Are nomads over powered?

[Oyubi]

I think part of the problem is that the AI doesn't seem to consider tactics or other bonuses when deciding on army strength. They used to run straight into schiltron formations that were guaranteed to wreck them so I guess they're just looking at the direct combat values of your units. Given that the combat bonus from tactics is massive they can't possible by considering it or they'd know they would get stack wiped.

 

[Reverend Belial]

The way I see nomads IRL, it's not that their culture/tactics were overpowered, its because a hugely scattered disorganized and large number of groups got united together by an extraordinary OP individual/dynasty a la Mance Rayder with the freefolk and that's what makes them strong. It falls within a few generations when that initial charisma and the lasting prestige that came with it burns out.

If it wasn't for that unity across all the independent nomads there is no way they could have terrorized the world, which was part of why they had a nomadic life to begin with.

I've not played horse lords yet and I've reverted my game back to 2.3.6 to finish up my Iron Man game but from what I've been reading I hope Paradox is not just making nomads OP for the sake of making them feel terrifying/OP. For a game with so much focus on details any power should be derived from stats/mechs of what actually lent it said power.

Tell that to every culture that has ever fought steppe people. Persia lost, Rome lost, Russia (initially) lost, China got annexed by them TWICE. If there was anything in ancient warfare that one could consider OP, it would be horse archers. Keep in mind that they were the absolute top of the military food chain until the invention of gunpowder. The only people who actually beat the Mongols were groups specifically trained to counter them (and Ivaylo the Cabbage, but still).

 

[Pro]

The nomads were certainly powerful, and nomadic invasions of settled empires did happen with some regularity, but it was still a somewhat rare event. And it generally had some additional causes (exeptional leadership, or internal divisions or weakness) beyond pure nomadic military superiority. If nomadic invasions are never a threat then they would be UP, but they shouldn't be able to overrun the likes of the Abassids just because it's a day ending in "y" either.

 

[King Travis]

Didnt they basically steamroll the entire continent (well, not western europe) ? Seems like they should be powerful. The mounted archer was basically a secret weapon at that time. Bagdad never really recovered (to this day) from these guys, and it used to be THE place for culture and knowledge at the time. There are places that still show the affects from these peoples..

If anyone really wants to get an exciting account of the Mongol hoard, check out Dan Carlin's hardcore history podcast. Very well done and entertaining, even if you arent a history buff.

http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

 

[lordofdemacia]

The CK II Nomads plays very much like Sengoku, if anyone's ever played that.

Your troops start off really weak, but you get lots of means to improve them (most of them buildings), and these incremental improvements i find make all the difference.

Clan management will feel very similar to Sengoku, where you have to start handing out land to the other Khans within your Khagan once you have too much lands of your own- though the golden rule, is always have more land than the other clans. The good thing about being a nomad, is that you have an incentive for having lots and lots of children, and most, if not all, stay at court. Nomadic succession is one of the best after Elective.

For marriages, always go for marriages between your vassals where possible, as it raises their Clan Sentiment towards you, in a positive direction, which means they are more likely to answer your call to arms.

Because nomad troops start off really weak, you'll want to raise as many Brilliant Strategists as possible, so lots of guys with high martial abilities to lead your cavalry.

A properly managed relationship between vassals, with lots of marriages between as many members can create a literally unstoppable force.

 

[Abnwtwtud]

I've been doing horse archer/light cav mix, and it seems pretty unstoppable, even against much larger armies. Once I had enough to get 10,000 of them, that was pretty much it for any real competition.

 

[Anthedon]

After playing a bit more I think I found out what made me think nomad blobs were too stable: it seem like after a nomad gains enough tribal provinces the warscore you gain against them falls until the only way to win is to occupy all their provinces. I had a game now were I invaded a nomad duchy that had conquered a tribal duchy. Between holding all but two of their provinces, their capital, their clan's capital, their ally's capital, their ally's clan's capital, and having killed all of their and their ally's armies I still only had 83% war score. And that was including having held the war goal for a year.

In my last game Khazaria had constant civil wars and constant wars on mulitple fronts, with many of their provinces occupied much of the time but they never lost a single one except to me. I think that was because half their provinces were tribal and no one could ever get 100% war score so they always had time to eventually make a come back.

That seems to be a big issue. I'm fighting puny Cumania as the mighty Mongols but can't get warscore above 50% without stationing troops in every one of their provinces and hunting down their troops to the very last man. Makes the whole process very tedious, especially when you compare it to the fort system introduced by EUIV recently.

 

[Zsrai]

Yeah I know but I can't resist horse archers and heavy cav

Plus the Khazars were destroying me with an army composed in majority of heavy cav so I had to follow the course to armament.

