Russia needs nerf

[Pilot00]

View attachment 96575

I have also played Ming, Austria, and Burgundy. I find Europe utterly boring, however.



I have a hard time believing that considering you were utterly clueless about how overseas colonies worked.



Russia is not supposed to be intoing China. Russia is also not supposed to have conquered all of Siberia by 1600.

What you find hard to believe vs whats is true are two different things, perhaps you should ease yourself a bit to the concept, it will help you become a better person. Also our discussion never revolved about oversea collonies. It revolved around how colonising helps the three/four powers of the west grow more powerfull. If you cant understand what we are talking about then the joke is on you and your constant attempts to twist meanings in the hope of winning an arguement you have very weak theories about.

Russia is supposed to become a super power in the east. The AI been the AI will attack the weakest neighbours in the east and screw them up 10 times over. Byzandium is not supposed to survive, yet in my games it does. The Aztecs are not supposed to survive till 1821 yet they do. The USA is supposed to form, from a british/french colony rebelion in North America, yet it becomes a minor state of Spain south America and has the mission FORM THE SPANISH NATION!

Are we over with another groundless arguement? Did you expect that everytime you play this game everything will happen as did in real life?

More like Russian nationalists vs everyone else.

I would call it an attempt to instill some rationality vs hardheaded people who simply refuse all reason and simply post NERF RUSSIA RUSSIA OP.

I think its more cute that the Russophiles are having such a rabid reaction to the mere -suggestion- that the Hordes and Chinese could perhaps use a buff. Im not even suggesting a Russia nerf, but rather buffing the Hordes/Chinese into less than pushovers.

I wouldnt call your accusations, of pretsel (or whatever its spelled) logic, inability to understand the games mechanics or whatever borderline inflamatory comment you launch without provocation a 'mere suggestion'.

I think the real problem (in Eastern Europe) lies with the incompetence of the Lithuanian and Polish AI. I've watched them keep large stacks of troops in their territory immobile while at war with the Russians.

Playing as Sweden, I've had no issues with Russia. Their troop quality is terrible and they can be defeated rather easily.

Improving the AI according to him is like inventing true artificial intelligence akin to: I think therefore I exist. He cant undertand that code improving is plausible, I tried it....

 

[Pilot00]

Perhaps, but they do so far too early far too consistently. They fall apart because what else can they do? There's no check on Russian expansion whatsoever once you get past the first few tech levels. They can fight each other, which is exactly what they do, but they can't do any harm to Russia even on a good day. I've never personally seen Russia not form, ever, unless I intervene directly--that is, I march all of my troops up and carpet siege them. Even in a game where I deliberately reduced them to a 6 base tax country surrounded by Horde land near Perm, they still fielded 20k troops and obliterated the hordes. I've only ever seen one screenshot where Kazakh somehow ate its way into Russia.

The problem isn't that Russia is overpowered as such, it's that there's no dynamism in the region. Everything falls out the same way due to a combination of factors, and there's a strong case to be made for change from both a gameplay (stability is boring) and historical (hordes should usually fall, but not always, and should be a threat for longer than presently) point of view.

I have seen Russia stay on Novgorod a couple of times, there are some pics in this very forum that show it. I would agree that the hordes need something to keep them alive more, or more precicely to give them an equal footing. But yet again I believe that most of the time its not outside Asian factors that lead to their downfall, IMHO Asia is hugely contested and most of them fall apart by other neighbours, Russia usually eats the north ok I agree with that but the Timurids etc usually either fall apart or get eaten by whatever else is forming up in the east. Again IMHO its a problem of the AIs innability to manage its affairs.

Not exactly. Russians already have the best territories in the game with regards to manpower and base tax. Russians belong to the eastern group which is incomparably better than steppe group.
Just this two advantages would allow Russia to expand confortambly into Asia. The NIs are there to turn Russia into a manpower monster resembling the Soviet Union which could sustain millions of losses in WW2.
Unfortunately, that stereotype is completely wrong. Russia won over the hordes because of its superior technology and state-organisation which are quite well represented by her belogning to the eastern tech.

As lordelenath said, there are a lot NI that outside the scope of the timeframe of the game and are based on stereotipes rather than accuracy. The problem we are discussing now is wether those NIs, or the nation in general is OP. As an example ill give you (again) Byzantium that uses mercenary reduction costs as an idea. In the timeframe the game is not only they couldnt afford mercenaries...but even the emperor couldnt pay his own expenses at times.

