Why nerf hordes more

[Novacat]

Don't know about this other guy and Ryukyu, I just looked at the Mongol screenshots.

In my view, WC should be virtually impossible to achieve, other than for extremely good players (requiring some luck), or even totally impossible. And some countries should be even more difficult than that. Unfortunately this is not EU4 at the moment.

You should probably get familiar with aformentioned 'extremely good players'. DDRJake is one of the best players in the game and the first to achieve Three Mountains achievement with Ryukyu, Paradox has dedicated multiple patches to closing his exploits. TMIT is also probably one of the most dedicated Horde players in the game.

The problem, I believe, lies in that every player expects to conquer and expand, independent of their actual skills, and independent of the country they're playing.

You should try to get familiar with what is going on instead of blabbing out uninformed assumptions.

 

[AKronblad]

You should probably get familiar with aformentioned 'extremely good players'. DDRJake is one of the best players in the game and the first to achieve Three Mountains achievement with Ryukyu, Paradox has dedicated multiple patches to closing his exploits. TMIT is also probably one of the most dedicated Horde players in the game.



You should try to get familiar with what is going on instead of blabbing out uninformed assumptions.

Please respect other people's opinions instead of labelling them 'uninformed' just because they disagree with you. Opinions cannot be wrong, you know, they're just opinions. And like taste very subjective.

 

[GabbyDieJaeger]

On one hand, I agree with this change to a degree. After all, although the idea of recruiting foreign units is a good one that could potentially be a very deep gameplay mechanic, its implementation was absolute trash. It's laughable to think of Kazhak or the Crimean Khanate capturing one province from Russia or Genoa, and then recruiting 60,000 perfectly trained and equipped military units from it.

The problem is, Paradox refuses to address the underlying and ridiculous nerf to hordes, that fact that they don't get new units. Why? It's absolutely ridiculous. Yes, hordes did fall off as a threat and effective military force, but not until well into the 16th and 17th centuries, not in the 1460s. It's absolutely preposterous to imply that the Aztecs can make use of firearms but Kazan or Crimea can't. Horde nations historically were, and should be in-game, a genuine threat well into the 1600s.

I recommend that hordes should keep getting new units until about tech 15/18ish, at which point they should be faced with the whole "reform or die" thing. However, the legitimacy requirement for reform should be removed, or hordes should be given some way to meaningfully influence legitimacy. But really, I think the biggest problem by far is the absolute tosh of horde units being the same in 1444 and 1821.

 

[Haccoude]

Please respect other people's opinions instead of labelling them 'uninformed' just because they disagree with you. Opinions cannot be wrong, you know, they're just opinions. And like taste very subjective.

When your opinion is that only very good players should be able to do something, and you're using that as an argument why it should be made harder because DDRJake was able to do it, then your opinion might not be wrong, but your ARGUMENT certainly is.

When Paradox says they want something to be so hard that only 1% can do it, DDRJake is among the 1% that is able to do it. The only reason to make something harder because DDRJake was able to do it, is if you want that thing to literally impossible for anyone to do. If you want someone to be good enough to be able to do it, then it should not be made harder solely because DDRJake was able to do it.

 

[AKronblad]

Why this obsession with DDRJake? He seems to be really good and dedicated, but my discussion is not about him.

I'm thinking if one or two guys can manage to conquer as much as what we saw in the earlier screenshots (and that probably took a lot of of effort to achieve), then a mediocre player is likely to able to conquer half a continent within 400 years. Or am I wrong here?

If I'm not, then that's my point: people expect to expand and conquer like they're Napoleon. But they are not. Most people (including myself) are shitty strategists (try a game from AGEOD, and you'll find out the hard way).

That's why I think WC should be virtually impossible, and even more so for some countries. Playing certain countries may even.be so hard that surviving for 50 years is a challenge. I mean, which country has historically been even close to something resembling a WC?

And that's where I'm thinking that if someone can conquer all that land as Mongolia, what's the big deal in that type of country being nerfed? Maybe hordes should be hard to play as? Either accept the challenge, or choose an easier country, as I said earlier.

Note: I don't support nerfing of hordes specifically, neither do I think that these specific changes are good (nor bad, for that matter).

Just seems to be so much upset feelings for these changes (even directed at me, just for having a different opinion).

EDIT: Why don't you guys make a mod to remedy the problem?

 

[lordelenath]

Why this obsession with DDRJake? He seems to be really good and dedicated, but my discussion is not about him.

I'm thinking if one or two guys can manage to conquer as much as what we saw in the earlier screenshots (and that probably took a lot of of effort to achieve), then a mediocre player is likely to able to conquer half a continent within 400 years. Or am I wrong here?

If I'm not, then that's my point: people expect to expand and conquer like they're Napoleon. But they are not. Most people (including myself) are shitty strategists (try a game from AGEOD, and you'll find out the hard way).

That's why I think WC should be virtually impossible, and even more so for some countries. Playing certain countries may even.be so hard that surviving for 50 years is a challenge. I mean, which country has historically been even close to something resembling a WC?

