Sorry to write it, but it is so. Development of nomadic states (including those guided by the AI) most of the time turns out not only completely ahistorical but also utterly unrealistic, and for a reason.
1. They spread through forested areas like a knife through butter, quickly eliminating entire cultures and religions (their tribal vassals seldom live long enough). Even the sight of Northern Scandiavia with Khazar flocks in it isn't uncommon at all. That essentially happens because they basically get the same population cap increase from forests as from steppes. In fact, they should be getting a reduced amount from deserts and mountains, and none at all from forests or tundra, and, of course, the nomadic AI should be discouraged from directly expanding into such areas (vassalizing or otherwise subjugating settled rules should be OK, though). Let's face the fact: the traditional nomadic economy (I don't mean nomadic hunters or tundra reindeer breeders here, which are an entirely different matter) simply cannot function in the forests. I also suppose that destroying captured settlements in forested (and probably mountainous) areas ashould be limited or entirely impossible in the first place, because by the game mechanics it technically means the change of population - but believe me, even after every city and abbey in some forested area will be devastated there still will be a more than sufficient amount of farmers hiding in the surrounding forests, while the common nomads won't settle there by their own will at all (much like you guys aren't fascinated by the perspective of growing rice in the midst of some jungles, especially considering you have no practical skills in it in the first place). There are several means to fix it, I believe.
A) The simplest and mostly self-sufficient way. As I said, one must nerf the benefits for nomads from all economically unsuitable areas (thus preventing the player from historically illogical actions) and forbid the AI from directly acquiring them. That still leaves the issue of mountains, which are partly suitable and even often desired by nomads (as yaylaks), but where the local population historically was particularly difficult to displace and where linguistic assimilation was generally dominating over repopulation.
B) Making it simply impossible to destroy holdings/certain types of holdings/the last holding (you decide) in the said areas owned by nomads is an additional measure to prevent player from making unrealistic changes. The AI restrictions should stay anyway. I wouldn't mention that as somewhat excessive, but it also may partly address the issue of mountains, with the addictional mechanic added (all nomad-owned holdings in the mountains can be destroyed, but only after the local population was assimilated in the usual way; the nomadic AI should show only limited interest in mountainous areas. It is imperfect, but nothing better has occured to me by now). It actually doesn't address tundra, where all population is quite possible to displace but steppe nomads have little reasons for doing that, since they still cannot settle there anyway (but tundra is generally addressed with A).
2. The nomadic empires appear annoyingly and ahistorically stable even under realistic settings - you very, very seldom see them succesfully splitting, they are more likely to grow (in the ugly manner described in the first article
). In fact, I see several ways to fix it as well, ones being simple, other more sophisticated and providing better historical models.
A) Removing specific CBs against the clans which split off. As simple as you can get. But the absence of the CB may also be dependent on the size of the emire, on the cultural level (high cultural tech effectively giving more authority for the khan) and/or on the capiltals being in different de jure kingdoms (or possibly empires). Anyway, if I were the AI governing a clan I would use the relevant conditions as much as possible to my advantage.
B) One trouble is that any nomadic empire in the game is culturally homogeneous (aside of the vassals), which is a huge and pretty ahistorical simplification. In fact, it was not so typical even for early and rather small tribal unions (for instance, it seems that the union of proto-Magyars included several Bulgaric tribes), let alone the huge empires like that of the Gengis Khan or the (more primitive) First Turkic Khaganate. Why I mention that is because ethnic differences often were an important factor in fragmentation of the old khanates. Maybe the mechanics should be changed so that incorporating other nomads as clans with non-core culture should be not only possible but also an easier option than simply oasting them from their territory (and should be favoured by the AI), probably through the stage of vassalization, but then their secession should be more simple and/or likely as well. After all, even now clans can have a different religion, so why not let them have a different culture, with all the logical benefits and shortcomings?.. Still it's a matter to think over.
3. Nomads expand in a rather ahistorical manner - that is, like any feudal state would, conquering more and more land. While it was typical for those rare and huge nomadic empires mentioned above, most nomadic invasions which Europe saw were made by tribal unions oasted from somewhere else. Huns were originally escaping Han troops in the east. Proto-Magyars fled from Pechenegs to Pannonia (where they quickly started to terrorize the unprepared Europe with their raids). The Danubian Bulgars were fleeing from Khazars. The Old Turks caused proto-Magyars to move from South Siberia in the first place, and so on. As for now, the game mechanics has no means to simulate that at all. I'd propose a rather small and pretty logical change: if a nomadic entity conquers another one (and doesn't incorporate it if 2B is implemented) and the defeated side still has population but loses all the land, the remaining population is converted into troops at 1:1 or so - and continues to play without any land (if it is technically impossible for the player party, then it at least should be implemented for the AI; I think the adventurer mechanics is quite similar). The resulting host cannot/won't attack the succeeded conquerors for a very long time, but can try to take land from some other nomads (thus starting a new nomadic empire, with the starting population being equal to the surviving amount of troops) or capture some feudal/tribal land, creating a new feudal/tribal entity. I'd also give these troops some morale boost (meaning these guys really have nowhere to go - which was actually an important factor of success against early feudal states). Finally, they may directly ask some feudal ruler for some acceptable chunks of land (see p.1) to settle as vassals (although I suppose they should stay nomadic then, which is somewhat incompatible with the current machanics; anyway, the last option isn't nearly as crucial as the pretty historical conquering attempts).
Sadly, my own modding skills are practically non-existant, but I hope I've formulated everything except the 2B part clear enough. Of course, everything would also require a considerable testing, but I generally expect a certain improvement in historical realism and immersion if it is implemented. Anyway, thanks for the attention, and any criticism is welcome.