 

[bleakie]

For a moment, I will forget Russia vs Asia. A fairer comparison would be Russia vs PLC.

Starting at 1620, the max manpower of PLC is 110k, while the max manpower of Russia is 280k, more than 2.5 times to the Polish max manpower. Sweden and Austria only get 70k manpower at that start date. For your interest, PLC was at its height of power in 1620, having just received Smolensk from Russia. Does it really make sense to give Russia that much manpower?

EDIT: More information: in the 1620 start, Poland already have +25% manpower from its NI and +25% from Offensive Ideas, while the only manpower bonuses of Russia are from its NIs (+125%).

 

[Pilot00]

Except Russia pushing into China was hardly historical even in 1821. Remember the treaty of Nerchinsk, Russia had essentially signed a Chinese dictat.

Then you have Manchus and Timurids whom are performing so badly they are not even forming their historical nations of Qing and Mughals.

and the Steppe Hordes were not completely obsolete by 1500, the Crimeans were still giving Russia problems even in the 1600s.

Your Timurid friends collapsed due to Persian rebels and Baluchistan rebels for the sixth time in a Row in my yesterday game. That to mememeans that they cant deal with internal problems due to AI innability. Even if you buff the hordes to super powers, when they cant move their 50k stack to deal with 3 stacks of ten having occupied half the country then no ammount of NI or tech buffing will save them.

The problem is that Russians are dominating by 1500, nearly 100 years before they historically started to dominate the hordes.



Here is what I am asking.
- Buff Manchu national ideas
- Buff Timurids national ideas
- Give Hordes some unit type upgrades
- Optional: Give Reformed Hordes some nice NIs

The main reason Hordes are having such trouble is that, since they have no unit type upgrades, their units become matched by Europeans by Tech 5, and obsolete by Tech 8 or so. Once you hit Tech 12 and get muskets then hordes become easy stackwipes, even if the Hordes do manage to overcome their +75% tech penalty and get some fairly high technology.

The 'Optional' bit is basically for those whom like to play hordes other than Timurids or Manchus, and is rather irrellevant to AI vs AI balance.

And then theyll survive just fine (which is good) for a couple decades more and the proceed to collect tulips at the sight of the first rebellion....And you will be saying to buff them even more I guess.

For a moment, I will forget Russia vs Asia. A fairer comparison would be Russia vs PLC.

Starting at 1620, the max manpower of PLC is 110k, while the max manpower of Russia is 280k, more than 2.5 times to the Polish max manpower. Sweden and Austria only get 70k manpower at that start date. For your interest, PLC was at its height of power in 1620, having just received Smolensk from Russia. Does it really make sense to give Russia that much manpower?

Russia yes Novgorod/Muscovy no.

 

[Laurwin]

Well, also in reality Poland wasn't such a centralized country in the EU4 timeframe (one of the reasons it wasn't able to counter the partitions of Poland too well). It was hard to convince the nobility that they should always do what the king wanted them to do (i.e. gather enough troops to invade somebody)

Could the hussars defeat a bunch of Russian armies here and there, few scraps and pieces over there, maybe... Was Poland going to conquer and hold all of Russia, occupy it?

Let's remember also that this happened during the time of troubles, in Russian history. Ingame effect would be that Russia was overrun with pretender rebels one fighting the other, for the throne of Russia. Some of the pretenders had foreign backing from Sweden and Poland.

Russia was attacked pretty much at it's weakest moment (catastrophic loss of leadership, pretender rebels), and even still, the Polish and Sweden were not able to "utterly defeat and subdue" Russia. Sweden retreated from the affair (they did gain Ingrian territory though, for ports). Poland probably got some territory also. But, that it was the new domestic Russian dynasty (Romanovs) were brought into power in the end, so it wasn't a complete defeat to Russia after all.

So, should Poland be able to wipe the floor with Russia, with one hand behind back, until what time exactly? How much nerf is needed?

 

[Novacat]

Are we over with another groundless arguement? Did you expect that everytime you play this game everything will happen as did in real life?

More Pretzel logic. On one hand, Russia needs to be overpowered because it was historically. On the other hand, Asia should not be buffed because everything in this game is not supposed to happen as it does in real life.

I would call it an attempt to instill some rationality vs hardheaded people who simply refuse all reason and simply post NERF RUSSIA RUSSIA OP.

