Nomads, itsybitsy OP?

[KingNothing]

So.... this is funny. Currently the pure heavy cav unit for nomads is insanely OP, check out these pics.

First using the standard 10X as many troops to assault, 1k defenders, I took 20 losses.

So, how low can this go, I wondered. Lets try 6.5-1. 1500 defenders, I took 40 losses.

Okay, maybe its because the first two were against tribal holdings, lets try against a castle at 5.5-1. 1800 defenders, I took 120 losses.

This last picture might be the funniest of all. At this point I've built most of the improvements in the capital, so HC is getting something like +80% defense. I attack with 10k against 7k across a strait.

 

[Maegras]

Siege defender have 1/10 of attacking force or less, that would be same if you had full HA/LC mix 10k army. (I can show some SS of those with my hordes)

But yea, HC are best siege units now beacuse sieges uses melee dmg not skirmish forces(archers etc).

Last picture is indeed weird, did they route/retreat at the start of the battle or what? It is just imposible to not lost single soldier agasint 4800HA 1362LC.

 

[KingNothing]

Siege defender have 1/10 of attacking force or less, that would be same if you had full HA/LC mix 10k army. (I can show some SS of those with my hordes)

But yea, HC are best siege units now beacuse sieges uses melee dmg not skirmish forces(archers etc).

Last picture is indeed weird, did they route/retreat at the start of the battle or what? It is just imposible to not lost single soldier agasint 4800HA 1362LC.

They did not route at the start of combat, but once you upgrade your buildings, its not uncommon for weaker units to do no damage against them during the skirmish phase, depending on tactics. This one was just unusual, because all three flanks must have chose bad skirmish tactics. Particularly something that was disadvantageous to their HA.

 

[Dracko81]

But yea, HC are best siege units now beacuse sieges uses melee dmg not skirmish forces(archers etc).

I can think of one unit that would be far better.

 

[bkerns]

I think what may have happened is that the unit reinforced during the pursue phase, thus negating all of its losses.

 

[bkerns]

I can think of one unit that would be far better.

War Elephants? Technically yes, but you can never get war elephants by themselves.

 

[KingNothing]

I think what may have happened is that the unit reinforced during the pursue phase, thus negating all of its losses.

Nope, no reinforcements during this battle. No information left out, I marched my 10k troops across a strait to 7k troops with full morale.

edit: here I'll show you. This is just the very next battle I took a screenshot of. Obviously this is a bit different because I outnumber them 5-1, but you can see, they are doing no damage during skirmish phase.

Results of the battle, the only damage they dealt, was to the middle flank, during the 1 day of melee.

 

[Maegras]

This is weird and also fine example for why mono-type armies should reworked. It dosent makes any sense to have huge horde of same type soldiers. Combat modifier for units also not balanced at the moment imo. (i mean latest LI/A nerf etc etc)

I saw my10k troops crushed by fatimid+persians(seljuks just lost decadence or something) mixed troops. But i dont use monotype armies.

 

[Zsrai]

This is weird and also fine example for why mono-type armies should reworked. It dosent makes any sense to have huge horde of same type soldiers. Combat modifier for units also not balanced at the moment imo. (i mean latest LI/A nerf etc etc)

I saw my10k troops crushed by fatimid+persians(seljuks just lost decadence or something) mixed troops. But i dont use monotype armies.

I think tactics need to change. There is no reason that a tactic should give a+300% bonus. Why not just cut all of the tactic bonuses by 1/10th? +30% sounds far more reasonable to me. Hopefully that doesn't swing the pendulum too far in the "why bother with retinues or tactics" direction though.

 

[NakedBeast]

I think that 3 things could be introduced to make the game more interesting: nerfing base values for calculating manpower and hordes numbers. Second, make clans more unruly and independant. Both would work to make playing nomads more challenging to play. I've conquired Byzantine Empire 10 years into game as Khazarian Khan in earliest start date, it's just too easy. Also

And, third thing is: make nomads able to raze holdings. With obvious drawbacks of non-nomad vassals getting opinion penalty and probably even having spontanius rebel troops rising in place you're razing and of course no longer getting taxes from razed holdings. That would give nomads an opportunity to raze countries and make empty grazing land out of kingdoms and empires. That would give player nomads very cool objective to play or just an option and make ai nomads scarier, like, if they totally hate you (-100) and conquier you, they start razing your holdings. Btw mongols did a bit of that.

 

[TheDungen]

I think that 3 things could be introduced to make the game more interesting: nerfing base values for calculating manpower and hordes numbers. Second, make clans more unruly and independant. Both would work to make playing nomads more challenging to play. I've conquired Byzantine Empire 10 years into game as Khazarian Khan in earliest start date, it's just too easy. Also

And, third thing is: make nomads able to raze holdings. With obvious drawbacks of non-nomad vassals getting opinion penalty and probably even having spontanius rebel troops rising in place you're razing and of course no longer getting taxes from razed holdings. That would give nomads an opportunity to raze countries and make empty grazing land out of kingdoms and empires. That would give player nomads very cool objective to play or just an option and make ai nomads scarier, like, if they totally hate you (-100) and conquier you, they start razing your holdings. Btw mongols did a bit of that.

Again mongols mainly did it under the reign of Temujin himself and also the mongols is only one of many nomad hordes in the game right now. Perhaps a shorter cooldown on pillage could be linked to their culture somehow or to an event or character flag.

