My main objection to all this is even calling these nations hordes in the first place, other than the Golden Horde, which was described that way at the time. The Crimean Khanate, for example, was an established state with cities, not a tribe of wild men in tents drinking mare's milk. These countries were significantly more advanced than sub Saharans and native Americans, and yet they get worse units in the late game! Why? These nations knew how to use guns as well as anyone else by 1800. The enforced "reform or die" nonsense should be much less true for steppe nations than for native Americans, and yet it often seems easier to play as native Americans.
This is not borne from any racism on Paradox's part, just complete ignorance of how these societies worked, and a mindset based to nerfing things based on whether or not they are deemed "OP" by certain people rather than matching their historical nature.
, though it is certainly warranted. However, I'm curious to see how much the autonomy change on its own is actually going to hurt hordes because of the redrawn map in Asia (thus in places that hordes will be expanding into, at least in the early game) - each province will generate less money and have less manpower, but with (theoretically) more provinces will the net loss really be that bad? My hunch is that it'll be harder to get the ball rolling as a horde but not necessarily substantially more difficult as the game goes on, although as I believe autonomy weakens missionaries it may be trickier to hold onto wrong-religion provinces.
.png){kind=avatar}
