We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Paradox is Swedish. This is why Sweden's ideas are so good, western tech is the strongest, and Islam is the most powerful religion and sharia law should be instituted in Northern Europe for the 100% piety bonuses!
Joking aside, hordes are weak because of a silly view of them that does not apply in this game's time period. Their units having less potential than north American or sub Saharan is silly, and nobody has ever been able to defend it. An attempt to try to that insists that hordes at some point in time were nomadic savages ignores that these western European superpowers started as ravaging hordes that sacked Rome. A game set in 1444 should not put hordes at their pre-1200 status.
Some of the design choices for the "uncivilized" are just so bafflingly bad that if I didn´t know better I´d say they are racist.
Hordes should not be THAT backward so early in the game, hell I think most of the non Western/Easter/Ottomans are too backward for most of the game, the balance of power should shift much later.
Even Aztecs and Incas you can argue lost more due to internal factors than European Master race. But really, the reason for the rest of the world and hordes being too weak and backward (Seriously? Chinese a whole tech level behind?) is probably because they are catering to their mostly Western audiences.
Paradox is Swedish. This is why Sweden's ideas are so good, western tech is the strongest, and Islam is the most powerful religion and sharia law should be instituted in Northern Europe for the 100% piety bonuses!
Joking aside,
hordes are weak because of a silly view of them that does not apply in this game's time period. Their units having less potential than north American or sub Saharan is silly, and nobody has ever been able to defend it. An attempt to try to that insists that hordes at some point in time were nomadic savages ignores that these western European superpowers started as ravaging hordes that sacked Rome. A game set in 1444 should not put hordes at their pre-1200 status.
Well, he was right about version 1.0 Sweden. Sweden, with NIs, had an obscene number of permanent bonuses that was absolutly ludicrous with absolutly no drawback whatsoever. The Muslims were also the strongest religion.
Now? Sweden's permanent mods and NIs got nerfed so, while good, they are no longer the best. Also, Hindu is now stronger than Islam.
Just write 'history' to mother Google (it's enough) and see what happened after 1400. Also your word choices are annoying.
Hes not wrong. The Hordes were definatly ahead of the Native Americans and Subsaharans in terms of military technology. They manufactured matchlocks and, towards the 18th century, manufactured flintlocks as well.
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.
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.
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 did 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.
3. The soldiers of the Hordes weren't militarily relevant after 1500.
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.
4. Hordes were uncivilized tribes of barbarian savages living in tents without any cities, philosophers or artists.
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 in tentsrudimentary dwellings without any cities, philosophers or artists.”. In case you forgot, unlike the hordes these tech groups does get updated units.
5. Historically the Hordes “fell”. They either settled down and stopped being hordes, or they died.
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”.
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”.
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
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:
- 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.
Hordes army do not weak before the 18th century!
Before the 18th century hordes army still strong. Firearms against hordes-light cavalry very uselessness before the 17th century. (That's way Ming emperor rebuild the Great Wall to against Mongolia and Manchu) Hordes cavalry do not need food supply when they go to war. (When they thirsty, drink horse milk or find some water source. If they can’t find any water source, drink horse blood. When they hungry, eat beef jerky or hunt some animals. If they can’t find any food, kill horse). Also they do not need money to go to war. Opposite they go to war can earn money and woman! So they like pillage rich places. And one hordes solider has more than three war-horse. They can change the war-horse during the war when one horse is tired. So hordes-light cavalry do not need to rest also can march a long time. The hordes-light cavalry is the fastest army in that time. Guns do not have good accuracy and range than bow. Most of time one gunshot cannot kill people before 17th century. Gunners shoot once and then when gunners look up to start the second shoot, hordes-light cavalry cut gunners’ head for sure. All of hordes can ride horse, so everyone is solider. Three years old child can ride a horse. Six years old child can use bow. Twelve years old boy can use bow to shoot the flying eagle in the sky……. They are not farmers, they are hunters! They have the best psychological quality when they kill people. Because they shoot rabbit every day. A famer who even haven't eaten meat in the whole life. Let this farmer to kill people? When he see the blood, he will dizzy immediately. Therefore, Hordes army do not need to be trained. Hordes are inborn soldier! Hordes repeating shoot three arrows, Gunner just can shoot once in the 17 century. After the 18th century hordes army isn’t the strongest army forever.
Hordes army do not weak before the 18th century!