 

[NakedBeast]

Again mongols mainly did it under the reign of Temujin himself and also the mongols is only one of many nomad hordes in the game right now. Perhaps a shorter cooldown on pillage could be linked to their culture somehow or to an event or character flag.

pillage is not razing
I'm taking about removing holdings from province

 

[TheDungen]

pillage is not razing
I'm taking about removing holdings from province

Yeah and thta's what pillaging is meant to represent. A more efficient sacking of a city than the looted you get from raiding. Again relativly uncommon both in the mongol history (done a lot but over a relativly short period of time) and basically unheard of by any other nomad people.

Perhaps there could be an even more efficient version that could only be used on steppes and/or versus tribal holdings. Basically representing the nomads driving the people who lived there of.

Of course there should a universally available destroy holding for any province where there are no empty holding slots.

 

[Zsrai]

pillage is not razing
I'm taking about removing holdings from province

Pillaging DOES remove holdings, you just have to do it more than once per holding usually. Every time you pillage you destroy some buildings, and when there are no buildings left the holding gets destroyed.

 

[NakedBeast]

Pillaging DOES remove holdings, you just have to do it more than once per holding usually. Every time you pillage you destroy some buildings, and when there are no buildings left the holding gets destroyed.

So, gradual razing instead of instant one. Allright, I will try that and see if it's true. If it is, then I will make map into empty grazing land with no holdings
For me, that is the only worthy goal of an evil nomad overlord.

 

[Alliegorical]

I think they should design the horde 'retinues' as a rock paper scissor thing. Heavy and light cavalery to counter other people's horse archers, horse archers when fighting the footslogging soldiers of other goverment types.

NO, I hate gamey rock-paper-scissors nonsense. We get enough of that awful BS in Total War.

So.... this is funny. Currently the pure heavy cav unit for nomads is insanely OP, check out these pics.

How on Earth are you getting pure heavy cav units?

 

[KingNothing]

How on Earth are you getting pure heavy cav units?

I'm not sure the exact requirements, but starting as a nomad and moving your capital to Constantinople does the trick. I've also been told it can be in Bavaria or a few other areas, probably that whole region.

 

[Zsrai]

I'm not sure the exact requirements, but starting as a nomad and moving your capital to Constantinople does the trick. I've also been told it can be in Bavaria or a few other areas, probably that whole region.

Check out the regions. Move your capital to Western or Southern Europe and you can get the HC Hordes.

 

[robomax]

Its not that The Nomads need to be Nerfed. The Government type needs to be Nerf. You shouldn't be able to be duelist in your government type.
Your a Kahn with a Nomad Government type. You shouldn't be able to Create a Kingdom Feudal Title. They are different systems or at lest they should be.
You shouldn't be able to usurp a feudal tile either as a Nomad the title is auto-destroyed or cant create or have because of wrong government type when you capture it. Same as Capturing Tribal. Nomads cant create High Chieftains.
The government system should be Tier ; Nomad>Tribal>Feudal>Imperial. Each has its own ranks. But its the way they govern Law and the Titles they can create and hold. Why would you play as a Kahn and want to be the Holy Roman Emperor?
Nomad = No or Little government
Tribal= Small government
Feudal= Big government (Dictator)
Imperial= One world Government (Rule of Law or Dictator)
IN Other words if your a Nomad you have to be Tribal first before you can be Feudal. (You can hold as much land as you want and holding types) But the laws of each government type will either give freedom or tie your hands. (And of course on Secession your lands split up and all other Nomad laws would apply splitting the Clans etc...)(The Hordes with huge amounts of land would have to re-form their government types or they will eventually break up.
Tribal= Cant hold Kingdom Titles or Empire Titles. Chief, High Chief, Grand Chief (2+High chieftain titles all others would be given out on succession) Lets face it tribal needs to be re-worked and become more apart of the game.
Feudalism and Empires wouldn't change much.

Just some thoughts based on my current play.

 

[Maegras]

Its not that The Nomads need to be Nerfed. The Government type needs to be Nerf. You shouldn't be able to be duelist in your government type.

Why duelist should atractect to goverment type, being dueling dosent means you are a hedge knight nor fencing master.

Your a Kahn with a Nomad Government type. You shouldn't be able to Create a Kingdom Feudal Title. They are different systems or at lest they should be.

I agree here, its said nomads dont care for dejure thing but they(our vassals) desire duchy titles and then fighting for their de-jure duchy lands.

You shouldn't be able to usurp a feudal tile either as a Nomad the title is auto-destroyed or cant create or have because of wrong government type when you capture it. Same as Capturing Tribal. Nomads cant create High Chieftains.

While you are nomad, you can still have feudal vassals, auto-destroy thing isnt the best idea.

Nomad = No or Little government
Tribal= Small government
Feudal= Big government (Dictator)
Imperial= One world Government (Rule of Law or Dictator)
IN Other words if your a Nomad you have to be Tribal first before you can be Feudal. (You can hold as much land as you want and holding types) But the laws of each government type will either give freedom or tie your hands. (And of course on Secession your lands split up and all other Nomad laws would apply splitting the Clans etc...)(The Hordes with huge amounts of land would have to re-form their government types or they will eventually break up.
Tribal= Cant hold Kingdom Titles or Empire Titles. Chief, High Chief, Grand Chief (2+High chieftain titles all others would be given out on succession) Lets face it tribal needs to be re-worked and become more apart of the game.
Feudalism and Empires wouldn't change much.

Just some thoughts based on my current play.

It makes no sense to going tribal before adopting feudalism as a nomad. Its historically inaccurate tho.
Each type of goverment has cons and pros. Being tribal was really good option before LI/A nerf if you can handle their sucsession or just let it go as a roleplay.
But i must agree nomadic government type hardly have cons.