"How well does FOG treat mongols?" Topic

I'm specifically looking at the mongols in europe… does the game represent the mongols well?
I have never gotten to actually play before.
I'm mostly curious about the treatment of rabble and horse archers.

Thanks
Austin

I tried cross posting this, and my Internet crashed.

Thanks
Austin

In FOG 1 the Mongol LH were really good. I won a tournament with them and then retired them as it didn't seem "fair" to play with them.

FOG 2 toned down their effectiveness

I now play with them in Mongol Civil Wars using a colonial set of rules called Battles For Empire

I don't see how any rules set could effectively convey the terror that the Mongols' opponents must have felt as the battle neared. Probably enough to make a good many rout before the first arrows were loosed.

Mongols made use of fog and any other obstruction to achieve surprise, etc….

I have yet to find a set of rules that allow the Mongols to fight the way they did without making them into supermen.

FOG is a game where bow armed cavalry can fight either as heavy skirmishers or as shock troops. Mongols do work nicely and IMO behave as you would expect.

The only set I have played that even comes close to representing mongols properly was a heavily modified WAB at a convention.
FOG might be a step in the right direction for me.

Thanks
Austin

>I have yet to find a set of rules that allow the Mongols to fight the way they did

How then DID Mongols fight? How did they differ from other mainly bow-armed steppe cavalry?

>I don't see how any rules set could effectively convey the terror that the Mongols' opponents must have felt as the battle neared.

Afaik the "terror" they created came mainly from often exterminating any living being in conquered cities or some territories, so depending on the morale system the opposing army could well get a boost for the "defend your homeland" situation.

How then DID Mongols fight? How did they differ from other mainly bow-armed steppe cavalry?

Like other bow-armed steppe cavalry EXCEPT they were unified (instead of inter-tribal warfare) and so were present in larger numbers than usual. They were organized into tumens not unlike divisions or corps of theoretically standard size, instead of "my brother-in-law and whoever he managed to get to follow him".

They often attacked in the dead of winter when their enemies were huddled indoors trying to stay warm. They used frozen rivers as roads.

They spied on their targets for years before invading and exploited divisions within the target country, often posing as saviors of oppressed minorities.

They had draconian discipline among their troops, at least at their height. A ten man squad that allowed squad members to desert would be slain.

Basically they were like other steppe nomads except more numerous, better disciplined and led and extremely well informed about the nations they were attacking.

The Hungarians gave them several good fights and hardly ran away in terror.

Missile superiority, numbers and discipline. No magic. Their swarming and evading tactics took discipline (evades often become routs if your not careful).

Intervened in the Crusades but eventually defeated on that front.

TomT

I agree with shedman … better under version 1. In general I think skirmishers were better represented in the earlier version (which, although I don't have, say, Mongols, is a big part of why I don't play FoG-AM 2)

Phil
Ancients on the Move

I used to play the computer game and ran partians in the tournament scene, but the last update nerfed them hard.

I have never played tabletop, but do you think the shift from 1 to 2 impacted the pc game as well?

Thanks
Austin