Why are horse archers so overpowered?

>Horse archers cannot take nor defend a fortification.

That's why they fucking destroyed the Great Wall of China with ease, right?

Goddamn you are a goddamn fucking nerd. Civilization 5 isn't a goddamn real life simulator you autistic piece of shit.

Try that on my Swadian knights, bitch.

Are foot archers that much of a threat to riders with a composite bow? There's multiple accounts of the Mongol invasion of the Rus where European bows fell short of the Mongols. Crossbows definitely outrange composite at the cost of rate of fire.

sieges weren't about attacking walls, they were about choking out supply lines. mongolions just didn't have the european autism required to camp outside for weeks and weeks.

>sieges weren't about attacking walls, they were about choking out supply lines. mongolions just didn't have the european autism required to camp outside for weeks and weeks.
>I didn't even want those castles anyway, I'd have to be autistic to try and take them, and when I failed it'd be because these Euros are too cucked to fight properly, fucking Eurocucks and their autism hahahaha

This is what Mongoboos actually believe

Would YOU do anything but spam horses in a region like this?

>hahaha, I'll just ignore that Genghis Khan was already dead when the failed invasions of Poland, Hungary and the Balkans happened

Did Kievan Rus have no castles or fortifications of any sort?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Vietnam
Is this article biased or the vietnamese stood against the most powerful empire on earth twice in history?

>live in trees
>survive invasions of people who can't deal with trees
wow what a surprise

Fucking Bosmer filth

Literally perfect for phalanx warfare. It's more along the lines of pic related.

Being able to face the complete opposite direction in a time without stirrups still while accurately firing your bow is an extreme display of skill in both archery and equestrian fields.

There was really nothing you could do against this but face it with other horse archers, at all moments in the battlefield these peoples were capable of firing at you.

Maneuvering towards your enemy? Too bad they have horse archers circling your dudes and firing upon them.

Able to force the enemy cavalry into a retreat? Too bad, you got tricked, they are still shooting at you and your chasing men are still dying and horribly losing morale.

This shit was used by anyone who used horse archers. It never got nerfed, not until guns.

Infantry who are not accustomed to nor equipped for fighting on foot.

The Mongols used more than just horse archers you know.

Yes. You can fit many more stationary foot archers in a given area than you can moving horse archers, meaning much higher volume of fire.

Infantry (Spears + Shields) with foot archers and crossbowmen > Horse Archers

Kek, nice try.

>3 different heavily equipped units > one unit
Doesn't work like that. Horse archers win by default by forcing the opposing army to commit so much resources to even begin to counter them. In short, the army faces horse archers, while another contingent cuts their supply lines and fucks them behind the lines.

High tactical and strategic mobility, in conjunction with a culture of self-sufficiency. This means they can move further than anyone else and almost always choose when and where to fight their battles. This is a huge advantage against anyone.

Some important caveats though:
>Always few in number
>Skills not easily passed on
>Must be highly organized and well-led
>Overall effectiveness highly dependent on terrain

Lack of numbers is disadvantage in any situation where they may be forced to fight, and affects their ability to occupy and control land.

The lifestyle required to produce nomadic horse archers is exceptionally harsh, such that few survive to adulthood. Once the nomads started getting cushy however, they tended to let those skills deteriorate.

Local conditions affects tactical effectiveness: generally, the more open, the better. Strategically, both the Huns and Mongols spread as far as they did because their mounts and food supplies could be supported with nothing more than grass.

Partly the reason why the Mongolians were so successful at what they did was because they realized there were areas in which they did not excel, and would use the qualities of others to their advantage. They made use of Chinese shipbuilders, Arabic siege engineers, and regional levies to make up for their lack of expertise and numbers. To reduce problems owing to lack of numbers, they also resorted to terror to cow populations into surrender or submission. They were also supremely disciplined under their initial leaders, and thus were capable of carrying out highly sophisticated tactical manoeuvres like feints.

Mongols dismount when necessary, but then they face disadvantage of numbers and losing their tactical mobility.

They did not. Either it did not really exist in the first place (pre-Ming wasn't fully connected or made of stone), they went around (Mongol incursion during the Ming), or were invited in (late Ming/Early Qing). During the worst of times, border fortifications were often undermanned and had tenuous loyalty to the court.

What usually happens is that because knights are warriors and not soldiers, they are easily goaded into foolhardy charges that separate them from the rest of the army. Their relatively unarmoured horses are shot dead, with the survivors engaged by a charge from Mongolian lancers.

Divide and conquer, bitch.

Foot archer and crossbowmen usually have the advantage of numbers and mutual support from other infantry, who can ward off cavalry charges. If you're using crossbows, all the better.

*throws infected body parts over the walls*

Just throw a mare in heat on the archers who ride stallions and they are doomed

Tech tier culmination, speed power maneuverability. Fertile supporting lands for training & breeding perpetyally directly condusive to territorial acquisition warfare. Sort of works with gold silver and copper from the lands, tangibly too. And an idea of privatised intellectual culmination like you see proliferate through militerused black budget s usually orientated around eugenics/genetic lines/families supportive of the technocracy from what I see these days. Feel like I'm waiting

Mongols preferred riding mares.

*blocks your path*

Absolute fucking meme. It was a good gimmick until it got figured out. Horse archery is not difficult to pull off economy-wise, if this was better than European army models they would not have wasted so much on heavy armour and stuff. Knights trained all their lives anyways, they too could have learnt how to fire a fucking bow on a horse. Also the main success factor of Mongolian armies was heavy cavalry, not light horse archers. Hungarians got fucked because they acted retarded ('d know, I'm from here).
Stop the memes. Knights all the way.

but they basically lived on horses and could do things like the parthian shot where you suddenly turn around while on horseback and fire away. also tougher than some faggot in shining armor

>Well iam Hungarian, according to our belive, back than every man had his arrow.

Why do you want to deffend, when you can retreat, regroup and strike back.

Also you forget back than Europe didnt had the population and there were no stonecastles everywhere.

If you have the mobility maybe you can decide where to fight.

About competent foot archers, you had to wait till the longbowmans and arbalest.
Untill that the nomadic nations had the topnotch with its hittingback bow.

Bro, you are mixing up the early and late medival times.

> kalandozások...
Elfelejted , hogy akkor nem késő középkori páncélok voltak és lazán átlövöldözték az ősök ha akarták.
Szóval pont hogy a lovagok a meme.. Lehel-t is tőrbecsalták. Egyszer kaptunk ki, akkor meg azért mert esett az eső.