Why nerf hordes more
- Thread starter TheMeInTeam
- Start date
-
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.
I'm sorry if this came across in a bad light but this is fact- it's not racism, and we shouldn't sugar coat it. It is well known that Hordes were barbaric tribes who were a lot less advanced than the Europeans at the time hence why they should be nerfed, especially after the 16th century.
Please, the only respectable horde was the Golden Horde and they ceased to exist just after the turn of the 16th century. The Mongol Empire was also impressive but only managed to survive for a measly 162 years. Hordes should be nerfed because lets face it, they were pretty pathetic - not only were they backwards in technology, they were also uncultured and barbaric. Europa Universalis spans from 1444-1821 so there is almost 300 years of game-play where hordes should not, and do not exist. I find it extremely disheartening that people would even seem to suggest that the hordes should not be further nerfed. The new expansion focuses on the 30 Years War in 1618 so you can tell that Paradox are focusing on the proper time period (i.e. 16th century+) when uncultured and frankly disgusting hordes were wiped of the face of the earth by civilized Europeans. In my opinion hordes should not even be allowed to be playable for players, as realistically - unlike the European Kingdoms (which were ruled by one monarch) the hordes were a mess of barbarian scum with no sense of central power or organization, therefore it's unrealistic to command a whole horde as in reality their system of government was more confusing than the ending to Inception.
Exhibit A - Genghis kahn
Typical uncultured, barbaric, heinous, monotonous vile man responsible for many inexcusable and shameful acts committed throughout the early 13th century.
Exhibit B - Louis XIV
Typical classy, cultured European monarch, ruling with absolute authority and by the grace of God.
Now you see why paradox should nerf hordes?
Nonsense. Genghis Khan, while undoubtedly a cruel conqueror, was outside EU4's time period. Russia in 1444 was subservient to the local Tatars, while in game it usually conquers them by 1480. And there is no way that the Timurids or Crimea in 1500 or later were in any way identical to Genghis Khan's Mongolia in the 1200s. Steppe nations were less developed than Europeans like France, so deserve a tech group penalty of maybe 60% or so under the current system of tech groups, but were certainly not less developed than sub Saharans or native Americans, and were not barred from developing their countries simply because of their geographical location.
Are you aware that the Crimean khans, rather than being a mess of barbarian scum, were actually in a position to inherit the Ottoman empire if the Ottomans had no valid heirs? Of course, this was unlikely given Ottoman succession, but if a great power offered a steppe nation such respect, they must have been a bit more than disgusting hordes.
I would recommend reading about Samarkand, Tashkent and the other major trading cities of the steppes, and also the khanate of Crimea. In many ways, these states were closer to other Muslim states than to the murdering armies of Genghis Khan over 200 years earlier. His conquests were further from the EU4 timeline than the present day is.
Even if he is trolling, it is better to try to make a valid argument first to see if he becomes bored at the lack of PC racism rage and leaves.
What the hell. He's not troll I think. He is clearly uncultured ** chauvenist a thing. Just ignore it. Who is barbar who? I think GB greatly persecuted half of world. You **.
Please don't turn this thread into the oppression Olympics, that only leads to a youtube comment-like situation...
I can think of many things which my own homeland of France has done wrong, even in just recent history.
Does the majority of this forum's demographic lack any semblance of a sense of humour..?
I agree with all the nerfs of the hordes, and love the "reform or die"-idea. I'am also think that hordes are very old.
But I not thinking they are barbaric or uncultured. Culture are very different, and thats the point. The culture of the hordes, was just a different, not a uncultured (but a primitive culture).
I also think that the hordes no more barbaric than the europe monarchs. For example, the wars of Ludwig XIV. have more people killing, that one ruler of the hordes, in the EU4-Era.
Okay, enough of this culture-diskussion.
But I not thinking they are barbaric or uncultured. Culture are very different, and thats the point. The culture of the hordes, was just a different, not a uncultured (but a primitive culture).
I also think that the hordes no more barbaric than the europe monarchs. For example, the wars of Ludwig XIV. have more people killing, that one ruler of the hordes, in the EU4-Era.
Okay, enough of this culture-diskussion.
Actually all this "nerf" does not look a big deal for me. Was playing a lot of MP games with hordes lately and I never used hired units from other nations, easy explanation till lvl 15 tech y are absolutely fine with your default cavalry units and y dont need to use infantry at all, besides after last patches there is no large gap in tier unit power, so with good general and big army traditions and overwhelming numbers due to your insane horde numbers winning wars is not so hard.
And about authonomy, it will slow hordes a bit, and I see nothing bad in that. Under current patch it require around 20 years to form unstoppable blob Crimea-Kazan-GoldenHorde-Nogay starting with any of this nations. Then y just roflstomp Moscowy and Commonwealth. In one of my games at 1460 as Crimea I was fighting human Moscowy and human Ottoman coalition and I did win alone, probably there is something wrong in that. Timurids start ridiculous powerfull, and tottally unchecked, human ussualy blob with them like crazy. Quara-qounly mostly relies on trade income, so province income will not hurt it very hard.
And just think of what hordes do have:
- 50% forcelimit and manpower
- Ability to annihilate any army which was foolish enough to come to fight to their home plains +25% damage is like +5 shock bonus
- Ability to fight with 100% cavalry! Noone exept ottomans can withstand this kind of fights.
- Insane good khans all the time, in most games I get military tech faster then easten tech group nations and a little bit lagging after ottomans! Also it allows to blob like crazy cause of tons of adm and diplo power.
- Free CB, with 50% cost for taking provinces.
