Balance aside... the wonderful Horde gameplay is great.

[Edmon]

So, there are problems with the game and those get highlighted all the time. I am certainly guilty of this.

I just want to say that putting the balance aside, Horde gameplay at the moment is super fun. Riding the knife edge of expanding constantly while under the pressure of little to no money and constant rebellions feels great. I am constantly thinking of just how much more raw greed I can get away with.

Sure, I have literally 1/4 of the planet in just under 40 years. But it feels great, I'm riding the edge of having my ceaseless expansion explode in my face. I've got no money to support the half forcelimit that I can barely maintain and manpower is something I have only when a special event is kind enough to grant me a slice. Europe at the moment is untouched and any large european nation could so easily break me if I am not careful.

I've not had so much fun since 1.6, when 5 year truces and world coalitions were a thing.

I've been playing at speed 1 and there is tons to do, no waiting, endless war and endless problems. Any moment, any mistake could break me, but I'm hitting that declare button at endless 100% OE for the upteemth time and risking it all on my skills seeing me through my ambitions.

It is glorious.

I know it is not balanced and must change, but god it's so much fun. War is what makes this game fun and with the current Hordes, peace is but a distant, boring and long forgotten memory.

 

[DicRoNero]

1) Riding the knife edge of expanding constantly while under the pressure of little to no money and constant rebellions feels great.
2) I am constantly thinking of just how much more raw greed I can get away with.

3) I've been playing at speed 1 and there is tons to do, no waiting, endless war and endless problems.

4) Any moment, any mistake could break me,

So, not different to any serious "conventional" WC game, then? But just relying on some half-baked mechanics.

edit: ok, I missed how you can get stuck in a regency, which hardly changes the point, though.

 

[Edmon]

So, not different to any serious "conventional" WC game, then? But just relying on some half-baked mechanics.

edit: ok, I missed how you can get stuck in a regency, which hardly changes the point, though.

I recommend you try playing as a Horde before you comment. You can't get into a regency as a Horde for a start. The key issue is one of autonomy, which a Horde struggles to reduce, leaving it dirt poor compared to it's relative size. Razing doesn't help either.

 

[DicRoNero]

I recommend you try playing as a Horde before you comment. You can't get into a regency as a Horde for a start. The key issue is one of autonomy, which a Horde struggles to reduce, leaving it dirt poor compared to it's relative size. Razing doesn't help either.

Obviously, I meant getting stuck in a regency being the only excuse of not waging constant war while playing non-Horde nations. Hence the question remains the same: by the description alone, one wouldn't see any difference :]

It's pretty clear that game mechanics of hordes are quite different, but your description of their alleged awesomeness fits what I might have said about all of my current Muscovy runs, and that's the reason why I replied. One doesn't necessarily need a horde to keep his game active.

 

[Baron Tanks]

I wholeheartedly agree. I got my first WC as Kazan in this patch. I was going to play a Byzantine republic, but this weekend after getting DoWd by the Ottomans before I got an alliance up in 5 restarts, I decided to play a quick game as Mongolia, didn't plan to go more than 20 years just to see what their starting postion is like. I'm stretching from the Black Sea to the Pacific and conquered half of former Ming (who exploded after my first war with them). I'm close to a 100 years on the clock, it's just too much fun

 

[Soyaman]

So, not different to any serious "conventional" WC game, then? But just relying on some half-baked mechanics.

edit: ok, I missed how you can get stuck in a regency, which hardly changes the point, though.

While they seem similar the key difference is that World Conquest is achieved as a goal of your own whereas with a Horde you not expanding and going to war can destroy your entire nation. Low Horde Unity can fire disasters and in general just reduces unrest which is already hard to come by as you start expanding into other religions and cultures.

 

[Oddb@ll]

I wholeheartedly agree. I got my first WC as Kazan in this patch. I was going to play a Byzantine republic, but this weekend after getting DoWd by the Ottomans before I got an alliance up in 5 restarts, I decided to play a quick game as Mongolia, didn't plan to go more than 20 years just to see what their starting postion is like. I'm stretching from the Black Sea to the Pacific and conquered half of former Ming (who exploded after my first war with them). I'm close to a 100 years on the clock, it's just too much fun

How did you manage to explode Ming in 1 war?

 

[Pornek]

Not sure how often you've played Hordes but being at war has always been a selling point of them, didn't really change with their updated mechanics. Also pretty much any country in the position to conquer the mostly poor steppe provinces can achieve 1/4 of the planet in 50 years. Not that I disagree with Hordes being fun though.

 

[Wizzington]

Hordes will be nerfed, but they will be nerfed with an eye towards not ruining the fun people are having with them.

 

[delpiero1234]

Hordes need big nerfing because it's ridiculous that now it's easier to do a WC with Kazan than with Ottomans. But of course hordes had to be made OP with 1.14 because hordes were a major theme of The Cossacks.

 

[Baron Tanks]

How did you manage to explode Ming in 1 war?

I doubt I had much of a hand with it, I googled what the loss of Mandate causes and I think in stead of anything I actually did, they probably had a weak claim ruler. They were definitely not under 20 provinces yet and with the way that the AI buys up stability before anything else it can't be that either. So I assume I got lucky with a low legitimacy ruler.

 

[PhroX]

Hordes need big nerfing because it's ridiculous that now it's easier to do a WC with Kazan than with Ottomans. But of course hordes had to be made OP with 1.14 because hordes were a major theme of The Cossacks.

Frankly, I'd put the historical chances of Kazan being able to achieve a WC on about the same level as those of the Ottomans, so I don't see why it's such an issue that it's a bit easier.

 

[grommile]

Frankly, I'd put the historical chances of Kazan being able to achieve a WC on about the same level as those of the Ottomans, so I don't see why it's such an issue that it's a bit easier.