EXCEPT THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE ARGUING TO NERF RUSSIA, AND I AM NOT ONE OF THEM

Classic example of strawman fallacy.

Improving the AI according to him is like inventing true artificial intelligence akin to: I think therefore I exist. He cant undertand that code improving is plausible, I tried it....

Except you have failed to deal with the equality factor, if the AI of Hordes are to be improved, then so will the AI of Russia. Thus you get a net zero change overall. This is why the 'Improve AI plox' suggestion is falling flat, you cant honestly expect the Horde AI to do some pretty insane shit (and what your asking for is insane) then turn around and say that applying the same improvements to the Russian AI wont have an effect on balance as well.

Your Timurid friends collapsed due to Persian rebels and Baluchistan rebels for the sixth time in a Row in my yesterday game. That to mememeans that they cant deal with internal problems due to AI innability. Even if you buff the hordes to super powers, when they cant move their 50k stack to deal with 3 stacks of ten having occupied half the country then no ammount of NI or tech buffing will save them.

Again, its statements like these which make it pretty obvious that you have not played anything other than Russia. Timurids is supposed to lose its Persian holdings to Nationalists, but they are supposed to conquer India and form the Mughals, which they never do. On top of this, Hordes also get massive rebels if left at peace too long. Another factor your forgetting is that forming Qing/Mughals removes the Horde government from those countries, which also removes the chance for pretender rebels.

And then theyll survive just fine (which is good) for a couple decades more and the proceed to collect tulips at the sight of the first rebellion....And you will be saying to buff them even more I guess.

You just made a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.

If the Asian changes make the Hordes fall 50 years later and the Chinese/Indians able to resist Russian encroachment, then I will have considered the changes a success.

 

[bleakie]

I am only claiming that Russia and PLC should be approximately equal in power around 1600. After all, the Poles had the upper hand against Russia in this period IRL, while under the current game setting, Russia is substantially stronger even during its low tide. Thus I conclude that Russia is given too much power in the current game, and should be substantially weakened.

 

[Loke]

Russia is supposed to become a super power in the east.

No it is not, atleast not within the timeframe of the game or are you mixing superpower with greatpower? because it is a BIG difference.

 

[Loke]

I am only claiming that Russia and PLC should be approximately equal in power around 1600. After all, the Poles had the upper hand against Russia in this period IRL, while under the current game setting, Russia is substantially stronger even during its low tide. Thus I conclude that Russia is given too much power in the current game, and should be substantially weakened.

+1

Yes agreed, Russia didnt start to get in line/shape until later part of the games timeframe, around the reign of Peter I.

 

[Colombo]

Pilot00: In the sea of logical fallacies and insults, I couldn't get whats your argument. Could you please explain yourself? Without fallacies and insults?

 

[Pilot00]

More Pretzel logic. On one hand, Russia needs to be overpowered because it was historically. On the other hand, Asia should not be buffed because everything in this game is not supposed to happen as it does in real life.

*Shakes head dismissively. Spend sometime to think on what you read, I never said it needs to be OP because it was so historically, I said it should have paramaters to allow it to be able to follow the historic path if possible. So again you fail at comprehension vs those who you debate.

EXCEPT THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PEOPLE ARGUING TO NERF RUSSIA, AND I AM NOT ONE OF THEM

Classic example of strawman fallacy.

Decide what you claim first cause a couple pages back you said that improving the hordes was an indirect nerf (your words not mine).
And secondary, classic example of a hypocrite trying to burden the other party with the errors oneself commits. Its also standard practice when one runs out of options on arguement and feels that he is loosing, along sinde inflamatory comments which you continue to commit.

Except you have failed to deal with the equality factor, if the AI of Hordes are to be improved, then so will the AI of Russia. Thus you get a net zero change overall. This is why the 'Improve AI plox' suggestion is falling flat, you cant honestly expect the Horde AI to do some pretty insane shit (and what your asking for is insane) then turn around and say that applying the same improvements to the Russian AI wont have an effect on balance as well.

Ok yes I am insane, I ask for the AI to use the rebel supresion button thats in the game and use its armies to not allow itself collapse /sarcasm.
And how many times did AI Russia collapsed to rebels? Cause I cant remember it ever.

