In 1380 the Golden Horde sent an army 125,000 strong into battle at Kulikovo. If we're going to be historically accurate, the doomstacks need to remain in the game.
Divine Wind - Developer Diary #6
- Thread starter Besuchov
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
My main concern here is the colonization process. I know it probably won't be easy to pull off in most cases, but I just have a bad feeling we're going to see nations like the Ottomans, England, and Castille fighting the hordes tooth and nail, simply because they have the capability to do so. If that is the case, I could easily see those nations making colonies around the Black Sea and pushing into Central Asia. Now I could be completely off there, but as most players know, the nations I've singled out often attack the peripheral areas of Russia and the Caucasus. If they can now take over those areas at any time with the spare colonists they have at the beginning of the game, I fear we might see a problem. Not only that, but it may continue to create those weird colonization anomalies that happen in the Americas when Castille and England get overstretched. I hope PI has already given to consideration to that problem and encouraged mostly horde-colonization by land-based neighbors, like China and Russia.
You just sold me this game. I always wanted the Hordes to get a rework. I hope you rework tribal systems in general, too..
Hmm, which Horde should I play as first? Hmm, who should I sack first? Maybe Golden Horde, picking off Russian Minors until finally absorbing all of Russia? I think so! Spread into France! Dominate the Austrians!
It will be quite something trying to keep the Ottomans and Austrians and Russians at bay. But this will be very interesting gameplay.
I wonder if we'll be able to ally with the other hordes, like Timurids allying the Jalayrids. And I wonder, when a horde "civilises", if they'll be able to "uncivilise" again; similar to how the extravagant Mongol Empire degenerated back into Horde states.
Hmm, which Horde should I play as first? Hmm, who should I sack first? Maybe Golden Horde, picking off Russian Minors until finally absorbing all of Russia? I think so! Spread into France! Dominate the Austrians!
It will be quite something trying to keep the Ottomans and Austrians and Russians at bay. But this will be very interesting gameplay.
I wonder if we'll be able to ally with the other hordes, like Timurids allying the Jalayrids. And I wonder, when a horde "civilises", if they'll be able to "uncivilise" again; similar to how the extravagant Mongol Empire degenerated back into Horde states.
What more could they possibly do to improve that nation, in a period where it was a two province minor?Give Byzantium some love too
Last edited:
That's a very specific use of "occupy". They most definitely imply that you can station troops in a "Horde's" province. How much more occupied can it get? There would be no point to the traditional occupation process because you can't demand provinces from them in a peace treaty. And simply occupying them to hurt the "Horde" would make it way too easy take over, especially on a multi-national front.
Although the only screenshots we've seen of China so far make it impossible for them to colonize.
Although the only screenshots we've seen of China so far make it impossible for them to colonize.
Ah, yes. That's something to consider. Then again, I can't see PI making it completely impossible for China to colonize for the whole game, so maybe that won't be a problem.
Yes you can occupy their lands just like normal, and you may have to do this sometimes to get enough of a warscore to make them accept your tribute offer.
These countries can not send a colonist to horde lands without being a neighbour to them, so the problem should be minimal.
Can you please tell us how the game deals with a Horde taking land? Do they just hold it, and maybe get a bonus from doing so? Or do they outright occupy new lands?
What happens if the Golden Horde seizes say...Kaffa, and a western army retakes it? Do formerly civilised provinces stay civilised so they can be taken back? How does this reconquering army get the land back?
EDIT: As for Byzantium, as much as I love them, and am playing them right now, they have more than enough of a buff. With 30 cores at the start of the game, super quick cultural assimilation of turks and awesome missions, there's not much else to be done!
EDIT: As for Byzantium, as much as I love them, and am playing them right now, they have more than enough of a buff. With 30 cores at the start of the game, super quick cultural assimilation of turks and awesome missions, there's not much else to be done!
For the AI, undoutedly. But somehow I think DOWing Genoa of Day One to Capture their crimean holdings (or maybe annexing Georgia?) by 1401 will become the "Opening move" of any decent Christian powerplayer who doesnt have a horde border.
Why wouldnt it be? If you dont do it, you waste your colonists until 1480
For the AI, undoutedly. But somehow I think DOWing Genoa of Day One to Capture their crimean holdings (or maybe annexing Georgia?) by 1401 will become the "Opening move" of any decent Christian powerplayer who doesnt have a horde border.
Why wouldnt it be? If you dont do it, you waste your colonists until 1480
To be fair, how is that different from taking the full infamy hit from the first province in the GH, and then continueing on with Holy War?
Or taking a moroccan province and colonising down Africa?
