Why nerf hordes more

[wheeler23]

I think people need to understand that the people living in the hordes are not that much different from europeans in terms of intelligence. Anyone can see the reason for using a musket, and can use new tactics involving artillery if they're quick of thought and learning. And perhaps even produce their own or have someone withing their borders do it. The steppes had cities and merchant caravans, even if the distances between were sometimes vast.

 

[RobRoy3]

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

LOL. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious in your posts. I was sure you were just trolling in the first few. Now, I wonder...

If you didn't catch it, he WAS joking in his post. If you're serious, you really do need to study up on your Russian and Central Asian history a bit.

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?)

Well, the objections are two-fold:

1) They tend to die far quicker than they did, historically. Several lasted into the 18th Century.

2) Why does it seem that just Hordes are being marked as non-playable and/or doomed to be conquered? Why are Sub-saharan nations and Native American nations, that are generally considered far less developed, allowed to advance/survive/thrive, if they reach the appropriate tech levels, but Hordes are not?

 

[Giacomo1405]

Well, the objections are two-fold:

1) They tend to die far quicker than they did, historically. Several lasted into the 18th Century.

2) Why does it seem that just Hordes are being marked as non-playable and/or doomed to be conquered? Why are Sub-saharan nations and Native American nations, that are generally considered far less developed, allowed to advance/survive/thrive, if they reach the appropriate tech levels, but Hordes are not?

the exact timing is really hard to reach... it will always been a little bit soon or a little bit late, the actual hordes outcome is not bad at all...
Sub-saharan not on the coastline survived the EUIV timeline, Europe didn't care about inner africa until the XIX century, so there is nothing wrong if they survive inside that continent...
even some north american tribes can be considered to have survied until the endgame...
no hordes have done that (and we are not talking of a single country, where you could say Aragon could have survived if not annexed, we are talking about an entire nomadic lifestyle, culture and goverment form that faded away... if they didn't survive, the reason for that must have been a sound one)...

if the hordes are a military threat in the early game it's fine, if they survive 100 years less or more then in history it's fine...
but if they are still around as military threat in the endgame it will be really bad...

so i consider the actual balance of the hordes pretty good...

P.S. i'm always talking of a game only with ai and with no player intervention...

 

[Kalderus]

no hordes have done that (and we are not talking of a single country, where you could say Aragon could have survived if not annexed, we are talking about an entire nomadic lifestyle, culture and goverment form that faded away... if they didn't survive, the reason for that must have been a sound one)...

Wrong. Kazakh, for instance, survived the entire timeframe, into the 1860's.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Wrong. Kazakh, for instance, survived the entire timeframe, into the 1860's.

i maybe wrong, but i would consider the Kazakh in the XIX century as tribes having large authonomy but still under Russian authority... not as EUIV represent the hordes: proper tribal states with international diplomatic relations and recognition...

 

[RobRoy3]

P.S. i'm always talking of a game only with ai and with no player intervention...

The nerfs being discussed are targeted at human players.

There is no threat of AI Hordes being a threat to any nation, late game (though that's also not necessarily historical).

i maybe wrong, but i would consider the Kazakh in the XIX century as tribes having large authonomy but still under Russian authority... not as EUIV represent the hordes: proper tribal states with international diplomatic relations and recognition...

They did a whole lots of raiding against Russians for a tribe being under Russian authority.

 

[Giacomo1405]

The nerfs being discussed are targeted at human players.

They did a whole lots of raiding against Russians for a tribe being under Russian authority.

i strongly believe that the game should be balanced for the ai and not for human players ambitions/exploits...

i'm not an expert on Kazakh history but i think that
large authonomy, unrest, and common rebellions would represent that situation better then indipendent states frequently at war in a system like EUIV

 

[RobRoy3]

i strongly believe that the game should be balanced for the ai and not for human players ambitions/exploits.

Then I'm sure they'll be buffing up the Hordes real soon, since they consistently underperform, when played by the AI.

Is there something in their EU4 performance that makes you think they needed yet another nerf?

 

[Freudia]

i strongly believe that the game should be balanced for the ai and not for human players ambitions/exploits...

i'm not an expert on Kazakh history but i think that
large authonomy, unrest, and common rebellions would represent that situation better then indipendent states frequently at war in a system like EUIV

The game prior to this change was arguably balanced in regards to AI when discussing hordes (but lopsided more in favor of Russia, as hordes in the hands of AI already tended to fall prior to their historical date until 1.7, where they made hordes and Russia unable to rival each other). The change in question has no impact on AI but limits player options, so it's a poor change all around.

 

[Giacomo1405]

the thing is that

if the hordes underperform what could happen? they are still militarly good in the beginning but they fade away some years earlier... the balance of the regions they occupied might be slightly off but the game is still good enough...

if muscovy underperform and the hordes overperform, Russia may form too late or not form at all... this could destroy the entire balance of the game almost everywhere...
if this happens even 10/1000 times it's much much worse then the hordes underperforming a little 999/1000 times...

P.S. i might be exagerating with the numbers, but the point is that the balance Russia as a major power on the east of Europe is more relevant to general feeling of the game, especially if you don't play in that exact area...

 

[oblio-]

the thing is that

if the hordes underperform what could happen? they are still militarly good in the beginning but they fade away some years earlier... the balance of the regions they occupied might be slightly off but the game is still good enough...

if muscovy underperform and the hordes overperform, Russia may form too late or not form at all... this could destroy the entire balance of the game almost everywhere...
if this happens even 10/1000 times it's much much worse then the hordes underperforming a little 999/1000 times...

