[Suggestion] Nerf westernized Steppe Hordes

[unmerged(804580)]

I just want to bring another point. Nomads are NEVER done right in any game so far, including EU4. Face it, the Hordes as depicted in EU4 are just regular territorial states with different bonuses and penalties. You don't just roam around; you sit in your capital, you conduct diplomacy, you send a nice declaration of war before invading (even if the CB is "Horde")... Basically they do everything the settlers do. And that might be unfortunate but you can't change it unless you overhaul the game entirely and have a completely different mechanics for the nomads. In other words, it doesn't matter if westernized horde is an oxymoron or not. What matters is whether that is waaay too OP and needs to be further nerfed.

Now, is a Westernized Horde OP? Probably yeah. But is a Westernized Brunei OP? Hell yeah, when every single neighbor has Chinese tech, you can roflstomp anyone in your sight. Human players Westernizing as anyone from the lower tech groups will feel themselves quite overpowered in the region. Hordes are not an exception to this, and raising the problem of Westernized Hordes being OP is rather ridiculous. Try westernizing as Mughals and go roflstomping everyone to the east. Who cares about coalition? I even fought the entire Southeast Asia as Bali and my 20k ousted their combined ~70k and I just had to boredquit. If anything, Westernization itself is OP. And if everyone else can, then why can't the Hordes do it? This is not a history simulation, this is just a freaking game.

What makes Hordes interesting is the playstyle. You're forced to go on wars, otherwise you suffer wars. You can't be at peace because everyone hates your guts. As a bonus, you get manpower. As a penalty, you get far more frequent coalitions. That is a playstyle, and removing the Horde government traits altogether means that you practically cease to play a Horde anymore. Homogenizing everything is not how you balance things. If Westernized Hordes are too powerful to destroy Russia every single time, it's probably because Humans are playing it. I am yet to see a successfully westernized AI Horde and even if they want to initiate, their own internal rebellion mess means there's little to no chance that an AI Horde wil Westernize and roflstomp your face. So, why bother? Go nerf the hordes even further, but a normal monarchy instead of nomad government with all its (potentially more nerfed) benefits/penalties is something that is just unacceptable.

 

[Varyar]

Then buff up the Steppe Horde NIs so that they can take on Russia.

Why must they be able to take on Russia? Aren't most in-game nations unable to take on Russia?

Also, I need to point out that the fact that everything seems to have to be compared to Russia would seem to indicate not that [Thing that is not Russia/Brandenburg/Sweden] is underpowered, but rather that Russia (and its ideas), and maybe also Brandenburg and Sweden, is in fact, somewhat OP, and thus might well need a nerf to bring it into line. And why nerf instead of buff? Because given a choice between nerfing one country and buffing all the others, nerfing one is much easier.

I agree, but I also think there's way too much focus on the capabilities of the 'top military nations'. Yeah, nerfed hordes won't be on even footing with Russia et. al. So? That holds true for the vast majority of player nations. The nations are not created equal and are not ment to be evenly matched.

 

[Novacat]

Why must they be able to take on Russia? Aren't most in-game nations unable to take on Russia?

Sweden, Brandenburg, and Prussia (listed seperately since a lot of countries can form them) certainly can, due to the obscene amounts of discipline they can stack being able to effectively counter the Russian zergs.

I agree, but I also think there's way too much focus on the capabilities of the 'top military nations'. Yeah, nerfed hordes won't be on even footing with Russia et. al. So? That holds true for the vast majority of player nations. The nations are not created equal and are not ment to be evenly matched.

Except that, at the moment, the Timurids are one of the few non-European countries whom, westernized, can legitimately (without exploits) compete with the top European military nations. Given, only on the defensive in steppe (Plains/Desert) terrain, but they can do it. Japan and Nepal are the only other two countries that may have a chance, but even they are at a disadvantage, the Japanese because they lack Army Tradition bonuses and have weaker economic bonuses, and Nepal because they only get 10% Discipline and only 10% Infantry Power. Both Japan and Nepal are also in the Sweden/Brandenburg school of quality vs quantity, only the Hordes are capable of matching the Russians in quantity (and even then the Hordes have a 75% Manpower disadvantage).

