Previously we had a very long thread asking why hordes should be further nerfed, and throughout its many pages there were arguments why, and each had a refutation. The response to the refutation of a specific argument was usually just restating a previously refuted argument, and the response to the restating of that arguments refutation, merely restating yet another previously refuted argument. Here is a summary of the arguments for why “Reform or Die” is an appropriate design approach to hordes. You may notice there is a response to each of them.
The arguments for why hordes should not update their units are as follows:
1. Hordes didn't adopt gunpowder.
2. Hordes didn't update their tactics.
3. The soldiers of the Hordes weren't militarily relevant after 1500.
4. Hordes were uncivilized tribes of barbarian savages living in tents without any cities, philosophers or artists.
5. Historically the Hordes “fell”. They either settled down and stopped being hordes, or they died.
6. The people of the hordes are the only non-white non-Europeans who have never been considered “Noble Savages” by suffering under the tyranny of White European Imperialism, but instead has kept being viewed as “Barbarian Savages”.
Now how do we fix hordes? Well hopefully as with every single area outside of Europe (and several inside) a fullblown DLC with unique mechanics would be best, and while I will outline what a “Horde DLC” could implement in a thread in the new Suggestions subforum, the true purpose of this thread is more to outline why “Reform or die” is painfully inaccurate from the viewpoint of real history.
So, the suggestions for a fix that wouldn't require the resources of a full DLC:
The arguments for why hordes should not update their units are as follows:
1. Hordes didn't adopt gunpowder.
This is blatantly false. The Timurids used handguns and cannons during their conquests. Crimea used Gunpowder. During the Russian siege of Kazan, the Russians had to deal with Tatar cannons to ensure the safety of their own artillery. The Manchus started manufactoring their own gunpowder weapons as soon as they acquired the knowhow from victories of the Ming, before they actually conquered China and settled down.
Even the most backward of the Legacy states, the Dzungar khanate of the Oirats were manufactoring their own cannons long before the end of the game. To say that hordes didn't adopt gunpowder is a blatant lie.
This argument does however fit those South African and Indonesian natives who at a no point in EU4's timeframe adopted gunpowder or made their own cannons.
They still get updated units without westernizing.
Even the most backward of the Legacy states, the Dzungar khanate of the Oirats were manufactoring their own cannons long before the end of the game. To say that hordes didn't adopt gunpowder is a blatant lie.
This argument does however fit those South African and Indonesian natives who at a no point in EU4's timeframe adopted gunpowder or made their own cannons.
They still get updated units without westernizing.
2. Hordes didn't update their tactics.
Hordes did update their tactics (see previous adoption of gunpowder by the hordes that didn't already have it in 1444).
In addition, in the same way that the Ottomans and Russian reformed their army along Western lines, the Crimeans reformed their army along Ottomans. This didn't mean they “reformed” as a horde, anymore than the Russians and Ottomans have the Western tech group at the Napoleonic start date.
Consider that the Native American Nomads of the Great Plains (Lakota and Sioux for example) later updated their military to the introduction of horses by adopting inferior versions of the tactics used by the Eurasian Nomads of the Steppes.
And yet the Native Americans have their troops types updated while nomads aren't.
In addition, in the same way that the Ottomans and Russian reformed their army along Western lines, the Crimeans reformed their army along Ottomans. This didn't mean they “reformed” as a horde, anymore than the Russians and Ottomans have the Western tech group at the Napoleonic start date.
Consider that the Native American Nomads of the Great Plains (Lakota and Sioux for example) later updated their military to the introduction of horses by adopting inferior versions of the tactics used by the Eurasian Nomads of the Steppes.
And yet the Native Americans have their troops types updated while nomads aren't.
Many of the late-game cavalry units of the Muslim, Eastern, Indian and Chinese tech groups, were historically Steppe mercenaries employed by these states because they were superior cavalrymen.
In EU4, we have a situation where after 1600 the cavalry that handily beats the steppe nomads without breaking a sweat, is itself steppe nomads. Only from tribes that were either subjugated or hired by settled people, instead of remaining independent.
There were no differences in equipment, training or tactics between these, and yet one is far superior to the other in EU4.
In EU4, we have a situation where after 1600 the cavalry that handily beats the steppe nomads without breaking a sweat, is itself steppe nomads. Only from tribes that were either subjugated or hired by settled people, instead of remaining independent.
There were no differences in equipment, training or tactics between these, and yet one is far superior to the other in EU4.
While the terms “Uncivilized”, “Barbarian” and “Savages” are always problematic when describing a society rather than how a society views another, it is not applicable to many of the hordes in EU4 at the startdate of 1444.