Not to mention the logistics might not be so easy
Less so than taking civilized lands in a peace treaty anyway.
To be fair, how is that different from taking the full infamy hit from the first province in the GH, and then continueing on with Holy War?
Or taking a moroccan province and colonising down Africa?
Not to mention the logistics might not be so easy
Oh I agree, its only normal that some gamey tactics exists and endure.
This one is a bit new, because itll presumably allow non-negligible BB-free expansion into eastern Europe at the expense of "free" colonists (that you couldnt spend otherwise) in the first century, but thats not a major problem. Especially if it requires a real military commitment. Pushing back a horde isnt that hard if its all you do, but a nation like Muscowy for instead, would be hard pressed to do it whilst battling Lithuania.
Why wouldnt it be? If you dont do it, you waste your colonists until 1480
Because it is useless far away land? I doubt that anyone but those who are their neighbours will find most profit in colonizing them (not like Eastern Europe has to spend colonists on anything else).
I'm assuming, for now, that the military commitment necessary will balance the lack of BB cost. It'll also most likely not be as easy to plant a colony in a horde province in the first place as it might be on a "normal" colonial province (with no natives)
Haven't read all the pages here but will this new "horde"-system be somehow used for the Americas? This whole sending colonists to a province that is already owned by someone else would be appropriate for some tribal provinces in the Americas instead of just annexing.
While this is obviously designed for central asia and Russian colonization, this also sounds like it could fill a hole that has existed for some time in other parts of the world.
The problem is that adding extra nations to Africa or America makes it easier/faster for European to colonize since they only need to be beat a pagan nation to get the lands (the problem even exists with the existing nation, who hasn't kickstarted colonization by beating Mali/Cherokee, etc?). With a system like this it would be possible to have more of the historical nations in Africa and America without changing colonization as conquering the land would still require settlers.
This leeds to a question: Is this property of requiring settlers to conqueror land fixed to the horde government form, or would it be possible to add the same property to some tribal governments as well?
The problem is that adding extra nations to Africa or America makes it easier/faster for European to colonize since they only need to be beat a pagan nation to get the lands (the problem even exists with the existing nation, who hasn't kickstarted colonization by beating Mali/Cherokee, etc?). With a system like this it would be possible to have more of the historical nations in Africa and America without changing colonization as conquering the land would still require settlers.
This leeds to a question: Is this property of requiring settlers to conqueror land fixed to the horde government form, or would it be possible to add the same property to some tribal governments as well?
I'm absolutely thrilled by this dev diary! I have played a lot of nomad hordes and the one thing I urge you to when you balance this feature is: Make sure that the horde vs horde action are dynamic! A weak horde should dissolve rapidly, either by breaking into smaller hordes or by being eaten by other hordes. A really great Khan should be able to expand his horde enormously during his lifetime and after his death it should be almost impossible to not implode or break up.
Let me get this straight, I have to crush their armies, drive them before me and hear the lamentation of their women just to get them to accept me paying them tribute?
If I have droped them to 0 troops and 100% occupied them, and I don't get WS for 'being at war' why would I offer them a peace ever? Why whouldn't I just keep them constantly occupied. Surelly having 1 army to squish rebels would be easier/cheaper than paying them tribute for 5 years, letting them build up and then having to do it all over again? Edit: Obviously not as cool though
but shouldn't there be some sort of live by the sword die by the sword option, such that if a horde gets proper squished then it is in really deep do do?
Last edited:
I never said you have to 100% occupy them. Just that you might need to rack up some warscore in order for the horde to accept your peace offer.
Does it cost for the horde to build and maintain troops?
After all, they get cash from pillaging, not from their khans.
And they were not standing armies like in the western Europe...
Mobilize?
After all, they get cash from pillaging, not from their khans.
And they were not standing armies like in the western Europe...
Mobilize?
It sounds like to me, that bordering the horde is an annoyance rather than a ticket to free expansion. Even if you're England, you can have one internal problem at the beginning of the game, mixed with a 20k stack of barbarians on your colony, just to ruin your day.For the AI, undoutedly. But somehow I think DOWing Genoa of Day One to Capture their crimean holdings (or maybe annexing Georgia?) by 1401 will become the "Opening move" of any decent Christian powerplayer who doesnt have a horde border.
Why wouldnt it be? If you don't do it, you waste your colonists until 1480
I can imagine colonizing them involves sitting a largen stack of men in a high attrition area for awhile. I wonder how long building a steppe colony takes to expanding any other colony? Really, it should be the same; because I imagine in real Russian history it was a matter of colonial expansion, rather than anything to do with occupying Tartars and assimilating them. I wonder what this will do to Russia's ingame effectiveness.