But many steppe nations had cities in 1444, and are still classed as "unreformed". Were the Timurids unreformed when they had Samarkand?
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.
It was also the level which the Golden Horde, the Timurids and the Khanata of Crimea was at in 1444.
EDIT: Not to forget Kazan, Aq Qoyunlar and Qara Qoyunlar were also at that level. Basically, unlike EU4 which has two levels of Horde: FUlly noimadic and settled people, real life had Fully Nomadic, Hordes with settled city-based administration and Settled People.
By 1444 the Oirats, Kazakhs and the various Siberian tribes were the only hordes that were still Fully Nomadic. The rest were at City-based administration level. And it was actually the hordes that were Fully Nomadic in 1444 that survived to the 19th century, while only reforming to the level the Golden Horde and Crimea had in 1444.
Last edited:
It is not my best area of history, but there seems to be a difference between hordes that owned and ruled cities (like most Mongolian tribes when they conquered somewhere) compared to actually settling cities themselves (which the later, more reformed hordes tended to do).
Not really. The relationship between the settled administration and the nomadic tribes making up the backbone was the same. The cities of the Golden Horde in 1444 was settled by themselves (as was the cities of Kazan).
If anything, the difference between hordes settling cities themselves (Golden Horde, Kazan, Crimea, later Oirats and Kazakhs), and conquering vast areas already settled (the Timurids, Qoyunlar and Manchu) was that the "conquerors" adopted more their subjects culture than the settlers did, and as such had stronger centralization, bureaucracy, administration and "settled sensibilities".
Well, actually, there's a lot of truth here, which is part of the problem. Russia has also been nerfed and now generally underperforms to it's west. So I suspect there is a conscious desire to compensate Russia by giving it ahistorically easy conquests in Central Asia, rather than balancing these regions and encouraging them to focus on their historical areas of expansion.
But, once again, good or bad, they'd already succeeded in doing this. AI Horde are already being conquered ahistorically early. Or am I imagining this? Are you genuinely witnessing AI Hordes that are too powerful in your games and in need of a nerf?! Do they genuinely threaten any AI in your late game? Ever?
And, even if you are asserting that the AI Hordes are in need of a nerf, a nerf that only targets human players doesn't serve that purpose.
So, the question remains: Why nerf Hordes more?
"Most" and "reformed" and "advanced" seem like loaded terms, and I'm not sure what relevance distance has, here. But, sure, if you're talking about the Hordes starting on the map in 1444, more than 51% of those were not on the map in 1699. And if you don't want to call the successor states "Hordes" we can continue the devolution into a semantic debate. But "reformed" is a kludgy Paradox game mechanic not any kind of recognized historical classification when talking about the history and development of Steppe Hordes or Native Americans, so it'd be a pretty silly debate to have.
And any serious debate about the relative levels of "advanced historical empires" is going to be extremely lengthy, but is going to favor Central Asia over many parts of the world, in this era.
Are you asserting that Hordes are overpowered in YOUR games? And hence in need of a nerf? Or are you simply trying to defend the nerfing that has gone on to date? I'm genuinely curious. You admit to not knowing much about Horde history, but you seem quite adamant and vociferous about defending Paradox decisions here. Though the current topic isn't really the prior nerfing but the mysterious desire to implement a new round of Horde nerfs (that are targeted at players not AI)
Using that definition, virtually all of the hordes by 1444 were 'reformed' in your eyes. The only ones that were not were the obscure ones deep in Siberia.
Nope. Native Americans do not have to reform. If they can get past the 150% tech malus, they can field just as advanced units as the Europeans. The Native Americans do not get a brick wall like the Hordes do. On top of that the government bonuses for Native Council, combined with the Native Ideas, are far stronger than the Steppe Horde government bonuses.
Yes, you guessed right...
i suppose i'm trying to defend the general idea of balance in the game... not a single specific change in particular...
But, how can the horde nerf of minimum 25% authonomy be targeted only at human players? i believe it affects also ai...
the no training foreign units from foreign cores applies to all the world's nations, so it's not to be intended as a nerf to the hordes but an old general game dynamic from previous games that is being removed because it was no longer wanted...
Actually, the no foreign units nerf is specifically targetted at hordes. Can't be bothered to find Wiz's statement on the matter, but it's probably in this thread or one of the 1.8 patch note threads.
While I haven't found the location of the statement, I remember that Wiz said that the reason recruitment of foreign units was being called an exploit was not because the mechanic itself was unintended (it was very much an intended part of the game), but because it was an unintended exploit that Hordes could use it to recruit other units than their starting ones.