If we look at the concept behind this rather than the controversial word choice, then by 1444 most hordes were not living “living in tents without any cities, philosophers or artists.”. At the very least, the Timurids, the Golden Horde, the Qoyunlar, Crimea and Kazan all had cities, philosophers, artists and a centralized government which was non-nomadic by 1444.
Even then, the Mongols of Genghis Khan in the 13th century and more backwards hordes of 1444 which were a fully nomadic society, still had a thousand+ year old tradition of exchanging ideas, weapons and technology with the settled people surrounding the Eurasian steppe in which they dwelled. As far back as Achaemenid Persia we know that nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppe interacted with, traded with, waged war with and had alliances with fully settled people.
And even if we assume the nomads weren't able to develop technology or military ideas on their own, then what prevents them from developing their military with exchanged technology? Whether you disagree on the hordes being able to develop their own technology is completely unimportant when it is a fact that even before they launched invasions against the settled people, there were differences in the military of the Sarmatians, Huns, Turks and Mongols.
In comparison, EU4 has other technology groups which historically only developed their own military technology through acquiring it from Europeans (if they did at all during EU4's timeframe) and others who lived as hunter-gatherers “living intents rudimentary dwellings without any cities, philosophers or artists.”. In case you forgot, unlike the hordes these tech groups does get updated units.
If we look at the concept behind this rather than the controversial word choice, then by 1444 most hordes were not living “living in tents without any cities, philosophers or artists.”. At the very least, the Timurids, the Golden Horde, the Qoyunlar, Crimea and Kazan all had cities, philosophers, artists and a centralized government which was non-nomadic by 1444.
Even then, the Mongols of Genghis Khan in the 13th century and more backwards hordes of 1444 which were a fully nomadic society, still had a thousand+ year old tradition of exchanging ideas, weapons and technology with the settled people surrounding the Eurasian steppe in which they dwelled. As far back as Achaemenid Persia we know that nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppe interacted with, traded with, waged war with and had alliances with fully settled people.
And even if we assume the nomads weren't able to develop technology or military ideas on their own, then what prevents them from developing their military with exchanged technology? Whether you disagree on the hordes being able to develop their own technology is completely unimportant when it is a fact that even before they launched invasions against the settled people, there were differences in the military of the Sarmatians, Huns, Turks and Mongols.
In comparison, EU4 has other technology groups which historically only developed their own military technology through acquiring it from Europeans (if they did at all during EU4's timeframe) and others who lived as hunter-gatherers “living in
The “Fall” of the hordes is vastly overstated, there were less hordes present at the end date of EU4 than there were at the start date, but there were less states overall by the end date of EU4.
The “fall” of the various hordes was not intrinsically tied their horde status, but to the consolidation of power during the period. In the same vein, the hordes that survived as states but died as hordes by settling down, did not go through a reform anywhere near as painful as reforming in EU4.
The “Reform* or DIE” (*By which is meant going through extensive and painful reforms that wipe your nation of any traces of its nomadic past) of EU4 is simply not present in history. Instead it was a much more reasonable:
“Adopt the local governance and bureaucracy of your subjects to tighten your administration and centralize your power; or stick to steppe governance and become increasingly irrelevant as a holdout that cannot punch in the same weight class as the strong states of the settled people.”
Should also be noted that one the few hordes that survived as an independent entity was the Kazakhs. Ever since Russia first passed the Urals, the Kazakhs fought and raided them, and yet they survived even beyond EU4's timeframe while never “reforming” to a higher level than the Golden Horde had reached by 1444, and certainly never even reached the level of reform the Timurids already had by 1444.
I ended my refute of everyone of the previous arguments by mentioning another group in EU4 which historically had the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS the hordes allegedly had , only it applied to them ten times more than it did to the hordes and yet they weren't being hit with the nerfbat repeatedly, nor had the “Reform or die” rhetoric applied to them.
I'm going to do the same with this refute, because nowhere is the hypocritical nature of the horde nerfs (where a different thing is left completely unmolested despite historically having more problems than hordes) more obvious than with this argument.
Historically speaking, the EU4 period was the history of the fall of the Merchant Republics. By the end of the game there were none left, and during the timeframe they became increasingly irrelevant as power players in international politics. This “Fall of the Merchant Republics” happened faster and HARDER and started closer to the start date of EU4 than any “fall” experienced by the hordes, and yet AFAIK Merchant Republic is considered the strongest government form in EU4.
