Are nomads over powered?

[Stars_and_Bars]

But this isn't what a rational person would do. I seriously doubt that more then 5% of the people are doing this. This is looking for, and finding an exploit. And then dealing with, literally, constant revolts, actually almost the entire time. Most people would not find that fun, and would not do that.

It's more than that however for if you just build a temple onto a steppe holding it doesn't count to increase the clan desire and it makes it so you can hold that land without any penalties.

 

[Robert II]

This is off topic buy I dont think worth a new thread has anyone settled as a nomad because my event troops are reinforceing and at no cost anybody else seen this

 

[Eslin]

so here we have a battle where the Uighurs had 1.6% casualties out of an army that is 100% cavalry whereas the Byzantines had 23% cavalry and had 69.75% casualties
considering the armies were about equal size I don't consider it to be a tactical exploit. What does seem to be OP though I don't how much people might use it, is that nomads get max gold, tech, and levies from their non-nomadic vassals. I'm very much surprised that the Byzantines weren't able to field a larger army.

I'd already stomped their larger ones, I wanted to show what happened in an equal size. And how is fielding cavalry as a nomad an exploit?

 

[KingNothing]

It depends on what you mean by exploit. This isn't a bug, just poor balancing.

NK mode was an exploit and confirmed by the devs. This is just NK mode V.2

It's more than that however for if you just build a temple onto a steppe holding it doesn't count to increase the clan desire and it makes it so you can hold that land without any penalties.

Now that is a bug or an oversight, no way this is WAD.

 

[TurtleShroom]

Are hordes over powered?

Ask the medieval Rus.

 

[robomax]

No The Tribal System is Broken ATM , When Any Ranked Tribal Leader Dies he loses all his levies and garrisons , so your probably steam rolling over Tribal leaders!

 

[Eslin]

Also steamrolled over the Abbasids and Byzantium in the space of 20 years, they're definitely not tribal.

 

[Ambigore]

Hell yes they're OP. Especialy in a player's hands. The internal politics of nomads needs to be worked on, IMO.

 

[Talq]

It's more than that however for if you just build a temple onto a steppe holding it doesn't count to increase the clan desire and it makes it so you can hold that land without any penalties.

This is incorrect as of 2.4.3/2.4.4 - it got patched.

 

[bkerns]

Now it is two holdings in the county to make it not count for clan land demand. So you can still do it with territory you conquer, ideally leaving one city and one temple in it. The clan land demand thing needs to be reworked to count empty holding slots instead of provinces.

 

[Ambigore]

Now it is two holdings in the county to make it not count for clan land demand. So you can still do it with territory you conquer, ideally leaving one city and one temple in it. The clan land demand thing needs to be reworked to count empty holding slots instead of provinces.

Yep, it seems as if a nomad can keep an infinite amount of feudal provinces this way. This is North Korea 2.0.

 

[Lord Roivas]

They can keep an infinite number of provinces this way, the only problem being is you get a penalty bonus from all of them right off the bat and you will get no troops or money from any of them. Unless I'm wrong unless a province now counts as Nomad you do not gain any population or Nomad tax from any of the empty slots. IE you need to destroy the slots to get any bonus from them.

 

[grisamentum]

Yep, it seems as if a nomad can keep an infinite amount of feudal provinces this way. This is North Korea 2.0.

Well, 2.1.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

This is incorrect as of 2.4.3/2.4.4 - it got patched.

Yes and I wrote that post before it was fixed. Don't quote out of date posts to comment that they are out of date.
it's redundant.

 

[Zsrai]

Yes and I wrote that post before it was fixed. Don't quote out of date posts to comment that they are out of date.
it's redundant.

I am pretty sure that's still allowed, so that new people reading this thread don't go "Oh but someone AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE said that you could build a single temple and have it remove clan land desire!"

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

I am pretty sure that's still allowed, so that new people reading this thread don't go "Oh but someone AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE said that you could build a single temple and have it remove clan land desire!"

No one ever said that it wasn't allowed. I would hope no one would ever be such a fool.
I mean to tell you that it is nonsensical in this circumstance. Had anyone quoted my post as a disagreement of evidence then quoting my post to mention that it is outdated would have merit.
As it stands it is absurd.

 

[Talq]

Fair enough, I didn't see the timestamp.