Again, its statements like these which make it pretty obvious that you have not played anything other than Russia. Timurids is supposed to lose its Persian holdings to Nationalists, but they are supposed to conquer India and form the Mughals, which they never do. On top of this, Hordes also get massive rebels if left at peace too long. Another factor your forgetting is that forming Qing/Mughals removes the Horde government from those countries, which also removes the chance for pretender rebels.

So lets not improve the AI and allow them to collapse everytime white giving them the tools to be able to form a coherent nation that does those things you propose (and I accept). Oh wait the only way to do this is to buff them....

You just made a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.

I suggest you use a mirror, youve been doing this for three pages, while openly ignoring arguments you cant handle and trying to steer the conversation left and right in the vain hope of avoiding proving your suggestions.

If the Asian changes make the Hordes fall 50 years later and the Chinese/Indians able to resist Russian encroachment, then I will have considered the changes a success.

So the problem is 50 years? Therefore I assume your problem is that there is no historical context (after the close to history start) of a sandbox game that is supposed to be about alternate historical events?

BTW posting links from wikipidea to prove that an opinion is false or whatever make sure:

1) That its not you does those things.
2)You have spend an adequate amount of time to study what those things you post are.
And btw you should do this in general not about those links.
3)Twisting meanings and accusations will get you nowere, I suggest you try to form good arguments for the next exchange - it might lead you to somewhere.

No it is not, atleast not within the timeframe of the game or are you mixing superpower with greatpower? because it is a BIG difference.

You can use it exchangably depending on the time period, but for the shake of the arguement I wont press it and concede that I am in error. Yes I meant great power.

 

[Pilot00]

Pilot00: In the sea of logical fallacies and insults, I couldn't get whats your argument. Could you please explain yourself? Without fallacies and insults?

I am not insulting anyone that did not insulted me and I didnt even make any arguement based on fallacies. As you can see I respond to you in a civil manner, however those who start to insult me wont find a reprevie, I am quite able to respond in kind as you see.

So in order to make my possition clear:

I dont believe that Russia is OP. Neither I believe that hordes need to be strongly (or otherwise)buffed, though I am not opposed to it either. What I advocate is that the game in general suffers from a weak AI that doesnt allow it to play the game as it supposed to. I never said make the AI to have human parity in reasoning but make so to be able to execute cohesive plans and at least the basic tools on its arsenal. Namely prevent itself from been destroyed by rebels and calculate the odds and a possible strategy that will allow it to westernise. Not going all in but when the oportunity presents itself to do so. Those are some suggestions that would benefit the game in general not a single side of it, namely the Americas will benefit as much as the hordes.

 

[Novacat]

I dont believe that Russia is OP. Neither I believe that hordes need to be strongly (or otherwise)buffed, though I am not opposed to it either. What I advocate is that the game in general suffers from a weak AI that doesnt allow it to play the game as it supposed to. I never said make the AI to have human parity in reasoning but make so to be able to execute cohesive plans and at least the basic tools on its arsenal. Namely prevent itself from been destroyed by rebels and calculate the odds and a possible strategy that will allow it to westernise. Not going all in but when the oportunity presents itself to do so. Those are some suggestions that would benefit the game in general not a single side of it, namely the Americas will benefit as much as the hordes.

Your position is the preservation of the current status quo. Any improvement to Horde AI will also affect Russia, and really, a player-driven Russia can devour the Steppes even faster and more rapaciously than the current AI-driven one which tends to move slowly and eat only a few provinces at a time. As Sweden I was able to conquer the Scandanavian penninsula, Muscovy, the entirety of the Steppes, China, and northern India. The only thing that stopped my expansion at all was massive coalitions, due to the incredibly large AE multiplier you get at 100+ provinces. That multiplier will be going away, which means I will be able to conquer with even more impunity.

A Russia with improved AI would be able to stomp the Steppes even quicker, before the Steppes even get a chance to reform, nevermind westernize.

Nevermind that you have yet to address the fact that Russia is stomping all over China, whom are Chinese tech group and not stuck with the usual limitations of hordes.

 

[Comes Imperii]

You are somehow terribly wrong in what determinism and simulationism is.
I am determinists and simlationists. So for me it would be "If player did not interfered and simulation would operated with enough information, the simulation should happen as close as possible to real history".