I wouldnt mind the Hordes being nerfed if there was just some land army-minded non-European nation that can replace them. Maybe the Manchus, they have always needed buffs and their NI is in such sorry shape that it could use an overhaul, although being unable to switch primary culture (Manchu is one of the few tags that cant, see cultural.txt) will be a real pain if I decide to expand in the Steppes instead of China, as Manchu is in the East Asian culture group and not the Altaic culture group.

I dont want to be forced to play a European country in order to have a top notch land army.

 

[Varyar]

Sweden, Brandenburg, and Prussia (listed seperately since a lot of countries can form them) certainly can, due to the obscene amounts of discipline they can stack being able to effectively counter the Russian zergs.

That's three out of, what, 200?

Except that, at the moment, the Timurids are one of the few non-European countries whom, westernized, can legitimately (without exploits) compete with the top European military nations. [...]
I dont want to be forced to play a European country in order to have a top notch land army.

So your argument boils down to wanting at least one non-European nation able to compete with the very best European nations? Not Europeans in general, but the best of the best, stat-wise?

 

[Riidi]

Why must they be able to take on Russia? Aren't most in-game nations unable to take on Russia?

Because one of the main drivers of Russian expansionism was the threat from the steppe hordes. Why not represent that in game by making the hordes a credible threat?

 

[Novacat]

That's three out of, what, 200?

Also Timurids, but not after this nerf takes place.

So your argument boils down to wanting at least one non-European nation able to compete with the very best European nations? Not Europeans in general, but the best of the best, stat-wise?

Potentially, yes. They should still have to go through the hurdles of westernization, but I do believe that European countries should not have a monopoly on the best NIs.

 

[208]

significantly but not substantially

What does that even mean? Significantly and substantially are synonyms.

What I'm saying is that if you're playing that game as a steppe horde and Europe bands together against you to stop your mighty horselords ... and then you defeat the combined armies of europe ....... your reward is, probably, like three trivial border provinces, if that.

Have you even looked at eastern Europe? It's full of low-tax provinces.

Pulling a Timur, all in all.

So, like, changing idea groups to Mughals?

 

[Novacat]

What does that even mean? Significantly and substantially are synonyms.

Let me spell it out in simpler English: They have a solid, but not huge edge over the Russians in quality.

So, like, changing idea groups to Mughals?

The Mughals happened long after Timur was dead and buried.

 

[Incompetent]

If anything, Westernization itself is OP. And if everyone else can, then why can't the Hordes do it?

The problem is that it's too all-or-nothing and makes it completely irrelevant which tech group you started in. I think the cost of Westernisation should scale with the size of the jump, so e.g. the Ottomans can Westernise a lot more cheaply than the Golden Horde, because the gulf is not so great. Also it should be possible to upgrade tech group without going all the way to Western, e.g. having a border with Russia should allow you to upgrade to Eastern tech, which is cheaper than upgrading all the way to Western.

 

[Captain Frye]

They already nerfed hordes, eventhough they weren't broken. I personally like hordes and I play them alot, but if they make hordes change government type automatically while westernizing I will actually like this, because I hate the annoying pretender rebels and "house of peace" events etc. Also it will save admin points. For me it will be a buff rather than a nerf. You see, it's always a matter of perspective. Complaining about hordes..I mean, srsly? I played this game for 300 hours and haven't had a single AI horde who managed to westernize at all, let alone dominate the east.

 

[Novacat]

I dont mind the pretender rebels, partially because in the early game I am at virtual constant war so I never see them, in the late game they are completely irrellevant as I have a big enough army to have several armies dedicated to rebel stomping and still have enough troops to defend my borders.

Still, Westernizing as a horde is hard. As DDRJake says, if a Horde manages to successfully do it, they deserve it.

 

[Gnomi]

Overpowered or not, the idea of "westernized" step horde is very absurd -- far more absurd than having any other non-European nations westernizing. The Westernization (and its implied social/administrative changes) is simply incompatible with the type of society that "step horde" represents. IMO, it would be sensible to require horde nations to reform their governments before westernizing.

