Why nerf hordes more

[oblio-]

Ultimately though, the game does allow them to adapt, they just have to reform. It is just a slightly different form of adaption since it requires setting down and moving from a nomad lifestyle rather than just technological advancement, which is accurate since being Nomadic is a significant obstacle to organized armies.

Not really. Up until the Industrial Age, all you needed for a decent army was a large enough population, good strategists and disciplined troops, and enough cash to buy more advanced weapons. Plus the hordes actually knew how to use cannons (I think they also knew how to make them).
The real problem with a horde is developing a complex, stable society, able to grow and sustain a large population and protect it from enemies once those enemies realize the threat posed by the hordes.
The nomad lifestyle can only sustain a certain population density, which is far surpassed by the population density of a sedentary population.
There are countless examples of nomadic invaders coming in, fighting and even destroying the lazy settlers, only to be assimilated or just pushed back after the settlers learned how to fight back (political unification, better tactics learned from the nomads, etc).

So if Paradox would want to fix this the right way, they should either increase the tech malus or decrease the base stats for nomad leaders.

It should be virtually impossible to keep up in tech (of any kind) with a horde even with National Focus on.
Unless you are so big that the huge piles of gold outright buy you better tech (+people who know how to make it, use it and maintain it). Think OPEC

That's the crux of the problem. Hordes can overcome their tech deficit with awesome heirs and national focus on military, and as long as your military is awesome, in EU4 nothing can touch you.

The hordes should have troop upgrades but they should be constantly fighting at a tech deficit, even with 6 MIL ruler, 5 MIL national focus, 3 MIL advisor, 1 MIL power projection.
Or if they do focus everything on military, their military capacity should actually be diminished for other reasons: for example their very low ADM tech could hurt their budget a lot more. This might actually be the true fix - due to local autonomy (I guess you lower it using ADM? which most tech levels can do, but the lower tech hordes can't really spare).

Oh, and another thing. If we rate EU4 players from 1 to 10 (1 being completely new and 10 would be WCer/1000 hours played/experience with all tech groups and regions), the players with large horde empires are at least 4 and above. People achieving "The Great Khan" are probably 7+.

How few people do we want to succeed with unreformed hordes? 9 and above? And why do we want to restrict such a fun game play to such players? What do other players lose if more players play hordes?

 

[RobRoy3]

So back then recruiting units off foreign cores was not a bug/exploit ... it was WAD - but only for experienced EU veterans, not for noobs!

So it would seem. Been said, but worth repeating: the number of actual nomad cavalry in most "Horde" armies was small, often even a tiny fraction. While there were exceptions, for the most part, they relied on local troops, recruited or pressed into service, and various "vassals". Maybe the nerfed EU4 mechanism wasn't a particularly elegant way to represent or model that, but I never thought of it as a particularly cheesy exploit.

Plus the hordes actually knew how to use cannons (I think they also knew how to make them).

Mongols certainly did. But don't forget how significantly the intelligence and manual dexterity of Central Asians degraded after the "Great Khans" era. Plague probably.

How few people do we want to succeed with unreformed hordes? 9 and above? And why do we want to restrict such a fun game play to such players? What do other players lose if more players play hordes?

TBH, they succeeded in making Hordes too tedious or too irritating awhile ago. I'm impressed with people who still have the patience and stamina.

 

[Tacticus101]

No suprise, considering that bows and swords were superior for cavalry troops than firearms. Firearm superiority to the bow and arrow did not happen until the 1800s and the widespread introduction of integrated cartridges and breech-loaders. It is no accident that Tech 28 Napoleonic Lancers have only 2 offensive fire pips and nothing else, while having 6 offensive shock pips and 4 defensive shock pips. The hordes that did field infantry used firearms, such as the Timurids.

