It’s worth pointing out that we really can’t replicate historical Mongol tactics in a normal BT game. The Mongols enjoyed absolute advantages in weapons range (their composite recurve bows) and unit mobility (all light cavalry force). BT is a balanced game, where no player enjoys absolute advantages unless we shape the forces to give one side an absolute advantage in range and mobility. Even then, it’s hard to pull off. A slow 3025 force can still respond with LRMs against a fast-moving, long-ranged Clan cavalry unit, for example.
Thanks to their absolute advantages in range and mobility, Mongol field engagements were more slaughter than combat. There was no breakthrough and penetration, like in the blitzkrieg and deep battle diagrams upthread. Mongols either conducted waves of cavalry charges (what they called “caracals”) that never made physical contact with the enemy line and unleashed waves or arrows from afar. Or they went straight to the envelopment and encirclement (what they called the “nerge” or hunting circle) thanks to their high superior mobility and then rained down arrows from safely outside the reach of their opponents’ weapons.
The only canon Hell’s Horses unit that can sorta replicate these Mongol tactics is the Hadur with its 9/14 hover movement (in some terrain) and the range of its Arrow IV missiles. I suppose you could also equip fast Fire Moth, Phantom, and Viper omnis with ELRMs for a similar effect. But in any event, it won’t be a fun game, especially for the non-Mongol opposition. (If it is fun for the enemy, then you’re not using Mongol tactics.)
Eventually, the Mongols might send in a lance- and scimitar-equipped heavy cavalry charge to finish off an enemy at close range that had been exhausted by caracals. But this was more an expedient than a necessity. Or they might leave a hole in their nerge for opponents to “escape” from and be more quickly slaughtered. But again, this was not necessary.
It’s also true that the Mongols would sometimes attack and then feign retreat to string out an enemy force. We see this depicted in BT fiction involving the ELH, Kell Hounds, and Goons (I think). And in theory it could work in a game with rolling mapsheets so that an opponent’s Locusts are separated from their Atlases and destroyed piecemeal. But a smart opponent will just keep their formation together and force the BT Mongols to come to them.
And that’s eventually what the Mongol’s real-world opponents did, relying heavily on fortifications to negate the Mongols’ advantages in range and mobility and forcing the Mongols to resort to siege warfare. In return, the Mongols used psychological warfare to shorten these sieges as much as possible. For example, after slaughtering an opponent’s force or settlement, the Mongols would allow a few terrified individuals to escape to warn the next force or town, increasing the likelihood of an easy surrender in the next battle or siege. Or the Mongols would unnerve opponents by making their forces appear much larger than they actually were: setting several campfires for each man, creating huge artificial dust clouds behind their movements, and appearing in several disparate locations at once. Cruelty also played a role, like in the kharash, a human shield forced to march in front of a Mongol formation. It’s the Mongols’ psychological warfare that Malvina (sorta) reflects in the fiction.
Eventually the widespread use of the hand cannon put an end to the absolute range advantage enjoyed by the recurve bow and that drove a stake in the superiority of Mongol tactics. (The Mongols used gunpowder bombs and canons in sieges themselves.)
Of course, with an all-cavalry force, several horses per man, and a light baggage train enabled by a diet of horse milk, the Mongols also enjoyed absolute advantages in strategic maneuver and logistics. But no BT game reflects realistic strategic warfare.
This video is a decent, quick (~15 min after you skip the embedded advertisement) summary of Mongol tactics:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ichNmAe8XzE&pp=ygUObW9uZ29sIHRhY3RpY3M%3D