 

[Novacat]

I hate it when people make oneliner posts that make it very clear that they had not read the rest of the thread.

 

[Gnomi]

^ If you are talking about me, I did read the "rest of the thread" and it is mostly about whether horde bonus is overpowered or not....Yeah, I am mostly repeating what few posters had said already, but these posts were minority on this thread. Maybe I should have stated clearly that "I think the internal logic of game should be paid as much attention as game balance", but I thought it was pretty obvious from my phrasing?

 

[Novacat]

If the game was supposed to follow history as closely as you think it should, than Westernization would not even be a gameplay option, but rather an event chain for Russia. Its not even so much game balance as it is removing one of the few unique gameplay styles that the game has to offer and I am getting really tierd of this whole 'Your having fun playing an unconventional faction in an unconventional way, it must be nerfed' attitude that is starting to permiate this forum.

 

[Captain Frye]

If the game was supposed to follow history as closely as you think it should, than Westernization would not even be a gameplay option, but rather an event chain for Russia.

this

The Westernization (and its implied social/administrative changes) is simply incompatible with the type of society that "step horde" represents.

Lolwut? It simply needs a guy like Peter the Great, who is completely fascinated with the west. Just because it didn't happen in real life, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. In history it's always about the rulers and their decisions. History is not an inevitable chain of events, but history was made by country leaders. If a strong khan decides to westernize - then why not?

 

[HansBaer]

What's all this talk about Russia steamrolling over westernized hordes? Has anyone of you even tried. In my GH game they where no threat at all, despite AI bonuses. Let them come, wait for them to start sieging (preferably wait on a mountain, if you're lucky they attack). Only lost the first war to them, but they settled for 2 unimportant provinces.
The Ottomans on the other hand felt way stronger then the Russian paper armies.
It's always good to have the Russians against you in a defensive war, free warscore.

Anyway, i didn't intend to say that the Hordes were overpowered in their current state, it's just that it looked to me like a design oversight that could be abused in Multiplayer. (Or quite fun, imagine an GH / Russian Alliance flooding over Europe out of nowhere in the mid 16th )

 

[Novacat]

We are saying they will steamroll over hordes if this nerf comes to pass. Given, they wont do it in 1400, but once the Muskets come in the mid 1500s Steppe Horde units are hopelessly obsolete and without the forcelimit/manpower/damage bonuses the Russians will simply zerg rush the Hordes, whom wont have the manpower or forcelimit to support large armies. Note that, in AI vs AI game, Russia does a pretty damn good job cleaning out the hordes. I only see Crimea survive for any length of time against the Russians and only because they have the Ottomans as a patron state.

 

[balmung60]

this



Lolwut? It simply needs a guy like Peter the Great, who is completely fascinated with the west. Just because it didn't happen in real life, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. In history it's always about the rulers and their decisions. History is not an inevitable chain of events, but history was made by country leaders. If a strong khan decides to westernize - then why not?

No, lolwut to you, good sir. Westernization isn't just a shiny new tech group and vastly superior late game units, it's also a restructuring of the entire society, how it thinks, how it acts, how it does things, how it administrates to be at least very similar to how a western European society would do such things. This is why you get nasty events throughout the westernization process. The "old guard" is resisting this part, not your desire to field infantry that don't suck. To try to keep such an unstructured government as a horde or tribal government through this is essentially absurd. In the new societal thought processes being introduced in such a radical change, a relatively ad hoc government like the horde and tribal governments would only naturally (because you're restructuring your society based on people who think that tribal and horde governments are only for primitive savages and barbarians) be thrown aside as the society adopts a more structured, conventional government structure as part of the changes and as a sign of civilization. Similarly, westernization is conceptually almost wholly incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle, so again, a horde government doesn't really make sense for a westernized (former) horde.

Basically, if a strong khan decides to westernize his country, he's going to be reforming his government to something better suited to western thought and administration as part of doing that.

 

[Zagys]

As others have said, a "Westernized" horde doesn't make any sense conceptually. Alternate history should still be kept within at least some logical parameters.