- Twice as much looting from province, in wars y just cycle through enemy provinces with 1-2k cavalry mercenary stack and get crazy amount fo ducats. For examle in quaraqounly-timurid war from 1444 I was running 22k(forcelimit) mercenary mixed inf-cav army and was still making ducats because of looting.
In hands of human horde is almost unstoppable. So I say nerfing them a bit is good thing to do.
And about authonomy, it will slow hordes a bit, and I see nothing bad in that. Under current patch it require around 20 years to form unstoppable blob Crimea-Kazan-GoldenHorde-Nogay starting with any of this nations. Then y just roflstomp Moscowy and Commonwealth. In one of my games at 1460 as Crimea I was fighting human Moscowy and human Ottoman coalition and I did win alone, probably there is something wrong in that. Timurids start ridiculous powerfull, and tottally unchecked, human ussualy blob with them like crazy. Quara-qounly mostly relies on trade income, so province income will not hurt it very hard.
And just think of what hordes do have:
- 50% forcelimit and manpower
- Ability to annihilate any army which was foolish enough to come to fight to their home plains +25% damage is like +5 shock bonus
- Ability to fight with 100% cavalry! Noone exept ottomans can withstand this kind of fights.
- Insane good khans all the time, in most games I get military tech faster then easten tech group nations and a little bit lagging after ottomans! Also it allows to blob like crazy cause of tons of adm and diplo power.
- Free CB, with 50% cost for taking provinces.
- Twice as much looting from province, in wars y just cycle through enemy provinces with 1-2k cavalry mercenary stack and get crazy amount fo ducats. For examle in quaraqounly-timurid war from 1444 I was running 22k(forcelimit) mercenary mixed inf-cav army and was still making ducats because of looting.
In hands of human horde is almost unstoppable. So I say nerfing them a bit is good thing to do.
Last edited:
Oh, sorry but it can not be accepted. IT mustn't be in this thread.
Yeah, if Snakebite wants a list of horrific things the "classy, cultured European monarch"s did, I'd be more than happy to provide it. But really, his posts fall apart by themselves. He goes from talking about how they ruled one of the largest empires in history for decades to claiming that they had no sense of organization, and he apparently has no idea of how long they actually lasted.
Actually, even the "cruelty" and "murdering armies" of Genghis Khan is highly debatable. It's really only Muslim sources who vilify him. Contemporary Christian and Chinese sources were much less harsh, some even positive. Contemporary Christian powers actively courted him. And later Christian sources, that parroted the Muslim line are more problematic. You even have some modern revisionists who fawn over Genghis:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-khan-and-making-modern-world
And you lose all of this when reforming, and without the ability to get better units, you will be a laughable pushover lategame, regardless of all the innate bonuses.
Genghis Khan was not the monster some have called him, but Mongols massacred many cities in Central Asia and the Middle East. The Khwarezmians in particular suffered terrible massacres after they killed Mongol messengers. Muslim sources are the most damning because Muslims suffered most of the atrocities.
All I ask is that steppe nations can get better units like everyone else does (including sub Saharans and native Americans) at the end of the game.
All I ask is that steppe nations can get better units like everyone else does (including sub Saharans and native Americans) at the end of the game.
Yeah, it sounds like the Hordes are even more doomed than the Sub-Saharans, and that's absolutely ridiculous.
This. They did have very good soldiers but were a one-trick pony in the sense that they were crap at everything else. It would make sense for them to be technologically weak but militarily wise stronger than others.
Sigh. They were not "technologically" inferior to Europeans or others around them. A horde could use guns just as any other people. What they lacked was capital formation, or the means to actually implement new technologies in mass, especially if limited to the steppes. Pastoral nomadic people didn't have the appropriate institutions or agricultural output to begin mass producing muskets like Britain and Russia could. You seem to imply that this was some weakness of their inherent mentality.
On the contrary, in military technology, the hordes were innovators and powerfully effective against the comparatively feeble farming people. It even influenced the Ottoman empire, where it was the composite bows, together with guns, which vanquished European armies and fleets.
Not exactly. Damage bonus basically adds an additional 20% damage to each point of shock damage, however if your shock pips is unable to surpass the enemy's defense shock pips than you wont be able to significantly damage them anyway.
Also, it is +20% Shock damage, and the problem with Hordes is that the fire pips that you see on tech 10+ units tend to absolutly wreck horde units (because they have no fire attack/defense) before it even gets to the shock phase.
Besides, I would rather have Prussia whom gets +7.5% Discipline (which is +7.5% Damage AND +7.5% Defense bonus) and +20% Infantry power which provides +20% damage bonus to all infantry, in all terrains. Ottomans gets even higher with +15% discipline, +20% infantry power, and +15% cavalry power.
Most of those 'advantages' you list are fairly small influences. Compared to the massive influence of having no unit upgrades whatsoever. Free CB? I get the same free CB with expansion that covers all of Asia, and with 1.8 I will be able to vassalize hordes and use their CBs while being a western power. Ability to fight at 100% Cavalry? Cavalry is too expensive to use as a mainline unit, and even then they tend to do poorly pip-wise late game. Twice as much looting? Why loot when you can conquer? +50% Forcelimits/manpower? Russia gets it without the stupid drawbacks.
There was a method to the madness. Those who surrendered were treated well, while those who resisted were slaughtered, and spread stories of both. This was to encourage opposing armies and countries to surrender rather than suffer the fate of those that resisted. The Persian states were stubbornly resistant which is why the Ilkhanate's armies ended up mostly depopulating that region.
Exactly. I mean this is pretty damn elementary and I'm just incredulous that Pdox didn't get this right. If there is one thing the Hordes had a lot of, it was horses. Yet it costs just as much for the Chagatai to raise cavalry as it does for the English.
This is preposterous.