FOr me determinism is making the game unfold as much as close to how it unfolded in reality. This includes the Iberian wedding, the Burgundian Inheritance and to some extent many NIs. I agree that many NIs are quite biased, but there is a limit where some NIs become OP on top of biased. In this category I include Ottomans, Russian and Prussian NIs for example.
Simluationism for me is rendering the game's fixed variables (starting resopurces, NIs, mainly tech groups) as close as possible to how things were in 1444 start. This means thinking that history was not going to unfold in the same way very time, but the unpredictable interplay of human agency and randomness is going to determine who will end up being the victor and who's not. Ofc the final results are strongly linked to the starting positions but for example making the steppe tech group receive no upgrades at all is a determinst decision made to make sure that steppe hordes are going to disapper. However a true simulationist approach would highlight how similar in strength were Hordes and Muscovy with regards toi tactics and society, how close the results of the wars between them were and how a horde led by a strong leader could well have defeated Muscovy and established a sort of Eastern, centralised Khanate resembling the Ottoman model which, by virtue of being near to Westen powers would have probably adapted its tactics and military technology just like the Russians did.
The problem is that us humans find it very difficul to imagine (thanks to our hindsight bias) that things could have unfolded differently. We could have had a muslim kahnate instead of Muscovy and a much deeper Muslim penetration in Europe in 1821 compared to how we know history unfolded. However all of this is hindered by a fixed adn biased system which say 'certain people are doomed to fall whatever happens' (history has already been written, in this game you can at best write it slightly differently). Whatever happens steppe hordes will keep fighitng with sticks and stones for the entire period while Europeans and Russians will come with machine guns and erase them from the Earth. This is a posteriori determinism which justifies in a extremely biased way the historical results of 1821.
True simulationism would see the Russians find it much more difficult to penetrate into Asia, Euroepans not even dream of annexing China in 1700 etc..

 

[Pilot00]

Your position is the preservation of the current status quo. Any improvement to Horde AI will also affect Russia, and really, a player-driven Russia can devour the Steppes even faster and more rapaciously than the current AI-driven one which tends to move slowly and eat only a few provinces at a time. As Sweden I was able to conquer the Scandanavian penninsula, Muscovy, the entirety of the Steppes, China, and northern India. The only thing that stopped my expansion at all was massive coalitions, due to the incredibly large AE multiplier you get at 100+ provinces. That multiplier will be going away, which means I will be able to conquer with even more impunity.

A Russia with improved AI would be able to stomp the Steppes even quicker, before the Steppes even get a chance to reform, nevermind westernize.

Nevermind that you have yet to address the fact that Russia is stomping all over China, whom are Chinese tech group and not stuck with the usual limitations of hordes.

Thats your opinion vs mine, in other words nobody right now has it right unless something is done on the issue by a third party, neither you (I assume) or I are programmers and I doubt we can make accurate predictions as to what will happen. In other words we both speculate. What gives some credentials to my argument however is the fact that AI doesnt use all its options, or to put more blunt, it makes only basic play to the point of leaving itself collapse. Rebels, religious convertions, that sort of thing rarely happens or to put it more precice is left to random chance.

As for the Chinese, rarely have I seen Russia move as far down as ming but they do stomp consistently manchu (then again so does tibet when it blobs in my games). So the problem more or less is the same. Tech group and how the AI handles things. So my answer more or less is the same for that problem as well, especially with the advent that manchu is on the edge of the pacific allowing to reach the west without conquest.


As to what my opinion is, please allow me to express it for myself cause so far you have been unable to actually understand what I say or you deliberately put my words into wrong contex.

So I didnt adress one arguement which has the same answer...Did you count how many you ignored?

 

[Pilot00]

@ Imberii, without wanting to go into deep waters in the arguement and not choose a side, we should all remember that this is a sandbox and such certain liberies have been taken. Forming Greece for example while the revolt took place in 1821 and the official formation in 1832

 

[Novacat]

As for the Chinese, rarely have I seen Russia move as far down as ming but they do stomp consistently manchu (then again so does tibet when it blobs in my games). So the problem more or less is the same. Tech group and how the AI handles things. So my answer more or less is the same for that problem as well, especially with the advent that manchu is on the edge of the pacific allowing to reach the west without conquest.

Except it has been reported numerous times that Russia not only eats Manchu and Oirats (which, historically, belonged to Qing), but then they usually start chomping at Ming proper by 1800.

Thats your opinion vs mine, in other words nobody right now has it right unless something is done on the issue by a third party, neither you (I assume) or I are programmers and I doubt we can make accurate predictions as to what will happen.