And that's where I'm thinking that if someone can conquer all that land as Mongolia, what's the big deal in that type of country being nerfed? Maybe hordes should be hard to play as? Either accept the challenge, or choose an easier country, as I said earlier.

Note: I don't support nerfing of hordes specifically, neither do I think that these specific changes are good (nor bad, for that matter).

Just seems to be so much upset feelings for these changes (even directed at me, just for having a different opinion).

I don't think a mediocre player would survive as Mongolia for more than a decade (massive luck excluded), which is the Horde shown in the screenshots. There're however better Horde starting positions, so it's possible in general to be succesful as a mediocre player as a Horde, yes. I don't see the issue however? You can do the WC-Achievement as a mediocre player if you chose a major and execute well known strategies. This game IS about conquest, it's the most flashed out and dominant mechanic. I personally wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if that was tuned down massively, but if that was to be done it should:

a) result in other game-play mechanics that add content
b) be the case for everybody, not one arbitrary chosen technology group

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever that literally EVERYBODY has upgraded units. Freakin' Native Americans have stronger units than Hordes! This is simply inconsistent and adds nothing to the game. Nobody here is complaining about difficulty per se, but Hordes are simply worse then everything else by now with no historical basis whatsoever. There we successful Hordes in EU IV's timeline and even the ones that failed did that 50-100 years later than it happens in the game.

 

[Novacat]

I'm thinking if one or two guys can manage to conquer as much as what we saw in the earlier screenshots (and that probably took a lot of of effort to achieve), then a mediocre player is likely to able to conquer half a continent within 400 years. Or am I wrong here?

Have you even played this game?

The difficulty in hard starts like Mongolia is in the first 10-20 years of the game. A vast majority of players wont even survive, nevermind build an empire half that size. This is why I talk about your opinions and assumptions being borne of ignorance, because you talk as if you have absolutly zero experiance with this game.

 

[MaXimillion]

I'm thinking if one or two guys can manage to conquer as much as what we saw in the earlier screenshots (and that probably took a lot of of effort to achieve), then a mediocre player is likely to able to conquer half a continent within 400 years. Or am I wrong here?

Mongolia is one of the top 10, probably top 5 hardest starts in the game. A mediocre player would not survive to conquer anything as Mongolia.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why this obsession with DDRJake? He seems to be really good and dedicated, but my discussion is not about him.

Double digit mechanics have been altered solely because of DDRJake, the true obsession with it is PI's .

That's why I think WC should be virtually impossible, and even more so for some countries. Playing certain countries may even.be so hard that surviving for 50 years is a challenge. I mean, which country has historically been even close to something resembling a WC?

This argument is a red herring. This topic is not about mass conquest or WC. This topic is about the biased and inane representation of hordes in-game, where nations that were much more advanced historically get no new units while nations that were isolated and backward, then wiped out do get new units in their tech group, and the removal of strategy using foreign cores with a ridiculous "that was a bug because now we're saying it is" defense. Using a logical fallacy to defend the implementation is a bit weak ^_^.

And that's where I'm thinking that if someone can conquer all that land as Mongolia, what's the big deal in that type of country being nerfed?

Nerf Kathiawar.



Ethiopia is obviously too good.



PI screwed up bigtime buffing Georgia, obviously they're too good.



Dai Viet > Mongolia so OBVIOUSLY Dai Viet must also be nerfed by your "logic".



By your (non) logic, every country in the world needs a nerf. You can make that argument of course, but it's out of place in this thread, doesn't refute the issue presented in the thread (why are weak nations being nerfed in an ahistorical way, and on top of that having one unrealistic workaround removed without removing the reason the workaround was needed), and comes off as narrative that doesn't address anything here.

Just seems to be so much upset feelings for these changes (even directed at me, just for having a different opinion).

They imply an entire set of people as sub-human idiots against historical evidence. Yes, people don't like that.

 

[Haccoude]

I'm thinking if one or two guys can manage to conquer as much as what we saw in the earlier screenshots (and that probably took a lot of of effort to achieve), then a mediocre player is likely to able to conquer half a continent within 400 years. Or am I wrong here?

Others have already pointed this out, but the skill-gap of EU4 players is extremely large. Bad players suffer game overs as France, Moderately skilled players survive as the Mameluks. Skilled players conquer the world as France, and the godlike players conquer the world as a OPM enclave surrounded on all sides by a single neighbour with 40 provinces.

With regards to EU4, what a player of a certain skill-level can do is no indication of what a player of a different skill level can do. With the sole (and obvious) exception of more skilled players being able to do better than less skilled players.

 

[Korsan82]

Hordes are just another example on how incomplete and flawed some of the core game mechanics are.
Leaving the reform government decision up to the leader's qualities should at least include the possibility for the player to influence the education of the heir.
Without that this is just another very poor mechanic without any justification in history.
I wish you'd focus more on offering challenging game options rather that "play 200 years and pray that you can reform or surrender".

 

[Autokrator48]

Goodbye glorious Qasim and your awesome russo-danish army.

