Are nomads over powered?

[Stars_and_Bars]

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.

The Han Chinese beat the nomads only by using other nomads. They made sure to keep the nomads fighting amongst themselves and whenever a nomad challenger appeared they used their traditional Han Chinese troops supplemented with allied nomadic cavalry. I suppose in game this would be shown by having tributary nomads to some big empire, but since clans can't be tributaries independent of their khagan that means the historical reality is basically impossible to implement with the current system. so in this game Nomads are more OP because they can't be divide in order for them to be subdued.

 

[Eslin]

This is generally my feeling. As powerful as nomads are, they're not much more powerful than the Byzantines at 867, the Abbasids or Charlemagne in the CM start, the HRE or Seljuks in 1066, etc.

Couldn't agree less. Byzantium, Abbasids, Charlemagne, these are all historically powerful empires that start huge, any horde can obliterate an empire given a few years build up.

There's something wrong with 'as powerful as this 5 county nomad start is, it's not much stronger than 867 Byzantium', it kind of boggles the mind that you don't see the flaw in that.

 

[hashinshin]

The Han Chinese beat the nomads only by using other nomads. They made sure to keep the nomads fighting amongst themselves and whenever a nomad challenger appeared they used their traditional Han Chinese troops supplemented with allied nomadic cavalry. I suppose in game this would be shown by having tributary nomads to some big empire, but since clans can't be tributaries independent of their khagan that means the historical reality is basically impossible to implement with the current system. so in this game Nomads are more OP because they can't be divide in order for them to be subdued.

Well two things:

1. Clans will always have mercenaries available to simulate the .... horde mercenaries. Many clans will put their sons up in a mercenary band and you'll be able to get nomad mercenaries.

2. I suppose a CB to split up the clans in to much smaller clans/fragment their empire would make sense. I mean, effectively you were just chasing off them off in to the steppes since lord knows nobody sane could keep the steppes under control.

 

[Zolotaya]

Another hilarious thread.

They're powerful, but vulnerable.

This sums up my observation games so far.

 

[Eslin]

This sums up my observation games so far.

But they aren't vulnerable. They're far less vulnerable than any other type of state. They have no income streams to interrupt, their troops replenish almost immediately, and if their land is taken they can quickly acquire more - if you're the Ummayads and your land has been taken from the east you can try going south and getting crappy land that will have new administration penalties for 25 years and constant religious/cultural revolts or go north and fight harder for slightly better land which will have, again, 25 years of penalties and a huge revolt risk. In comparison, all nomads have to do is conquer someone else's land and not only do they get free tech and gold while they're besieging it, they instantly change the culture and religion of their new province and it becomes just as useful as all their other land pretty much instantly, save for needing to burn the place to the ground and get huge amounts of free cash and technology as they do so.

For a feudal nation, losing lands to nomads means you've lost thousands of gold worth of buildings and will need to either spend decades of income rebuilding or conquer new territory which will take ages to be useful to you. For a nomad, losing land just means you go conquer other land and get huge benefits. I would actually be cool with that as a dynamic, being able to move and adapt sounds like an interesting comparison to feudal life, but that is combined with nomads having bigger and much better armies that replenish much faster. The nomad adaptability is a huge advantage, they should have large weaknesses in other areas, like taking a long time to replenish losses, but instead they're better in every single way.

 

[Zolotaya]

I've only observation games so far so I can only report what the ai does to other ai... I've seen a boon-bust cycle in every campaign so far.

The only thing I see a need for tweaking so far is the tendency for the ai to settle faster than it should. Eventually it should do so but instead of taking 3 or 4 generations it does so in 1 or 2.

I also do not have a detailed picture as my observation games are for the macro-picture... so that's all I'll comment on so far.

 

[Eslin]

The boom-bust cycle is because the AI is not very good, as long as you don't get immediately crushed by someone much larger in your first few years you're basically immortal as a player.

 

[Zolotaya]

The boom-bust cycle is because the AI is not very good, as long as you don't get immediately crushed by someone much larger in your first few years you're basically immortal as a player.

yes, that is very possible. Right now, the thing that stands-out as an issue in what you detail is:

they get free tech and gold while they're besieging it, they instantly change the culture and religion of their new province and it becomes just as useful as all their other land pretty much instantly

The immediate culture conversion and religious conversion. This is something I will key on when I'm done with my macrosampling.

