keep exchanging food and wood for gold (for the odd siege unit). Coupled with no economic bonuses in late-game, Mongols are pretty crappy once they run out of gold. This is also something I think you need to include when you talk about trash units, Spirit: how well a civ can afford to keep pumping them out. I know you took out the Economy category, but you could reintroduce part of it as a component of the Trash Units grade. Civs that miss one or more of the Imperial Age economic techs do worse in a trash war.
5:31 i'm sure the maths/no. of projectiles is correct but how can arbs kill in 24 vs 20 arrows (generic vs Mongol Hussar) while being 95 vs 40 for skirms - i would think the two ratios wouldn't be that widely far apart - can someone explain that ? i know it's not linear since diff fire rate and dmg but still was kinda surprised
In the options under the "hotkey" tab, it should automatically have "unit commands" highlighted. scroll down until you find "stop" and assign it to a key you'll remember to use. Stop micro is a great tool with any sort of archer micro and super easy to do.
@@SpiritOfTheLaw Thanks so much! Just want to say how much I appreciate your videos and watch almost every one. As a fellow Canadian I am just curious what part of Canada you live in? I am in a remote northern Ontario town called Manitouwadge myself.
I find Mongols are a great counter to Byzantines, Byzantines suck so I guess a lot of civs are a good counter to them but I have never seen anyone mention mongol vs byzantine.
I find Mongols are a great counter to Byzantines, Byzantines suck so I guess a lot of civs are a good counter to them but I have never seen anyone mention mongol vs byzantine.
one of the best UU, rams+ SO+ mangudai = GG but mangudai can get easy DELETED by skirms, because you need lots of castles (STONE) to spam mangudai and spamming skirms isn't hard for a good player with solid economy, dropped 10 archery range is nothing compared to dropping even 8 castles
After all their upgrades they are unstoppable except against non paladin civs and goths in late game. But I guess as mongols, you just have to rush these civs before they get to late games
@@AEGISAOE i go imp 25 mins and have a combo of mangudai with hussar for meat shield and those filthy skirms, combined with 2-3 trebs. Some times add onagers depending on the situation. The key is to have the army next to your trebs and have the enemy units come to you. Else they get defenders advantage. Doesn’t work against goths and palladin civs in late game.
@@nshs1234 my point was that I can rebuild my army faster than mongol player can. in most noob games, players dont have the eco no sustain it with endless waves of trash units and in competitive games, viewers don't want to see a never ending trash war, so pro players go for what is best to win the game, But at same time, what is best for their audience to see this is no more voobly times when it lagged, you can proper micro skirms against onagers by not getting too close and you don't go yolo skirms, lol. use your other units depending on what enemy has and what you need to counter but i guess u are more right than me, because, most players have a idle villager here and there while luring the boar, lol, so, having such demands to micro skirms against siege, would be just silly
Even with Mongols, the Siege Tower can't win: Drill allows them transport infantry faster than cavalry, but the Mongol infantry is so weak, it rarely gets used.
My favourite civ by far. I started loving them as a kid playing the original game because I could do that classic amateur strat of “turtle for 2.5 hours and then destroy everything in the game with a thousand of one unit type”, and nothing worked better than the Mangudai for that, haha. Byzantines were another favourite of mine as a kid - turtle forever and then stomp 7 computer AIs to death with my tramply boys
To this day, Mongols still one of my favorites. You have an early game rush, a mid-game timing push, and a strong late game comp. What more could you ask for? Bonus: Drill Siege is a wild card. Hussar+Mangudai may have counters, but not all of those counters care to face speedy Onagers.
"A blue wolf took as his spouse a fallow doe. They settled at the head of the Onon River to raise their offspring. And there were born the Mongols." Loved the Mongols both in game and real history thanks to the original AoE2 campaign, always nice to see more videos about them.
The mongols ought to be a strong civ. It would make no sense if they were weak considering they conquered China, and most of Asia, the Middle East, Russia, and parts of Europe.
@@Dr.Happy11"competitive game" blud AoE2 came out before some of the modern game designers were _born_ as for the historical accuracy being dropped the second that you get some balancing problems...why don't Goths or Dravidians get Eagle Warriors? Where are the Frank Camels? That "competitiveness" has run innumerous games to the ground and continues to do it to this day _The_ majority of the RTS players are casuals and they don't care one bit about the game's balance nor can they understand it properly and what drives in casuals? Historical oomph factor, major engagements with fatal siege inclusion, building up tension as you build up the base, beautiful soundtrack and designs, all of this should've been squares and circles if it was all competitive
@@The-jy3yq A game that is supposed to be played by two or more players that compete against each other is a competitive game. And a competitive game must choose whether it's balanced, or trash. As for the balance, it should be as good as it can get, whilst being asymmetrical. If your idea of balance is "goths inf civ = eagles, franks cav = steppe lancers", then I'm very sorry that you lack imagination. There are infinite ways to balance, yet keeping the soul intact, whilst not falling in the trap of "standardization". Noone has to take the lazy approach, and noone should, in my opinion. Players are drawn to a game due to its "oomph"-ness, as you correctly said. But players only stay because the gameplay is good. In this regard, casual or pro gamers want the exact same thing, and that is a goodass game. I suppose my initial point completely missed you, but I hope you can see what I mean now. To sum up, if you want players for your game , you need to make it interesting and balanced. If you just want buyers to your game, then sure, make it look dope and it'll sell. But it won't ever be a game, but a gacha at best. Aids of empires.
One of my favourite campaign and civilization! Thanks!! Could you please make the next one on the huns or the tatars ? I don't know what to think about the "hunnic horses" and i'm curious how the keshiks had evolved. Thanks in advance!
The only thing they need to change about Mongols and Huns is to give their buildings a more nomadic appearance. Tents, huts and stuff instead of houses. That would make them even more fun to play. I would really love to see some more decorative DLC's! We have enough civs.
I remember playing way back with my friends on HD, and had a lot of fun with Mangudai and Mongol Assault Vehicles, you know, their super fast battering rams.