 

[RobRoy3]

Mongolia is one of the top 10, probably top 5 hardest starts in the game. A mediocre player would not survive to conquer anything as Mongolia.

I like to think I'm a decent player. I've played Mongolia 6 times, mostly on recent patches. I'm 2:4. And both of those were from (very) early patches.

'Course my patience for doing the min-maxing you need for these hard starts is low. And that's a problem, IMHO, that to be successful with many countries requires gameplay that is, frankly, tedious and very little fun.

One of the Horde nerfs removes a feature I did use, and found both entertaining and historical, as several (non-Horde) countries. So that particular change will make that aspect of the game slightly less fun.

The latest nerf(s) to Hordes is simply going to make them even less enjoyable to play. Period. It enhances no one's fun in the slightest. No one's. I don't believe anyone can honestly say nerfing the Hordes makes the game more entertaining for them.

Which gets back to the original question: Why nerf the Hordes more? I haven't seen any compelling response.

 

[StatikShocker]

I mean, which country has historically been even close to something resembling a WC?

Here we go again.
The most nonsensical thing said on this forum, but it is said so many times.

What makes you think that the historical outcomes of various nations is representative of the maximum possible prosperity they could accomplish?

You don't think the French, Ottomans, or whoever, Songhai, Shoshone, could have made at least one decision differently to gain a different outcome? They could have made virtually infinite different decisions, as could nations around them, leading to different outcomes. By your logic, the Ottomans shouldn't be able to take one extra province in Morocco because they didn't historically. That extrapolation is the consequence of your silly question.

We as players have many benefits over reality. We rule the same nation as godly omniscient beings for 400 years. We can try over and over again, not a luxury a real nation could afford. We have hindsight, knowledge of the world, and gameplay abstractions on our side. When you go on a forum and look for pictures posted by the best players of big nations they made, and draw the conclusion that world conquest needs to be made harder based on how much land they have compared to history, you will sound ridiculous.

 

[Captain Frye]

I strongly advocate that hordes should get units up to the 12th level at the very least AND nerf military tech penalty to 20 percent while keeping 75 percent on diplo and adm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1526)

Babur's army was far from backwards, he didn't fight with "eastern archers" or whatever. His infantry had muskets and he used them and his artillery in a very clever way.

IMO, Timurids shouldn't be in nomad techgroup at all. They should get their own tech group(because why not).

 

[wingzero890]

I strongly advocate that hordes should get units up to the 12th level at the very least AND nerf military tech penalty to 20 percent while keeping 75 percent on diplo and adm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1526)

Babur's army was far from backwards, he didn't fight with "eastern archers" or whatever. His infantry had muskets and he used them and his artillery in a very clever way.

IMO, Timurids shouldn't be in nomad techgroup at all. They should get their own tech group(because why not).

That was clearly after they reformed their government.

Mongols and Tatars are physically unable to use firearms until their government decides to become settled, a well established historical fact; when attempting to lay hands on a musket as a nomad they are strongly pushed away by a WIZardlike force.

 

[RobRoy3]

That was clearly after they reformed their government.

Mongols and Tatars are physically unable to use firearms until their government decides to become settled, a well established historical fact; when attempting to lay hands on a musket as a nomad they are strongly pushed away by a WIZardlike force.

Doh! <slaps forehead>

I forgot about that. There's the compelling reason this thread lacked.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Doh! <slaps forehead>

I forgot about that. There's the compelling reason this thread lacked.

There's also the fact that firearms are a bit harder to load on horseback, and armies in the steppes primarily consisted of centaurs (who can only use weapons made out of enchanted trees.)

 

[ozonns]

1. Those were just for a single front.
2. It wasn't their entire army.

Let's not kid ourselves, we were planning our strats around getting foreign cores so that everything except artillery would be foreign.

Firstly, i'm not saying that it was entire army, but most of it was foreign and it was a lot cheaper than the one from homeland, so to say, your argument about making mercs with higher price than ROTW is invalid, opposite of most of cases in history.
Second, no i don't, i played with original troops ~ 1630 reformed, afterwards ~1665 ended westernizing..

I'm not saying also that hordes need to be Godlike or smth. i'm ok with reforming/westernizing for better troops, just that after you reform, horde does not feel like one, in general you change from something unique, fun to smth ordinary and uninteresting.

Simple fix would be if hordes keep old steppe government or acquire one reformed "steppe government", lighter for exm. let it keep all bonuses/negatives but give it elective system of choosing new rulers/heirs, so old stays and some feel of reformation comes in addition. Really don't care for legitimacy to reform, which is major complain, it's fine, it should not be too easy to change whole society.

 

[AKronblad]

Have you even played this game?

The difficulty in hard starts like Mongolia is in the first 10-20 years of the game. A vast majority of players wont even survive, nevermind build an empire half that size. This is why I talk about your opinions and assumptions being borne of ignorance, because you talk as if you have absolutly zero experiance with this game.

Probably not nearly as much as you claim to have played it.

Also, I merely represent myself and my thoughts, opinions, and assumptions, whereas you claim to speak for "a vast majority" of the EU4 players, as if what you're saying are "facts".