I don't have anything against Merchant Republics remaining viable, I like playing them and I would like for them remain playable throughout the game rather than being faced with any “reform or die” challenges. This does not however change that historically they suffered far more of a meteoric fall than the hordes ever did, who more suffered from a “slow limper towards irrelevance”.
The “fall” of the various hordes was not intrinsically tied their horde status, but to the consolidation of power during the period. In the same vein, the hordes that survived as states but died as hordes by settling down, did not go through a reform anywhere near as painful as reforming in EU4.
The “Reform* or DIE” (*By which is meant going through extensive and painful reforms that wipe your nation of any traces of its nomadic past) of EU4 is simply not present in history. Instead it was a much more reasonable:
“Adopt the local governance and bureaucracy of your subjects to tighten your administration and centralize your power; or stick to steppe governance and become increasingly irrelevant as a holdout that cannot punch in the same weight class as the strong states of the settled people.”
Should also be noted that one the few hordes that survived as an independent entity was the Kazakhs. Ever since Russia first passed the Urals, the Kazakhs fought and raided them, and yet they survived even beyond EU4's timeframe while never “reforming” to a higher level than the Golden Horde had reached by 1444, and certainly never even reached the level of reform the Timurids already had by 1444.
I ended my refute of everyone of the previous arguments by mentioning another group in EU4 which historically had the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS the hordes allegedly had , only it applied to them ten times more than it did to the hordes and yet they weren't being hit with the nerfbat repeatedly, nor had the “Reform or die” rhetoric applied to them.
I'm going to do the same with this refute, because nowhere is the hypocritical nature of the horde nerfs (where a different thing is left completely unmolested despite historically having more problems than hordes) more obvious than with this argument.
Historically speaking, the EU4 period was the history of the fall of the Merchant Republics. By the end of the game there were none left, and during the timeframe they became increasingly irrelevant as power players in international politics. This “Fall of the Merchant Republics” happened faster and HARDER and started closer to the start date of EU4 than any “fall” experienced by the hordes, and yet AFAIK Merchant Republic is considered the strongest government form in EU4.
I don't have anything against Merchant Republics remaining viable, I like playing them and I would like for them remain playable throughout the game rather than being faced with any “reform or die” challenges. This does not however change that historically they suffered far more of a meteoric fall than the hordes ever did, who more suffered from a “slow limper towards irrelevance”.
I don't really have anything to refute this. That hordes were “Barbarian Savages who hated civilization and burnt all cities” is as inaccurate and ignorant as the whole “Noble Savages who lived in harmony with nature and each other” that gets applied to the victims of imperialism, but that the misconception exists is not false.
Still, I don't think so little of Paradox as to expect this to be a legitimate reason for unhistorically weak hordes in EU4
Still, I don't think so little of Paradox as to expect this to be a legitimate reason for unhistorically weak hordes in EU4
So, the suggestions for a fix that wouldn't require the resources of a full DLC:
- Reintroduce “Sacking” events.
-Ease up on the reform requirements.
- The horde tech group has its unit updated with mil tech, at least at the same power as Native Americans.
- Hordes have greater ability to conquer land from other hordes (less war score required and less OE gained), but with the sole exception of missions to conquer India for the Timurids/Mughals and to conquer China for the Manchu, they don't have any special ability to conquer the realms of settled people.
It's a bit more railroady than I would like, but it's VASTLY better than them being ahistorically nerfed for better ability create alternate history empires.
- All Horde-specific CBs allowing for conquest only target other hordes, and does not allow for taking land from non-Horde allies on the opposing side. Instead a “Raid” CB allows hordes to loot adjacent provinces and enforce tributary/non-integratable vassal/protectorate status on the non-Horde target.
All regular Cbs still allow for taking provinces from non-Hordes, but doesn't receive any bonus from being a horde.
-Ease up on the reform requirements.
- The horde tech group has its unit updated with mil tech, at least at the same power as Native Americans.
- Hordes have greater ability to conquer land from other hordes (less war score required and less OE gained), but with the sole exception of missions to conquer India for the Timurids/Mughals and to conquer China for the Manchu, they don't have any special ability to conquer the realms of settled people.
It's a bit more railroady than I would like, but it's VASTLY better than them being ahistorically nerfed for better ability create alternate history empires.
- All Horde-specific CBs allowing for conquest only target other hordes, and does not allow for taking land from non-Horde allies on the opposing side. Instead a “Raid” CB allows hordes to loot adjacent provinces and enforce tributary/non-integratable vassal/protectorate status on the non-Horde target.
All regular Cbs still allow for taking provinces from non-Hordes, but doesn't receive any bonus from being a horde.
Last edited:
