Hordes cannot form the Mughals?

[itsuart]

I wonder if hordes were first and only (in game's time period) nations that were able to wage offensive total war?
Also I wish that mobility of their armies (that was beaten only by the Germans in WW2 with motorized infantry) was also being presented in game.

 

[RobRoy3]

Actually, on checking this (going through that period of the game year by year) it turns out that when Babur is leading the Timurids, they have reformed and are Muslim tech

As of 1.6, when they added that requirement.

For most of the game's history, they could. Tough to argue about artificial game terms when they keep changing the definition.

 

[Johnstathan]

Actually, on checking this (going through that period of the game year by year) it turns out that when Babur is leading the Timurids, they have reformed and are Muslim tech

Which is ridiculous in and of itself. I don't think Babur can be seen as the great political reformist.

 

[RobRoy3]

Which is ridiculous in and of itself. I don't think Babur can be seen as the great political reformist.

If anything, his army and conquest really was more reminiscent of the conquests of Timur and the Great Khans, more than anything else, regardless of the fact that it's composition was more "modern".

But that presupposes anyone thinks the Paradox designation of "reformed" for "Horde" nations is accurate or useful in any way.

 

[Tacticus101]

As of 1.6, when they added that requirement.

For most of the game's history, they could. Tough to argue about artificial game terms when they keep changing the definition.

The distinction is only a few years, they just reformed for free when they formed the Mughals. Arguably, at the moment they don't even reform themselves, they just form as a rebel state out of Khorasan (in the game atm, the Timurids completely disappear at one point).

Which is ridiculous in and of itself. I don't think Babur can be seen as the great political reformist.

Why not? He reformed the army, was supposedly very intelligent and at least began forming an organised government of the Empire he forged.

 

[RobRoy3]

Why not? He reformed the army, was supposedly very intelligent and at least began forming an organised government of the Empire he forged.

Just like Genghis.

 

[Tacticus101]

Just like Genghis.

Unfortunately the game doesn't represent the rise of the Mongols from scattered nomads to a single state that conquered a huge empire, maybe if it did then there would be two stages of reformation.

 

[RobRoy3]

Unfortunately the game doesn't represent the rise of the Mongols from scattered nomads to a single state that conquered a huge empire, maybe if it did then there would be two stages of reformation.

There weren't any single nor two magical moments of reformation for any tribe, nation, or landless bandit.

We could probably model their advancement in 32 stages of reformation, maybe broken down into three different categories...

 

[Novacat]

I always did say that the current Native American system would actually work better for Hordes than the current Horde system. At the very least remaining unreformed and still doing well would at least be theoretically possible. Just require some amazing good monarchs, luck, and possibly some western/eastern tech vassals.

 

[celethiel]

interesting Read, I wouldn't mind it half as bad if it didn't force the house of Timur to die out within the First 50 years of Gameplay... which ISN'T historical... but then when you put a Khan on the throne at game start who's in like his 50s or 60s and his heir is 10 years younger at best... you aren't going to have a long dynasty. I mean is there a way to get an Heir out there soon enough that the father dies AFTER he's of age... one of the reasons that makes the Timurid's annoying.... And as i recall the Hordes usually had a lot of kids... and by the time your sixty years old... you should have 15 kids or more :O
But then the Dynasty factor in this game is way more simple than in CK 2...
which in some ways is a good thing.... and in others a bad thing.