1. They spread through forested areas like a knife through butter, quickly eliminating entire cultures and religions (their tribal vassals seldom live long enough). Even the sight of Northern Scandiavia with Khazar flocks in it isn't uncommon at all. That essentially happens because they basically get the same population cap increase from forests as from steppes. In fact, they should be getting a reduced amount from deserts and mountains, and none at all from forests or tundra, and, of course, the nomadic AI should be discouraged from directly expanding into such areas (vassalizing or otherwise subjugating settled rules should be OK, though). Let's face the fact: the traditional nomadic economy (I don't mean nomadic hunters or tundra reindeer breeders here, which are an entirely different matter) simply cannot function in the forests. I also suppose that destroying captured settlements in forested (and probably mountainous) areas ashould be limited or entirely impossible in the first place, because by the game mechanics it technically means the change of population - but believe me, even after every city and abbey in some forested area will be devastated there still will be a more than sufficient amount of farmers hiding in the surrounding forests, while the common nomads won't settle there by their own will at all (much like you guys aren't fascinated by the perspective of growing rice in the midst of some jungles, especially considering you have no practical skills in it in the first place). There are several means to fix it, I believe.
A) The simplest and mostly self-sufficient way. As I said, one must nerf the benefits for nomads from all economically unsuitable areas (thus preventing the player from historically illogical actions) and forbid the AI from directly acquiring them. That still leaves the issue of mountains, which are partly suitable and even often desired by nomads (as yaylaks), but where the local population historically was particularly difficult to displace and where linguistic assimilation was generally dominating over repopulation.
B) Making it simply impossible to destroy holdings/certain types of holdings/the last holding (you decide) in the said areas owned by nomads is an additional measure to prevent player from making unrealistic changes. The AI restrictions should stay anyway. I wouldn't mention that as somewhat excessive, but it also may partly address the issue of mountains, with the addictional mechanic added (all nomad-owned holdings in the mountains can be destroyed, but only after the local population was assimilated in the usual way; the nomadic AI should show only limited interest in mountainous areas. It is imperfect, but nothing better has occured to me by now). It actually doesn't address tundra, where all population is quite possible to displace but steppe nomads have little reasons for doing that, since they still cannot settle there anyway (but tundra is generally addressed with A).
2. The nomadic empires appear annoyingly and ahistorically stable even under realistic settings - you very, very seldom see them succesfully splitting, they are more likely to grow (in the ugly manner described in the first article
). In fact, I see several ways to fix it as well, ones being simple, other more sophisticated and providing better historical models.A) Removing specific CBs against the clans which split off. As simple as you can get. But the absence of the CB may also be dependent on the size of the emire, on the cultural level (high cultural tech effectively giving more authority for the khan) and/or on the capiltals being in different de jure kingdoms (or possibly empires). Anyway, if I were the AI governing a clan I would use the relevant conditions as much as possible to my advantage.
B) One trouble is that any nomadic empire in the game is culturally homogeneous (aside of the vassals), which is a huge and pretty ahistorical simplification. In fact, it was not so typical even for early and rather small tribal unions (for instance, it seems that the union of proto-Magyars included several Bulgaric tribes), let alone the huge empires like that of the Gengis Khan or the (more primitive) First Turkic Khaganate. Why I mention that is because ethnic differences often were an important factor in fragmentation of the old khanates. Maybe the mechanics should be changed so that incorporating other nomads as clans with non-core culture should be not only possible but also an easier option than simply oasting them from their territory (and should be favoured by the AI), probably through the stage of vassalization, but then their secession should be more simple and/or likely as well. After all, even now clans can have a different religion, so why not let them have a different culture, with all the logical benefits and shortcomings?.. Still it's a matter to think over.
3. Nomads expand in a rather ahistorical manner - that is, like any feudal state would, conquering more and more land. While it was typical for those rare and huge nomadic empires mentioned above, most nomadic invasions which Europe saw were made by tribal unions oasted from somewhere else. Huns were originally escaping Han troops in the east. Proto-Magyars fled from Pechenegs to Pannonia (where they quickly started to terrorize the unprepared Europe with their raids). The Danubian Bulgars were fleeing from Khazars. The Old Turks caused proto-Magyars to move from South Siberia in the first place, and so on. As for now, the game mechanics has no means to simulate that at all. I'd propose a rather small and pretty logical change: if a nomadic entity conquers another one (and doesn't incorporate it if 2B is implemented) and the defeated side still has population but loses all the land, the remaining population is converted into troops at 1:1 or so - and continues to play without any land (if it is technically impossible for the player party, then it at least should be implemented for the AI; I think the adventurer mechanics is quite similar). The resulting host cannot/won't attack the succeeded conquerors for a very long time, but can try to take land from some other nomads (thus starting a new nomadic empire, with the starting population being equal to the surviving amount of troops) or capture some feudal/tribal land, creating a new feudal/tribal entity. I'd also give these troops some morale boost (meaning these guys really have nowhere to go - which was actually an important factor of success against early feudal states). Finally, they may directly ask some feudal ruler for some acceptable chunks of land (see p.1) to settle as vassals (although I suppose they should stay nomadic then, which is somewhat incompatible with the current machanics; anyway, the last option isn't nearly as crucial as the pretty historical conquering attempts).
Sadly, my own modding skills are practically non-existant, but I hope I've formulated everything except the 2B part clear enough. Of course, everything would also require a considerable testing, but I generally expect a certain improvement in historical realism and immersion if it is implemented. Anyway, thanks for the attention, and any criticism is welcome.
Upvote
0