My comment was in response to him talking about paradox labelling nomads as being incapable of upgrading from bows and pointy sticks, I just said that they still used them in 1600. It wasn't a comment on military tactics or anything like that. In fact, I did say that horde cavalry should be much closer to much later European light cavalry since they were basically equipped and trained the same.

Although, I would like to see evidence of the Timurids using firearms extensively (on non vassal/merc troops).

The Steppe Hordes were hardly the only 'nomadic' states of this time period. Infact, beating on the above example, a vast percentage of Native Americans were also nomadic.

And they have their own mechanic to support it.

He is not aware that feudal monarchies do not have the same penalty, they can reach 0% autonomy in 1444.

Not really....you can only reduce or increase it every 30 years, so unless you start at 0% autonomy it will take a while before it is possible to reach 0 even assuming no wars or events that raise it again.

No.

Incredible ideas? I can point out a few European states with better ideas, their ideas are good but hardly top-tier.

Strongest early-game cavalry? Their cavalry is only strong in the first 50 years of the game... their infantry is surpassed by 1466 and cavalry by 1479. By 1518 fire pips start showing up which means even with plains advantage steppe hordes start having harder and harder time.

+50% forcelimits and +25% manpower from Government.
No cost for reinforcement, 20% cavalry combat ability, -20% land maintainance, +1 leader shock, -25% core cost, +25% manpower, +20% manpower recovery...all top tier ideas. -5 years nationalism, -20% land attrition and -10% stab cost are all pretty good as well.
That plus the home field shock bonus and the ability to field all cavalry armies with no penalty....

That is top tier in my eyes.

Quick wikpedia search. None of them are even in Siberia.

As far as I can see those are all vassals/protectorates or rebel states of the Persians.....none of them are large, most can be probably labelled as reformed and they all fail to do much.

My point is still there. Native Americans can still remain viable without reforming. They can still pick normal ideas and research normal techs, and their units still scale to Tech 30.

Hordes remain viable without reforming, you can still do perfectly fine as them. Just as viable as native tribes, who will never get anywhere near tech 30 without reforming.

In fact, a quick calculation (which might be wrong) suggests it is impossible to get enough monarch points to do so.

I generally play European states, but I have read complaints from people who could not reform because their European neighbor was not far enough ahead of them.

Reforming doesn't require them to be far ahead on tech, that is westernising.

 

[itsuart]

How few people do we want to succeed with unreformed hordes? 9 and above? And why do we want to restrict such a fun game play to such players? What do other players lose if more players play hordes?

Exactly. Recent nerfs are specifically targeted against players, because hordes were always eaten by AI even without them. I asked why Wiz wants to stop humans from playing hordes, but he didn't respond.

 

[Stategem161803]

Let's not exaggerate. Hordes will still be very playable in 1.8, just not if you never reform. Of course, I won't put it past DDRJake to do a WC as an unreformed horde.

It's just silly that you essentially HAVE to reform to survive.

 

[oblio-]

Let's not exaggerate. Hordes will still be very playable in 1.8, just not if you never reform. Of course, I won't put it past DDRJake to do a WC as an unreformed horde.

It's just silly that you essentially HAVE to reform to survive.

Reformed hordes are not hordes. They're just regular countries, and as some people already said, kind of bland regular countries, at that.
I will do my best to survive and thrive as an unreformed horde and I will happily post my findings on the forum so that Paradox can remove my exploits from the game

 

[Tacticus101]

-long post, don't want to quote it all-

You can get cannons as hordes in the game though and I remember reading (cant remember where) that the infantry on Khanate armies were usually drafted from conquered peoples.

If you remove the horde penalties and just turn it into a tech penalty then nothing sets hordes apart from other nations, they just become like every other Asian nation. At the moment (and even more so next patch) they are a unique and interesting choice that varies in difficulty based on which horde you pick.