What: Both zero, because in the real world the feat would be absolutely impossible?

Yeah, not an interesting argument unless you are actually going to follow through and argue that WC should be absolutely impossible.

 

[Edmon]

Hordes will be nerfed, but they will be nerfed with an eye towards not ruining the fun people are having with them.

Hordes need big nerfing because it's ridiculous that now it's easier to do a WC with Kazan than with Ottomans. But of course hordes had to be made OP with 1.14 because hordes were a major theme of The Cossacks.

I'm sure Wiz understands this, but for the sake of delpiero and anyone else reading, let me explain something here.

Hordes are easier to do a WC with, if you are extremely good. The limits of expansion as a Horde are typically, money, manpower, rebellion, etc. Things you have control over. There is a constant level of risk in everything you do as a Horde, because even with extreme growth your empire is weak and unstable.

Ottomans are easier to do a WC with if you are an average or bad player. Their main limiting factor is time. They have better manpower, better military ideas, tons of money and turn out to be an extremely stable empire very quickly. They can't, in a raw sense, expand as fast as a Horde, but when they do expand it will be at much lesser risk.

TL;DR:
Hordes are much less forgiving for a WC than Ottomans, but if you can play mistake free they are better.
Ottomans will allow anyone to get a WC, even if they make big mistakes, as they are far more forgiving.

Hordes limitation is their player.
Ottomans limitation is paper mana and time.

 

[PhroX]

What: Both zero, because in the real world the feat would be absolutely impossible?

Yeah, not an interesting argument unless you are actually going to follow through and argue that WC should be absolutely impossible.

No, my argument is that because WC is complete fantasy (not one I have an issue with, it must be made clear, but one none-the-less), what is the issue with one nation (Kazan) being better than another (the Ottomans) at doing it?

 

[Baron Tanks]

I'm sure Wiz understands this, but for the sake of delpiero and anyone else reading, let me explain something here.

Hordes are easier to do a WC with, if you are extremely good. The limits of expansion as a Horde are typically, money, manpower, rebellion, etc. Things you have control over. There is a constant level of risk in everything you do as a Horde, because even with extreme growth your empire is weak and unstable.

Ottomans are easier to do a WC with if you are an average or bad player. Their main limiting factor is time. They have better manpower, better military ideas, tons of money and turn out to be an extremely stable empire very quickly. They can't, in a raw sense, expand as fast as a Horde, but when they do expand it will be at much lesser risk.

TL;DR:
Hordes are much less forgiving for a WC than Ottomans, but if you can play mistake free they are better.
Ottomans will allow anyone to get a WC, even if they make big mistakes, as they are far more forgiving.

Hordes limitation is their player.
Ottomans limitation is paper mana and time.

Not to cherry pick cause I do think razing is OP, but it's hard to argue that as Kazan with Humanist ideas (or any Horde with humanist ideas, but Kazan gets +25% Religious Unity to tide you over till humanist and +2 Tolerance of Heathens for even more stability) you are significantly more unstable than anything else*. The main constraints are early money and manpower (if you don't fight carefully enough). After growing a while, even these stop being limiting factors. You're right that early Horde gameplay can be risky (rebellions) and hard (resource limitations), but the 'constant level of risk' really disappears after the first century, if even that long. And I consider myself an average player that does not have the patience or skill to do a WC, yet I achieved one in 1.14 with Kazan with lax gameplay and no specific effort (apart from fighting off last century boredom).

I love razing and hope @Wiz doesn't simply nerf razing but finds an interesting way to balance it, but claiming that as a horde you have to be mistake free or are in constant danger is simply not true in the current state of the game.

*This is assuming you are razing anytime you can, meaning you never dip much below 80 Horde Unity, if that even.

 

[delpiero1234]

Well-said Baron!

 

[FleetingRain]

Hordes will be nerfed, but they will be nerfed with an eye towards not ruining the fun people are having with them.

The nerf will certainly be about getting AE for razing provinces and being only able to gain points by razing if you're technologically behind any tags with a core on the province.

R-right?

 

[Edmon]

Not to cherry pick cause I do think razing is OP, but it's hard to argue that as Kazan with Humanist ideas (or any Horde with humanist ideas, but Kazan gets +25% Religious Unity to tide you over till humanist and +2 Tolerance of Heathens for even more stability) you are significantly more unstable than anything else*. The main constraints are early money and manpower (if you don't fight carefully enough). After growing a while, even these stop being limiting factors. You're right that early Horde gameplay can be risky (rebellions) and hard (resource limitations), but the 'constant level of risk' really disappears after the first century, if even that long. And I consider myself an average player that does not have the patience or skill to do a WC, yet I achieved one in 1.14 with Kazan with lax gameplay and no specific effort (apart from fighting off last century boredom).

I love razing and hope @Wiz doesn't simply nerf razing but finds an interesting way to balance it, but claiming that as a horde you have to be mistake free or are in constant danger is simply not true in the current state of the game.

*This is assuming you are razing anytime you can, meaning you never dip much below 80 Horde Unity, if that even.

You've described the main problem with humanist ideas and not with Hordes. Any nation with humanist ideas will be much more stable. However, it remains true that Ottomans and other nations will be more stable. If manpower and money are not limiting factors, you are not being aggressive enough or you are in the very final stages of the game (cleaning up).

The risk may disappear after 100 years with a Horde, but with the Ottomans, frankly there is no risk from day 1. You have to literally try hard to get the Ottomans to fail. Even the AI manages to blob harder with Ottomans than literally anyone else who isn't using a PU.

 

[ChildeR]

You've described the main problem with humanist ideas and not with Hordes. Any nation with humanist ideas will be much more stable.

... which is the whole point of spending valuable ADM on humanist ideas. Why is that a problem?