Before the 18th century hordes army still strong. Firearms against hordes-light cavalry very uselessness before the 17th century. (That's way Ming emperor rebuild the Great Wall to against Mongolia and Manchu) Hordes cavalry do not need food supply when they go to war. (When they thirsty, drink horse milk or find some water source. If they can’t find any water source, drink horse blood. When they hungry, eat beef jerky or hunt some animals. If they can’t find any food, kill horse). Also they do not need money to go to war. Opposite they go to war can earn money and woman! So they like pillage rich places. And one hordes solider has more than three war-horse. They can change the war-horse during the war when one horse is tired. So hordes-light cavalry do not need to rest also can march a long time. The hordes-light cavalry is the fastest army in that time. Guns do not have good accuracy and range than bow. Most of time one shoot cannot kill people before 17th century. Gunners shoot once and then when gunners look up to start the second shoot, hordes-light cavalry cut gunners’ head for sure. All of hordes can ride horse, so everyone is solider. Three years old child can ride a horse. Six years old child can use bow. Twelve years old boy can use bow to shoot the flying eagle in the sky……. They are not farmers, they are hunters! They have the best psychological quality when they kill people. Because they shoot rabbit every day. A famer who even haven't eaten meat in the whole life. Let this farmer to kill people? When he see the blood, he will dizzy immediately. Therefore, Hordes army do not need to be trained. Hordes are inborn soldier! Hordes repeating shoot three arrows, Gunner just can shoot once in the 17 century. After the 18th century hordes army isn’t the strongest army forever.
I've not heard anyone else put forth this suggestion, and I'd quite like to see it myself, so I'll just throw this out here.
Part of why playing hordes is fun is that you can have 100% cavalry. Upon reforming, you lose this. As if a people whose ancestors have been practically living on horses for millennia would just abandon their historical form of warfare in favour of European tactics. Why not let reformed hordes have their own tech group, with 100% cavalry allowed? Sure, the nomads were historically 'dragoons' throughout their existence (even before the invention of dragoons in western Europe), but there isn't really a good way to represent this in-game, and dragoon units are cavalry.
I've not heard anyone else put forth this suggestion, and I'd quite like to see it myself, so I'll just throw this out here.
Part of why playing hordes is fun is that you can have 100% cavalry. Upon reforming, you lose this. As if a people whose ancestors have been practically living on horses for millennia would just abandon their historical form of warfare in favour of European tactics. Why not let reformed hordes have their own tech group, with 100% cavalry allowed? Sure, the nomads were historically 'dragoons' throughout their existence (even before the invention of dragoons in western Europe), but there isn't really a good way to represent this in-game, and dragoon units are cavalry.
In addition to this, hordes should also receive a significant maintenance cost reduction for cavalry units, perhaps even to the point that they're only slightly more expensive than infantry, instead of being nearly 3x as is currently. Since horde provinces aren't exactly high in basetax, you're constantly low on money as a horde, even after a lucrative Ming-looting spree, and having to pay the same maintenance cost for cavalry as Western Europeans really drains what little treasury you have, and overall just makes no sense.
Despite bad grammar, everything said by Wudadi is true. The only drawback of horde war machine - they are not very good at taking cities. Largely because they usually didn't use artillery since it will slow them down.
In addition to this, hordes should also receive a significant maintenance cost reduction for cavalry units, perhaps even to the point that they're only slightly more expensive than infantry, instead of being nearly 3x as is currently. Since horde provinces aren't exactly high in basetax, you're constantly low on money as a horde, even after a lucrative Ming-looting spree, and having to pay the same maintenance cost for cavalry as Western Europeans really drains what little treasury you have, and overall just makes no sense.
It should be free actually. Khans (ie government) did not buy horses (heck, they were selling them in 1000s to neighbors) nor any other equipment for their cavalryman. Heck, they didn't train them too.
All in all reasonable proposals except Kazakh mentioning. They didn't survive past EU4 timeframe. Small tribe was protectorated by Russia at its own request in 1732, middle tribe was in 1740. The senior tribe was independent until 1818 but it doesn't strike me that it was due to their strength and not Russia's unwillingness to control this land due to supplies and steppe horde warfare limitations. In 1818 elders of senior tribe requested protectorate as well. A law was issued in 1822 abolishing khan powers in Kazakh tribes. They were weak and could not put a good fight against Khiva Khanate. Complete lack of interest is supported by the timeframe of fort building in Kazakh lands (fort Shevchenko was built only in 1846).
See, this is the kind of arguments against me I had hoped for. Informed debate from specific of where I am wrong, rather than
I had gathered from the previous thread that the Kazakh Khanate survived past EU4's enddate, obviously I was wrong. However, I would say surviving until 1732 is pretty good, and I'm pretty sure Paradox can agree with me that country does not need to be inhabited by uncivilized savages in order to be militarily weaker than early 18th century Russia.
Despite bad grammar, everything said by Wudadi is true. The only drawback of horde war machine - they are not very good at taking cities. Largely because they usually didn't use artillery since it will slow them down.
It should be free actually. Khans (ie government) did not buy horses (heck, they were selling them in 1000s to neighbors) nor any other equipment for their cavalryman. Heck, they didn't train them too.