Edit: One other thing ... When viewing the nature of being OP ... it is best to examine it in terms of ai vs ai in SP. In MP, it is best to examine it in terms of Human v Human. Until we get a large sample of MP campaigns recorded, we really can't say much on the human side.

 

[LACKADAISICAL]

The boom-bust cycle is because the AI is not very good, as long as you don't get immediately crushed by someone much larger in your first few years you're basically immortal as a player.

Again, this is true, but it isn't unique to nomads. The player is OP as ANYONE in this game.

 

[Eslin]

The difference for a player is scale. If I start with 4 feudal counties in Bavaria, it's going to take me a very long time to defeat Byzantium, while if I start with 4 counties as an underling of the Magyars I'm going to OWN Byzantium before my character's hair is grey. And toppling it won't even be hard, I'll have an army of fifteen thousand heavy cavalry that instantly reinforce when hurt.

 

[KingNothing]

The difference for a player is scale. If I start with 4 feudal counties in Bavaria, it's going to take me a very long time to defeat Byzantium, while if I start with 4 counties as an underling of the Magyars I'm going to OWN Byzantium before my character's hair is grey. And toppling it won't even be hard, I'll have an army of fifteen thousand heavy cavalry that instantly reinforce when hurt.

I think you are vastly overstating the power of Nomads. As the ERE in any of the 3 major starts, I am unstoppable. As a minor nomad, that 2k army does not compare to most of the realms. Yes their CB's are overpowered, but their armies start out small, and fairly slowly build up. I didn't even have 10k troops until my realm was around 50 or so counties, whereas a feudal lord could have that just in his own demesne with 7 counties right at the beginning.

 

[LACKADAISICAL]

The difference for a player is scale. If I start with 4 feudal counties in Bavaria, it's going to take me a very long time to defeat Byzantium, while if I start with 4 counties as an underling of the Magyars I'm going to OWN Byzantium before my character's hair is grey. And toppling it won't even be hard, I'll have an army of fifteen thousand heavy cavalry that instantly reinforce when hurt.

The HC hordes probably need to be looked at, since they're so hugely better than any other army in the game. Horse archers and light cav seem relatively balanced compared to those monsters. For their strength they should be much more expensive than the other hordes, at least.

That aside, nomads still have more risks than a count in Bavaria. They can be totally wiped out if they lose a war early on to another horde--a western duke may lose a bit of land or be vassalized by someone, but they probably won't be at risk of getting a game over unless they do something really stupid. Another disadvantage nomads have is that they're probably more likely than anyone else in the game to get a game over purely through lack of heirs, since only sons/brother are eligible to inherit.

 

[Eslin]

I think you are vastly overstating the power of Nomads. As the ERE in any of the 3 major starts, I am unstoppable. As a minor nomad, that 2k army does not compare to most of the realms. Yes their CB's are overpowered, but their armies start out small, and fairly slowly build up. I didn't even have 10k troops until my realm was around 50 or so counties, whereas a feudal lord could have that just in his own demesne with 7 counties right at the beginning.

I am in no way shape or form overstating their power. If you start as the most powerful empire in the game, yes, you're very strong. Good for you. As nomads, how on earth do you have a 2k army? It takes a few years to get to 10k, what are you sitting around doing? Side note, please keep in mind that since nomads get monotype armies their troops are far stronger than feudal troops are for the same number.

The HC hordes probably need to be looked at, since they're so hugely better than any other army in the game. Horse archers and light cav seem relatively balanced compared to those monsters. For their strength they should be much more expensive than the other hordes, at least.

That aside, nomads still have more risks than a count in Bavaria. They can be totally wiped out if they lose a war early on to another horde--a western duke may lose a bit of land or be vassalized by someone, but they probably won't be at risk of getting a game over unless they do something really stupid. Another disadvantage nomads have is that they're probably more likely than anyone else in the game to get a game over purely through lack of heirs, since only sons/brother are eligible to inherit.

HC don't need to be 'looked at', Paradox knows exactly what it did. Such things have points costs to balance them out, yet for nomads everything costs the same, so HC are by far the best troop. The first risk is not a balanced risk - if you survive the first few years, that means you should be unstoppable? Idiotic. Son/brothers wise, hell no, a wife and three concubines means they only way you won't have sons or brothers is if you're the youngest child of your father and a eunuch. And no, light cavalry are no balanced in comparison - the monotype tactics and ease of reinforcement means that you can still destroy anyone you feel like using light cavalry, it's just easier with heavy. Even without HC nomads would be broken.