P.S. i might be exagerating with the numbers, but the point is that the balance Russia as a major power on the east of Europe is more relevant to general feeling of the game, especially if you don't play in that exact area...

This is mostly irrelevant. The whole topic only affect horde players, not horde AIs. The AI never used foreign core recruiting and anyway, after 1550 hordes don't hold a candle against Russia: huge tech deficit (so they're at least 4-5 military techs behind Russia = suicide), no reforms (out of 20 hordes maybe 1 reforms every 4-5 campaigns I play) and definitely no westernization.

 

[Freudia]

if this happens even 10/1000 times it's much much worse then the hordes underperforming a little 999/1000 times...

This is total bull. Hordes succeeding vs Russia 10/1000 times is a welcome treat compared to the Russian blob that the AI fails to do anything about 99/100 times. A Russia that fails to form or is a weak Russia leads way to a potential PLC as the dominant power in the area, or one of the hordes stepping up (Kazan, Golden Horde, maybe Crimea) or Timurids/Mughals extending more north than usual. It does not create a power vaccuum that unbalances the game, it just creates alternate history options. There're nations there to fill the gap a Russia that fails to form leaves.

 

[Sir Garnet]

So, bottom line, so if I want to resume my GH game I should set the game to update only on game launch and be sure to only play in offline mode or physically offline.

 

[nOxr]

So, bottom line, so if I want to resume my GH game I should set the game to update only on game launch and be sure to only play in offline mode or physically offline.

Or you just take a back-up of your game folder. That way you can play both versions whenever you want.

 

[balmung60]

So, bottom line, so if I want to resume my GH game I should set the game to update only on game launch and be sure to only play in offline mode or physically offline.

Just opt back into 1.7.3 through Steam.

 

[Haccoude]

if muscovy underperform and the hordes overperform, Russia may form too late or not form at all... this could destroy the entire balance of the game almost everywhere...
if this happens even 10/1000 times it's much much worse then the hordes underperforming a little 999/1000 times...

P.S. i might be exagerating with the numbers, but the point is that the balance Russia as a major power on the east of Europe is more relevant to general feeling of the game, especially if you don't play in that exact area...

EU4 is an alternate history game, the entire reason to play is to witness Europe evolving in a different direction than it did in real life. Russia is already too much of a constant in EU4. Anything that means that not even hell freezing over can prevent Muscovy from forming Russia and taking all Siberia (excepting the coast when Spain takes that) is a welcome addition to the game and its replayability.

 

[gall]

If Timurid don't get beaten by Uzbek, and both Kyonolu and then conquer Delphi pretty fast on regular basis, there is something wrong is with Hordes or Delphi/India. Timurid should start with relatively low manpower (general depopulation of region in the end of XIV, lack of male population as result of civil war) in contrary to Ak Kyonolu reserves. Hordes raise giant armies (Nomadic part, they have their settled vassals support too) in comparing to their low population. This makes them much more sensitive to severe loses even after victorious conquest. There some similarities to Portugal decline, but they aren't very deep (lack of people to sustain empire, not to mention expand).
I believe there should some mechanic to generate great military leader or Army tradition for Horde with great military leader to emulate what Uzbek did (or they should start with AT 100% for what they did prior to game start, now they have just OE for that).
Interesting, if Timurid can found (Mughal) empire such described there? :
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...e=online&aid=5361040&fileId=S1356186300015911
I recommend read quotes from Akbarnama with a bit of criticism. Not that, it not good source, but there are some exaggerations .

 

[Novacat]

no hordes have done that

There were at least a half dozen hordes that survived past 1800...

even some north american tribes can be considered to have survied until the endgame...

Nope. Once the louisana purchase was completed in 1803, the Native Americans were effectively completely under European government. Just that the Americans preferred to deport their natives to uninhabited wastelands than kill them off or integrate them as Russia had. Integration of the Natives only happened when the US had run out of uninhabited wasteland to deport the Natives to.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

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

No, they did not. Steppe nations like Kazakh still existed until well into the 19th century.

I strongly suspect that you are trolling, but if you are not, just read a little more of the history of the period.

 

[Tacticus101]

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.

Only later in the game, once fire modifiers grow a lot. Early on cavalry are very strong and can crush infantry armies.

If you didn't catch it, he WAS joking in his post. If you're serious, you really do need to study up on your Russian and Central Asian history a bit.

Well, the objections are two-fold:

1) They tend to die far quicker than they did, historically. Several lasted into the 18th Century.

Most however died out by the 1600s. All the major hordes by that point had reformed or being conquered/vassalised. Those that still existed were the ones further away from the main world powers.

Kazakh, the example being used, was arguably reformed. It had a capital, multiple settled cities and an organised government. It was on the level of the Khanate of Bukhara, which in the game is represented as reformed.

2) Why does it seem that just Hordes are being marked as non-playable and/or doomed to be conquered? Why are Sub-saharan nations and Native American nations, that are generally considered far less developed, allowed to advance/survive/thrive, if they reach the appropriate tech levels, but Hordes are not?

Like I have said previously, native americans have to reform to thrive. Sub Saharans had powerful and advanced historical empires, they fell of technologically against invaders later but still remained organised and able to put up a fight.