Nomadic and tribal limitations on development

[TheDarkMaster]

Nations that have nomadic governments should be completely barred from using the new development system. This includes Steppe nomads. This is for the simple reasons that those people didn't develop their lands and cities. On the other hand, they could do with a special capital bonus that they develop that is unique to them and represents the full power of their hoard/tribe. Once they settle and change their government, that bonus then transfers into regular development in their heartlands.

Regular tribal nations could use a similar system, but I think it would make more sense for their government type to simply apply a penalty to development costs, making them much more expensive. They're then far more inclined to grow wide rather then tall, as tribes historically tended to do.

 

[Johan]

We discussed this. Not decided yet, but i can bet 100kr that we will get another 'paradox hates hordes and nerfs them' thread afterwards.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

We discussed this. Not decided yet, but i can bet 100kr that we will get another 'paradox hates hordes and nerfs them' thread afterwards.

Well, that's part of the reason I was suggesting a national development level instead. It would actually be a good way to simulate the people who're moving around all the time and aren't actually living in any given province. You'd then have a virtual province that gives extra forcelimits, manpower, and tax income that you don't actually own. It would give them an interesting early game advantage. On the other hand, since that's the only thing they can develop, other nations slowly get stronger then them over time since they can upgrade several different provinces without having to deal with the increasing cost of upgrading a single province over and over again.

 

[zdlugasz]

Not all hordes were equal. Crimean Khanate did have cities (with significant part of population being Christians) . And if you think about some stereotype of horde of horse archers living of steppe and riding I wish to inform you that Ghengis Khan and his successors in fact did capture and resettle artisans to improve their economy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We discussed this. Not decided yet, but i can bet 100kr that we will get another 'paradox hates hordes and nerfs them' thread afterwards.

That would be a safe bet.

Especially given what actually happened wrt history in the western hordes like Crimea or GH, or even Timurids it would come off as pretty odd. Even the 25% LA for them while feudal monarchies have 0 is.

Edit:

To be fair, there is the issue of terrain, which you have already mentioned you would model. There is a reason territories like Mughals, Crimea, and Qing progressed very differently from territories like Kazakh, and that reason isn't that the former suddenly "reformed" from "horde" government as compared to what they were like in 1444.

A horde that conquers into richer land (or is one of the few blessed with starting in rich land) can and should be able to develop its lands; historically these nations had settled populations and a big influence on over-land trade. In contrast, poor Siberian territories would be hard not just for "hordes", but *anyone* to develop, much like chunks of inland western USA was impractical to develop in this timeframe because the technology to make the land sufficiently useful wasn't around yet.

 

[zdlugasz]

That would be a safe bet.

Especially given what actually happened wrt history in the western hordes like Crimea or GH, or even Timurids it would come off as pretty odd. Even the 25% LA for them while feudal monarchies have 0 is.

Edit:

To be fair, there is the issue of terrain, which you have already mentioned you would model. There is a reason territories like Mughals, Crimea, and Qing progressed very differently from territories like Kazakh, and that reason isn't that the former suddenly "reformed" from "horde" government as compared to what they were like in 1444.

A horde that conquers into richer land (or is one of the few blessed with starting in rich land) can and should be able to develop its lands; historically these nations had settled populations and a big influence on over-land trade. In contrast, poor Siberian territories would be hard not just for "hordes", but *anyone* to develop, much like chunks of inland western USA was impractical to develop in this timeframe because the technology to make the land sufficiently useful wasn't around yet.

Example of other settled hordes: Kazan, Astrakhan;
Other nomadic horde: Nogai

 

[Krajzen]

Semi - settled hordes: Crimea, Kazan, Astrakhan, Golden Horde, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, Timurids of course, Manchu (sedentary settled farmers with advanced agriculture)
Nomadic hordes: Nogai, Sibir, Uzbek (but not Bukhara), Mongolia

Overall I don't think development limitations should apply to hordes, as you can see.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Semi - settled hordes: Crimea, Kazan, Astrakhan, Golden Horde, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, Timurids of course, Manchu (sedentary settled farmers with advanced agriculture)
Nomadic hordes: Nogai, Sibir, Uzbek (but not Bukhara), Mongolia

Overall I don't think development limitations should apply to hordes, as you can see.

The terrain restrictions will probably suffice in this case to be sure. It's not like you're going to want to dump a bajillion points into province development with a 75% tech cost penalty.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

In that case, it might make sense for them to have maybe a small tribal penalty but nothing else. Same as the other tribes. That said, I do think that the idea of having a separate country development page would be pretty neat, especially for stuff like the nomadic tribes. Would fit well on the native page.

 

[IIWW]

It should replace most of penalties (for sure the authonomy one), not be just a nerf. Maybe also reforming the government should be easier.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It should replace most of penalties (for sure the authonomy one), not be just a nerf. Maybe also reforming the government should be easier.

I'm not sure easier is the right word. Reform is instead...rife with opportunity cost now, and doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's less devastatingly costly to reform a native council, and comparable to reform a tribal nation in Africa despite that the latter can westernize while hordes can't do so. Giving them tough requirements is one thing (though odd for the settled hordes with heavy western contact and trade), but making it really chance based (like it used to be needing 90 legitimacy) or pegging them into just taking one of economic or administrative constantly as one of their first few idea groups isn't particularly exciting nor challenging. It does put pressure on the Eastern religion hordes because their religion blows and it can't convert Sunni, while the Islamic hordes basically just take a solid group early on and then lose their flavor quickly.

 

[IIWW]

I'm not sure easier is the right word. Reform is instead...rife with opportunity cost now, and doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's less devastatingly costly to reform a native council, and comparable to reform a tribal nation in Africa despite that the latter can westernize while hordes can't do so. Giving them tough requirements is one thing (though odd for the settled hordes with heavy western contact and trade), but making it really chance based (like it used to be needing 90 legitimacy) or pegging them into just taking one of economic or administrative constantly as one of their first few idea groups isn't particularly exciting nor challenging. It does put pressure on the Eastern religion hordes because their religion blows and it can't convert Sunni, while the Islamic hordes basically just take a solid group early on and then lose their flavor quickly.

Yeah, thats pretty much what I meant. You're right, I used a wrong word.