You assume incorrectly. I have extensive experiance with Clausewitz, and while the Horde/Chinese AIs are not using the full extent of the toolbox available to them, neither are the Russians. As said, the AI Russians expand ponderously slowly compared to what they are capable of. Theres really nothing stopping Russia from bitchslapping Ming. Infact, its very common for the Russians to send their 400K deathstacks into India because they got dragged into a Western European's colonial war for some coastal provinces in India.

As to what my opinion is, please allow me to express it for myself cause so far you have been unable to actually understand what I say or you deliberately put my words into wrong contex.

Its hardly the wrong context. You dont want any mechanical changes to be done. You dont want hordes buffed, you dont want Chinese buffed, you dont want Indians buffed, and you dont want Russians nerfed. You just spout some nebulous 'improve the AI' while you continue to ignore the fact that AI improvements go both ways.

Thats preserving the status quo.

 

[Loke]

Its hardly the wrong context. You dont want any mechanical changes to be done. You dont want hordes buffed, you dont want Chinese buffed, you dont want Indians buffed, and you dont want Russians nerfed. You just spout some nebulous 'improve the AI' while you continue to ignore the fact that AI improvements go both ways.

Thats preserving the status quo.

Thats also how I interpreted the discussion aswell.

 

[Knut Skallagrim]

Imo they just need to change russian ambitions to +50% bonus, or if they must keep +100% bonus i would add a -10% discipline.
It's true that they had cheap manpower, and a lot of too. But it's true that they conscripted old and young too to reach those numbers. Those are my 2 cents since they must be an eastern power related to asia but now in mp games russia is op and i'm fine with others NI.

 

[Pilot00]

Except it has been reported numerous times that Russia not only eats Manchu and Oirats (which, historically, belonged to Qing), but then they usually start chomping at Ming proper by 1800.



You assume incorrectly. I have extensive experiance with Clausewitz, and while the Horde/Chinese AIs are not using the full extent of the toolbox available to them, neither are the Russians. As said, the AI Russians expand ponderously slowly compared to what they are capable of. Theres really nothing stopping Russia from bitchslapping Ming. Infact, its very common for the Russians to send their 400K deathstacks into India because they got dragged into a Western European's colonial war for some coastal provinces in India.



Its hardly the wrong context. You dont want any mechanical changes to be done. You dont want hordes buffed, you dont want Chinese buffed, you dont want Indians buffed, and you dont want Russians nerfed. You just spout some nebulous 'improve the AI' while you continue to ignore the fact that AI improvements go both ways.

Thats preserving the status quo.

Again you bring characterisations out of nowhere, i posted how and why the toolbox as you say can be improved so search again a little bit and find out. As for history, again as I told you earlier its a sandbox game, if you want it to happen as it is supposed to be perhaps its the wrong game for you? I was on that camp once but I finally realised that this cant happen because game mechanics are above historical accuracy most of the time.

I didnt either argue that they dont eat Ming, I argued that it doesnt happen as often. As it has been said the Ottomans eat the hordes too sometimes. That doesnt mean it happens every time.

As to the context yes it is wrong. Because you inderectly propose that once the changes are made, the Russians will get better in what they do but the changes I propose will have a global effect and in a couple ways that wont effect the Russians. First and formost the biggest weakness that the hordes face is internal turmoil due to rebels and multi religious groups that tear them appart. The russians have none of that, and perhaps mostly due to their colonising but once they get the hordes eaten they mostly convert them. Why the hordes dont do that in their claimed territory I dont know, perhaps since you know how the engine works you can shed some light? Once we find out how to fix that we can begin finding out the problem about the Chinese, if there is any (I dont argue that there isnt). Secondly when westernisation comes into play the hordes will be on equal parring techwise to compete with everyone (So will the Chinese on that matter).However instead of resorting to buff this nerf that, we should find out the global problem first (which is the AI and its innability to cope up with many problems) and fix that.

On a side note since you say I want the status quo maintained, check a couple pages back, that I said I have no problem to change how the hordes work, but I believe priority should be the AI. Whatever balance exists IF it exists will go out of the window with buffs and nerfs, so why not fix what is already broken?

So yet again you accuse me of the wrong things either with intent (most likely) or you simply dont pay attention/forget what has been said.

Pay more attention to what your opposition says and Ill say it again, stop twisting meanings.