 

[KingNothing]

I am in no way shape or form overstating their power. If you start as the most powerful empire in the game, yes, you're very strong. Good for you. As nomads, how on earth do you have a 2k army? It takes a few years to get to 10k, what are you sitting around doing? Side note, please keep in mind that since nomads get monotype armies their troops are far stronger than feudal troops are for the same number.

I suggest you relook at the numbers. Starting out as the Uyghurs in 768, you have 3 pretty good counties, with a pop of 4500 and a max pop of 13k, gaining 90 per month. Your manpower starts out at 1100 (which is incredibly weak). Yes theoretically these 3 counties could support up to 4k troops, if I somehow managed to be at peace for the next twenty years. Its only gaining 20 manpower per month at this time, and that will only slow down as pop growth slows.

TBH after seeing your other posts, it seems as though you are massively gaming the system, and then complaining that its broke. I conquered the world in 5 years, but I didn't complain that the game was broken, it was actually the exact opposite, I broke the game.

 

[Eslin]

I'll try the Uyghars, see how I do. And I haven't gamed anything, I just did the obvious stuff - absorb other clans to take their land, conquer and pillage enemies, raise more horsemen, rinse and repeat.

 

[LACKADAISICAL]

HC don't need to be 'looked at', Paradox knows exactly what it did.

Okay... so paradox intentionally made nomads super strong just to spite you? Or what?

 

[KingNothing]

I'll try the Uyghars, see how I do. And I haven't gamed anything, I just did the obvious stuff - absorb other clans to take their land, conquer and pillage enemies, raise more horsemen, rinse and repeat.

In the other thread you admitted to gaming it, like never giving out land, when the game tries to force you to do it. Its pretty obvious to anyone that plays that you are supposed to have multiple clans.

 

[Eslin]

Okay... so paradox intentionally made nomads super strong just to spite you? Or what?

LC are worth 3, HA worth 4 and HC worth 6. If you're grabbing them from a retinue or cultural building, you'll get two LC for the same as one HC - an Iberian cultural building gives 30 LC while a French one gives 15 HC, for instance. For nomads, however, they each cost the exact same amount of manpower, the balancing resource - you tell me why they did that.

In the other thread you admitted to gaming it, like never giving out land, when the game tries to force you to do it. Its pretty obvious to anyone that plays that you are supposed to have multiple clans.

I don't understand. Why would you give out land? That just makes you weaker, and there's no penalty except for easily quashable revolts for holding all the land yourself. The 'absorb clan' button's right there in blue, we were meant to use it.

 

[CyaN]

Overpowered-maybe

Fun? absolutely

I didn't have so much fun since the Vikings.

I don't understand. Why would you give out land? That just makes you weaker, and there's no penalty except for easily quashable revolts for holding all the land yourself. The 'absorb clan' button's right there in blue, we were meant to use it.

You really don't see a problem with abusing the system to the point where you have become the new North Korea and complaining that they're too powerful?

Verbal gymnastics aside, because I have already read every possible verbal gymnastics exercise to justify exploiting CK2 and I doubt you could say something new about it, it's obvious that the point of the clan system is to use it. What you describe sounds like an exploit that will be addressed.

 

[Eslin]

I didn't have so much fun since the Vikings.


You really don't see a problem with abusing the system to the point where you have become the new North Korea and complaining that they're too powerful?

Verbal gymnastics aside, because I have already read every possible verbal gymnastics exercise to justify exploiting CK2 and I doubt you could say something new about it, it's obvious that the point of the clan system is to use it. What you describe sounds like an exploit that will be addressed.

It's not just that. I suppose you could play with clans, though I don't know why you would, but even with them the fact that they get rapidly reinforcing monotype units and are basically unassailable leaves them way, way overpowered.

Just played the Uyghur start mentioned earlier, 20 years later and I own Arabia, most of that time being spent walking because starting in the northeast corner is SLOW. Did it in ironman, here's what it looks like.

The main reason they're overpowered is their troops - after conquering the Abbasids I decided to destroy Byzantium, here's what the decisive battle looked like. Not very good commanders, attacking over a river and an equal numbered force with troops I can easily replace that would take many years for Byzantium to get back.