I suppose they could potentially add a few more unit levels for cavalry to keep Horde armies competitive a bit longer (certainly they shouldn't be outclassed by European light cavalry), but I don't think they should be able to maintain their armies into the late game, I don't think it fits hordes. The best thing (in my view) would be to allow a special horde form of vassal state that lets them build troops in vassal territory, or something along those lines, though potentially just allowing more/unlimited vassals would work.

Reformed hordes are not hordes. They're just regular countries, and as some people already said, kind of bland regular countries, at that.
I will do my best to survive and thrive as an unreformed horde and I will happily post my findings on the forum so that Paradox can remove my exploits from the game

I am going to do the same I think. See how well I can do without reforming as a horde for one of my first games.

 

[Novacat]

If you remove the horde penalties and just turn it into a tech penalty then nothing sets hordes apart from other nations, they just become like every other Asian nation. At the moment (and even more so next patch) they are a unique and interesting choice that varies in difficulty based on which horde you pick.

Nobody is asking for that. All people are asking for is that reforming be less luck-based and that hordes should have unit upgrades like every other tech group in the game.

I suppose they could potentially add a few more unit levels for cavalry to keep Horde armies competitive a bit longer (certainly they shouldn't be outclassed by European light cavalry), but I don't think they should be able to maintain their armies into the late game, I don't think it fits hordes. The best thing (in my view) would be to allow a special horde form of vassal state that lets them build troops in vassal territory, or something along those lines,

If a Horde manages to keep up tech-wise, it should have comparable cavalry and inferior (but still usable) infantry.

though potentially just allowing more/unlimited vassals would work.

Noooo, bad idea. This would make Hordes way too OP.

 

[durvas]

Incredible ideas? I can point out a few European states with better ideas, their ideas are good but hardly top-tier.

Prussia/Sweden have better pure military ideas, so they can win fights, but not expand as fast. Horde ideas are up there with France and Ottomans for expansion of empire. And every single idea is useful, while France has great ideas mixed with some not so great ones or Ottomans with amazing first half ideas and meh second half. Horde ideas are easily in the top-tier for single player. In MP, military NIs rule and cavalry falls behind so Horde ideas do as well.

Free CBs... yes, that one does fit. Although the only really amazing CB is Tribal Feud which only works on other hordes. The conquest CB is basically a slightly nerfed Expansion CB. The Expansion CB being better because it has 50% warscore cost in addition to the 50% AE and 0 dip cost that both CBs get.

You are not valuing the CB enough, IMO. Free and instant (from 1444), so you don't have to risk AE fabricating a claim. It's tied to a government type, so you don't need to get a specific idea group to get it. No need for early Religious or to westernize for Expansion to get 0 dip provinces without fabricating claims (where the -50% BROT hurts the most), so you can put more into diplo-annexation or ideas. Against areas with smaller countries (India/SE Asia/Arabia) Tribal Conquest really is effectively 50% AE as the relations penalty doesn't matter when they're dead. Combined with Tribal Feud, you basically get 50% AE against Asia except for Ming/Japan (including vassalizaitons!). Plus, lower AE is easier to initially offset with increased relations.

The CB is amazing for its indirect conquering power because it gives you flexibility. It offsets your biggest diplomatic weaknesses and saves you dip right away. It's not the most powerful CB in the game, but it's up there, available instantly and automatically. It's great early and would be great again late, if Hordes could ever get Admin Efficiency.

 

[Novacat]

What? Prussia/Sweden have better pure military ideas, so they can win fights, but not expand as fast. Horde ideas are up there with France and Ottomans for expansion of empire. And every single idea is useful, while France has great ideas mixed with some not so great ones or Ottomans with amazing first half ideas and meh second half. Horde ideas are easily in the top-tier for single player.