If you're Tengri, you get +30% LC Attack and Defense just from your religion. I strongly urge you to use LC

 

[Daedwartin]

Tell that to every culture that has ever fought steppe people. Persia lost, Rome lost, Russia (initially) lost, China got annexed by them TWICE. If there was anything in ancient warfare that one could consider OP, it would be horse archers. Keep in mind that they were the absolute top of the military food chain until the invention of gunpowder. The only people who actually beat the Mongols were groups specifically trained to counter them (and Ivaylo the Cabbage, but still).

So what is the Han dynasty then? Nonexistent?

The mane nomadic empire of the Han's era were the Xiongnu. Who were effectively the Mongols of the 3rd Century BC and were one of the strongest nations on Earth.

Well. They were that because the Han, who initially were only able to pay off attacks, decided that enough was enough.

A nomadic group wouldnt be a threat to China for over a thousand years. The Xiongnu themselves were for the most part exterminated. What was left scattered.

And The Huns were possibly in fact the remnants of the Xiongnu. And were nowhere near as strong. Granted, it is a very tenuous connection with highly controversial evidence. So it is a possibility, but shouldn't be considered as fact.

I will give it took the Han 80 years to destroy the Xiongnu. And hundreds of thousands of soldiers


But still, It appears that not every culture that has fought steppe people has had their ass kicked.

 

[grisamentum]

If you're Tengri, you get +30% LC Attack and Defense just from your religion. I strongly urge you to use LC

You're ignoring tactics, which matter far more than any holding or religious bonus.

Getting rid of light cavalry means eliminating a lot of very bad tactics in melee and making it much more likely that your horse archers will activate the "Retreat and Ambush" tactic, putting them back into the skirmish phase.

 

[Reverend Belial]

So what is the Han dynasty then? Nonexistent?

The mane nomadic empire of the Han's era were the Xiongnu. Who were effectively the Mongols of the 3rd Century BC and were one of the strongest nations on Earth.

Well. They were that because the Han, who initially were only able to pay off attacks, decided that enough was enough.

A nomadic group wouldnt be a threat to China for over a thousand years. The Xiongnu themselves were for the most part exterminated. What was left scattered.

And The Huns were possibly in fact the remnants of the Xiongnu. And were nowhere near as strong. Granted, it is a very tenuous connection with highly controversial evidence. So it is a possibility, but shouldn't be considered as fact.

I will give it took the Han 80 years to destroy the Xiongnu. And hundreds of thousands of soldiers


But still, It appears that not every culture that has fought steppe people has had their ass kicked.

I don't know much about Asian history so I know literally nothing about Han China other than it existed, so I'll grant you this one. But I think the fact that it took hundreds of thousands of soldiers belonging to what was the most advanced nation on the planet 80 years to properly beat them still kinda illustrates my point.

 

[sleeperul]

No not most but it was the underdog who managed. For example the mongols defeated Song, Jin, Xia, Kwarazim, Seljuks, but they lost against Egypt and Dai Viet you know a country the size of Bulgaria. Oh and Bulgaria.

 

[victimizer]

The subjugation CB is stupid OP.

 

[grisamentum]

The subjugation CB is stupid OP.

Probably why it is limited to once per character lifetime.

 

[Lord Roivas]

The Tengri LC with the upgrades and all that is just amazing.

 

[Cuthuthulu]

"Nomads are OP." -China

 

[OmegaAleph]

Probably why it is limited to once per character lifetime.

And even then, you don't get the holdings yourself, you merely vassalise them. Lots of fun trying to revoke all those titles and pillage the holdings, let me tell you!

 

[OmegaAleph]

And sure, Tengri get better LC, but does that make them better than HC/HA with tactics? The HC tactics are sexy on their own, before you even look at Retreat and Ambush.

 

[hashinshin]

I think two things should happen:

1. Tengri faith should be nerfed. It was always difficult to abuse the modifiers, but now they've gone mad and it's WAY too easy to spam enough LC to make those modifiers abusive. I think 20% instead of 30% for all the modifiers should do it.

2. The Realm should have much more ability to fracture down. Right now all you do is expand and expand and expand. Tribals have difficulty becoming superlarge, but the worst that can happen to a nomad is the AI gaining Khan and continuing to conquer in place of a player.

Nomads should be a serious threat, especially if combined, but it should seriously not be possible for them to all combine and take over Persia. And yeah, the Charlemagne start sucks and will continue to suck for the rest of time and anyone that plays on it can pretty much expect terrible games.

 

[Heatth]

The subjugation CB is stupid OP.

They wouldn't be bad if nomads didn't have access to almost unlimited troops and revoking the titles after the conquest wasn't trivial. Really, suddenly having a whole country worth of vassals who hate your guts shouldn't be something easy to deal with.