Maybe have -60% cavalry cost could replace no reinforcement cost in horde NIs, and no reinforcement cost replacing one the benefits of Horde government? Or have -30% cavalry cost in NIs and Horde government gives both no reinforcement costs and and additional -30% cavalry cost.
*The reason I use -60% specifically is because according to the wiki, the base cost for infantry is 10 and for cavalry 25 which means cavalry costs as much as infantry.
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.
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.
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 did 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.
3. The soldiers of the Hordes weren't militarily relevant after 1500.
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.
4. Hordes were uncivilized tribes of barbarian savages living in tents without any cities, philosophers or artists.
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 in tentsrudimentary dwellings without any cities, philosophers or artists.”. In case you forgot, unlike the hordes these tech groups does get updated units.
5. Historically the Hordes “fell”. They either settled down and stopped being hordes, or they died.
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”.
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”.
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
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:
- 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.
I think that's how Paradox plaza just works.
It does mean that you end up with the unholy abomination of a wall of text I tried my best to make readable when you've opened all of them.
Give me the ability to build cities in some Hordes' lands as means of expansion (sort of like EU3), taking provinces from Hordes as if they were fully developed regions is wrong.
Give me the ability to build cities in some Hordes' lands as means of expansion (sort of like EU3), taking provinces from Hordes as if they were fully developed regions is wrong.
Should depend on the province rather than the government form. Being able to do it to Kazan, the Timurids, the Golden Horde or Crimea would be far more historically inacurate than not being able to do it to some Sibirian hordes.
Should depend on the province rather than the government form. Being able to do it to Kazan, the Timurids, the Golden Horde or Crimea would be far more historically inacurate than not being able to do it to some Sibirian hordes.
Maybe have -60% cavalry cost could replace no reinforcement cost in horde NIs, and no reinforcement cost replacing one the benefits of Horde government? Or have -30% cavalry cost in NIs and Horde government gives both no reinforcement costs and and additional -30% cavalry cost.
*The reason I use -60% specifically is because according to the wiki, the base cost for infantry is 10 and for cavalry 25 which means cavalry costs as much as infantry.
Replacing no reinforcement costs is good idea. If only to stop mercs being essentially free on top of not using manpower.
Some more ideas:
They tend to buy artillery and hire its personnel. They could make them, but didn't fancied them enough. That's easy to mimic by heavily increasing artillery costs.
Their armies were extremely fast. This could be poorly emulated by free and built in forced mach and +N to manoeuvre stats.
Their armies were very selfsufficient. Heck they really invaded Russia en masse at winter semi regualarily. -1 attrition doesn't feel enough. -3 maybe?
They kept using bows which was superior weapon compared to early muskets. Especially on horse back. Maybe give their units a lot more fire pips instead of shock? It will require yet another rebalancing most of units though.
There was no peace in the steppes with constant raiding each other and their neighbours. Could be emualted with +1 army tradition.
They were able to start total war (as in whole male population could be called to arms) at will. So manpower and FL bonuses are apropriate.
I would replace +25% shock damage home field bonus with something like +5 attrition to any non-horde enemy.
Not the chinese;
They even admired the japanese.
Which is funny is that the japanese saw the europeans as uncivilised people (even if we have to note that sailors may not have been the most representative people of western refinement).
So :
- The europeans were not that damn bad, at least not worse than others
- Maybe they were right (and the japanese too about them) on how a culture can be seen as civilised or not.
Sadly, shame on PI. PI and it's European players must learn Turkic/Mongol/Nomadic history and must see whos were the rulers of 3 continent historically, mostly Asia and whos were the 10+ country creator in Iran, 5+ in Hindu, 5+ in China etc. and whos were the creator of 300+ Khanates, Emirates, Sultanates, Empires etc. I'm interesting with Turkic history nowadays and it's really funny to learn like epics.
Please stop complaining about how european people are, and what they know or not, we are all different.
Author's post is amazing, but you should provide some sources.
Especially about the 4 (the only I doubt about actually).
Can we say that conquered cities they ruled on were "nomad cities" ? (yes, it's a non-sense, and it's intentional)
The same about Great Men of History from that cities...
Hordes should have large quality bonuses as well, even in 1800s they where considered like the best cavalry.
They should have a large manpower bonus because they could use a rather large part of the population as soldiers.
Stability should be extreamly important, something like mandate of heaven, maybe also it should cost more to gain stab as a horde.
Buildings should be much harder to build as a horde.
A very well written argument for making hordes not god awful. That they still get no upgraded units is IMO one of the worst things about this game. I hope one day this is properly addressed. Hordes seem get treated as though they were ignorant savages that were so stuck in their ways that they were all willing to die out of principle or something.