No. Not really. +20% Cavalry Combat, +20% Manpower Recovery, +25% Manpower, and -10% Stability Cost are all mediocre, and out of the Horde's useful ideas only the 25% Core creation cost is amazing... but core creation is not even going to be a major thing after 1.8 brings back vassal feeding with a vengenace. Overall, if you want horde ideas, Muscovy is just plain better. Starts off with -15% Core Creation, gets +92.5% Manpower total (compared to the +50% manpower on horde ideas), gets +50% Land force limit, -20% Infantry cost (which carries over to maintenance), -10% Tech cost, +0.5 Yearly Army Tradition, etc. Basically, Muscovy out-hordes the hordes.

You are not valuing the CB enough, IMO. Free and instant (from 1444), so you don't have to risk AE fabricating a claim. It's tied to a government type, so you don't need to get a specific idea group to get it. No need for early Religious or to westernize for Expansion to get 0 dip provinces without fabricating claims (where the -50% BROT hurts the most), so you can put more into diplo-annexation or ideas. Against areas with smaller countries (India/SE Asia/Arabia) Tribal Conquest really is effectively 50% AE as the relations penalty doesn't matter when they're dead. Combined with Tribal Feud, you basically get 50% AE against Asia except for Ming/Japan (including vassalizaitons!). Plus, lower AE is easier to initially offset with increased relations.

Expansion is usable by Eastern, Western, and Ottoman tech groups. Expansion is, even without the CB, a really decent idea group and non-Hordes do not have the -50% BROT penalty.

The CB is amazing for its indirect conquering power because it gives you flexibility. It offsets your biggest diplomatic weaknesses and saves you dip right away. It's not the most powerful CB in the game, but it's available instantly and automatically. It's great early and would be great again late, if Hordes could ever get Admin Efficiency.

I get the same bonus with Expansion without the crippling weaknesses of not having upgradable units or 75% Tech cost malus.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

For those saying steppe nations had weaker armies by 1800, they did, of course. But the tech group penalty should see to that anyway, without depriving them of any unit upgrades while native Americans and sub Saharans still get theirs.

 

[Casus_Belli]

Because Muscovy owned all of the Horde lands by 1500 in real life?

 

[DevastatingTech]

Because Muscovy owned all of the Horde lands by 1500 in real life?

 

[scrumhalf01]

Reading the patch notes ruined my day...I was so stoked to play as Mongolia as soon as the patch/expansion hit but now I don't know if I'll even buy the expansion. Hordes are the only enjoyable nation for me at this point...

 

[unmerged(463193)]

Reading the patch notes ruined my day...I was so stoked to play as Mongolia as soon as the patch/expansion hit but now I don't know if I'll even buy the expansion. Hordes are the only enjoyable nation for me at this point...

yeah im not sure if i want to play as the hordes again. im quite dissapointed.

 

[Freudia]

the ability to field all cavalry armies with no penalty....

You are really overvaluing this. Shock phase always happens second, which is where cavalry do all their damage. All-cavalry armies have the potential to be absolutely ruined before they even get to do damage because of the fire phase.

 

[Novacat]

Just do what I do, play some eastern european country with powerful NIs, get Expansion ideas, Conquer Muscovy, culture shift to an Altaic culture, then conquer the world as the Muscovy/Sweden/Brandenburg/Ottoman/Poland Khanate. Expansion CB is pretty much an improved Tribal Conquest CB.

 

[snakebite528]

Because Muscovy owned all of the Horde lands by 1500 in real life?

100% agree with you, only other sane answer to this thread.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

You are really overvaluing this. Shock phase always happens second, which is where cavalry do all their damage. All-cavalry armies have the potential to be absolutely ruined before they even get to do damage because of the fire phase.

I wonder if this couldn't be solved by giving horde cavalry at least a good few more fire pips -- horse archery is what the mongol-derived hordes, at least, were known for.

 

[Giacomo1405]

considering a game with only ai and no player intervention, Hordes are not supposed to survive in this game at least 999/1000 times...
they are supposed to stop being hordes and become civilized countries or be wiped off...
no horde is supposed to survive this game...

so it's good to have them be relativly strong military threats in the very early game and then fade away (what's wrong with this?)