I don't get one thing: are hordes in AOW going to have their troops upgraded after newer technology levels - as all regions of the world - or not?
More specifically, he said it was redundant for non-hordes with the rebalancing of unit pips (previously it was an intentional feature), and considered it an exploit for hordes with the current design philosophy, so it was without value to keep. He said the design philosophy for hordes ('Reform or die') may be flawed, but it wouldn't be 1.8 to address that.
the point is the the intended mechanic is that the hordes need to modernize or die...
so they do not get troops upgraded until they modernize...
So basically, before 1.8, we used to have a bug and happy people, and in 1.8 we will have a potential design bug and people upset. Isn't that a smart move?
Then the intended mechanic is stupid, or at least badly executed.
You're right about the autonomy, that effects AI, too, of course. I was focusing on the foreign unit cores because that was the surprise nerf. People knew about the Autonomy nerf ahead of time, there is some hope that the increased number of provinces will offset it. Though it is still a bit odd that Chinese or Russians or Persians get more out of a Khazak province than the Khazaks do.
But, no, the assertion that foreign core mechanic is no longer wanted is spurious. I and others use it, in non-Horde games. In my current Genoa game, I made it a major objective to take a province from which I could produce mongol_swarm cavalry. Something that I think is reasonable and defensible, from a historical perspective. Something that was touted as a feature of the game until a few days ago. While it's a slight boost, it's not a huge one, and it's tough to abuse in most games, anyway, since your options become extremely limited after the advent of canon.
Wiz indicated he removed it specifically because some Horde players used that mechanic in a manner he perceived as exploitive. So feature, becomes exploit, equates to bug, gets nerfed. All because someone felt a need to impose an additional nerf on human controlled Hordes (beyond all the ones to date, and the Automony nerf in 1.8), and, in the process, removes a feature that was occasionally used by other players. All for no compelling gameplay reason that has been identified.
Not. Technological advancement isn't sufficient for people with such presumed deficiencies in manual dexterity and native intelligence.
The intended mechanic is terrible game design, and completely ahistorical.
It is terrible game design because the entire reform mechanic hinges around having 90+ legitimacy, when control over legitimacy is completely out of the hands of the player. Additionally, it forces players to spend all of their admin points on the idea group to reform, restricting their ability to choose their own path.
And it is ahistorical for all of the reasons that everyone has said here, like how many of the so-called 'hordes' were in fact settled by this period, used firearms and cannons, and were in fact dominant overlords of client states (muscovy/tatars).
Suggestions to improve Horde gameplay have been posted in a separate thread, with one empty paradox post gracing the whole thread. Given how close we are to launch day, I seriously doubt that Paradox is suddenly going to buff the hordes anytime soon, and they have been getting nerfed patch after patch. Soon they'll remove the reinforcement cost NI I bet, saying that it's being 'abused' or something.
Bet the full path notes are incomplete on regard to steppe nomads. Kazan new NIs prove that, or might be an isolated case.
On the contrary, I think Johan is on the record that he would like to do something with the hordes in a future patch/DLC. In my experience, if he mentions a future project in such a way it means the plans are already being made. They made an attempt in Divine Wind, that didn't work out so well, but I'm pretty sure their level of ambition in EU4 is several steps higher. Just look at what they developed for the native americans, and I think we can except a similar level of detail if they take on the steppes. If they do it, they will do a great job of it, but they will probably not do any larger changes until then.
Because Muscovy owned all of the Horde lands by 1500 in real life?
Oh, that's why Kazan was taken only in 1552...Because Muscovy already owned it
DD
Well, the point I was responding to (your examples) was using the Timurids and Qoyunlar as examples of 1444 hordes with the same level of cities and administration as I suggested the Kazakhs had. I was just pointing out that they conquered cities rather than settled them, that being part of the main difference.
I am referring to the hordes in general at the start date (whether they be on the map in the game or not), the vast majority of the area controlled by hordes was no longer under "horde" control in the 1600s. Either they had formed separate, non-horde empires, collapsed or been vassalised. So by most, yes, I mean the majority.
By the games own mechanics those successor states are not hordes. Forming Bukhara, the Mughals, Qing or Persia all involve reforming and becoming a different tech group.
I just started out by pointing out, in answer to other posts about the Hordes becoming useless by about 1600 in the game, that historically they did in fact die out by the 1600s. Since then I have just been responding to other peoples points, mainly on the same topic but also a few on similar things that I think people are just fabricating. The nerfs may be unfair from a gameplay perspective, I wont judge that until I play after the patch, but from I historical perspective I think they make sense.
And what I actually said was that Horde government was not my best area of history, not that I didn't know much about hordes.