Why nerf hordes more

[TheMeInTeam]

The horde achievements will still be possible in SP, especially as GH since protectorates count for the achievement. A GH player would therefore just trash Russia like usual, westernize, then spank Persia. Some time in the 1700's you could amble into China and just carpet it in protectorates for insta-win. Mongolia will have it harder obviously, mostly due to the pressure for both religious and administrative so early on.

In player hands, an unreformed horde can fight reasonably effectively with western stuff until 1600ish...but only in single player. As a result, I bet you can still do the achievement with GH w/o reforming, since the non-western AIs tech pathetically and you're going to gib Muscovy early. An autonomy-trashed Ming that's 5 techs behind won't win even if your units are markedly worse; simply hit them when you have a .5 tactics boost over them and it's a walkover.

However, this is the same game where you can make a pan Asian empire with Serbia. Hordes have taken way too much grief and there is no basis for it.

It would nice to hear PI's motivation on this. Surely, there should be some reasons?

They are not up to that task, they just don't like hordes. I'd love to be given a reason why we should change our minds.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

Wait, where did they say you can't build foreign units anymore? I didn't see it in the dev diary...

 

[Wizzington]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

 

[lordelenath]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

If that's the case you should at least remove the legitimacy/lower the needed amount. That's a purely luck-based mechanic easily screwing your game.

 

[PedroVargas]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

If you see the recruiting in foreign core as exploity and want to erase it, why not at least give those who like playing hordes (I do) something in return? I don't know. One or two cavalry upgrades instead of none? It's not that horde players want them OP (they are strong early game, they have an awesome CB etc) but it really looks like one nerf after another with each patch resulting in AI Russia blobbing all over Asia and hordes basically being dead in the 1600s.

I see some of the reasoning, some late game maluses are of course historical, but we've come to a point where it really hurts. AoW introduces so much more horde fun geographically - and more or less ruins it by making them impossible to play after mid-game (if you don't westernize which is A just ugly to play through and B takes out the fun of being a horde)

 

[Red John]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

When a requirement to reform is based entirely on luck, then it's a bad design.

 

[itsuart]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure all AI ruled hordes die since 1.2. Except maybe some remnants of Timmy/Manchu because Russia spared them / was too preoccupied.
So, design goal is to force player to reform or die? Why?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

I argue that design is founded on an unrealistic notion; the idea that all horde nations in 1444 were materially different from monarchies elsewhere, and that the units you give hordes cause them to become ineffectual long before they did so in history (compare the historical bookmarks on nations like Oirat and Kazakh; your design does not allow this to occur fluidly in the game, at all).

Perhaps a more reasonable compromise would be additional units, but not all the way out to tech 30, but even that is questionable. Kazakh's armies in 1800 didn't exactly look identical to Golden Horde's in 1460.

Also keep in mind that this "exploit" tactic was useful to other nations (Portugal, Ottomans, Muscovy, and more) also, and that it had sound historic basis before and during the era. Removing it does indeed chop a layer of strategy not just for hordes, but for all nations. It hits hordes especially hard though, as you have levied unrealistic requirements on their design and over-nerfed them repeatedly in the past for them to take such a hit yet again. Where are house of peace and sacking, if hordes are cursed with an unrealistic restriction on their monarchies? Why are nations with heavy amounts of sedentary population and large cities in 1444 "nomads" in the same sense as the scattered Manchurian tribes?

Nations used horde military as mercenaries in history during time periods where such units are *pathetically* outdated in-game.

Similarly to the "reform or die" mantra, when exactly during the Aq Qoyunlu conquest of the Persian region or the Timurid conquest of India did they "reform", and where was the enormous hit to stability in those timeframes? Heck, when did Kazakh "reform"? They must have, because they didn't die, they outlasted this entire period, something many "advanced" governments failed to do. Oirats were only completely wiped very near the end, but were a real threat well into the 1700's. When did they "reform" Wiz?

Surely, you're not going to tell us that hordes are "too strong" in 1.7 (Timurid unity aside), as they don't hold up in combat to anybody after the early goings, so your only recourse would be history. History doesn't support this implementation, in fact history doesn't really support treating them this way at all.

 

[oblio-]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

If that's the case you should at least remove the legitimacy/lower the needed amount. That's a purely luck-based mechanic easily screwing your game.

Exactly. Make it harder, but don't leave it up to chance. Make it cost more ADM/DIP/MIL/ducats, but don't let it rely on something I can barely control as a horde. Almost all the things I could do to increase my legitimacy in a decent fashion are out of my reach: +legitimacy unique building, Curia Controller, HR Emperor, etc.

[...]
Also keep in mind that this "exploit" tactic was useful to other nations (Portugal, Ottomans, Muscovy, and more) also, and that it had sound historic basis before and during the era.
[...]

It did feel a bit cheap to have your whole army be foreign. But that's actually easy to fix: the units from foreign cores should be mercenaries (much more realistic) and make them cost more than your own mercenaries (1.5x - 2x sounds about right). This way the decision "to reform or not to reform" has an actual meaning and significance.

Moving everything to the chopping block seems like a quick way out, and not a very good one at that.

 

[Bagonad]

If that's the case you should at least remove the legitimacy/lower the needed amount. That's a purely luck-based mechanic easily screwing your game.

I can only support this. Timurids is one of my favorite nations to play in multiplayer, and I don't mind the nerf too much, since I want to form Mughals anyway, who've now been buffed. Nothing is worse than being forcefully held back by a modifier you can do very little about, especially since I mostly play multiplayer. If I don't happen to get 100 legitimacy in time, which comes down to how my rulers and heirs happen to die, the Ottomans player will destroy me before Mughals ever sees the light of day.

 

[LastSalian]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

I believe the existent mechanic was realistic enough not to be removed. Historically conquerors mixed some conquered nation troops to fight their wars. Genghis Khan successfully used Chinese artillery, for example. Removing this mechanic is neither realistic nor brings playability to the game.

 

[Frederick III]

I believe the existent mechanic was realistic enough not to be removed. Historically conquerors mixed some conquered nation troops to fight their wars. Genghis Khan successfully used Chinese artillery, for example. Removing this mechanic is neither realistic nor brings playability to the game.

I agree with this. I'm not sure recruiting local troops should be considered an exploit.

Also, as to legitimacy - wasn't there once an event that granted legitimacy to hordes if they were raiding provinces? I think bringing that back, combined with allowing hordes to continue recruiting local troops, would be my preferred solution.

 

[Amosblanco]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

Then the key issue is I have never seen AI hordes reform their government! They remains being hordes until being totally destroyed……
How can you explain that?

And I have to add that the current criteria of reforming government for nomads is too harsh and insane for at least AI players that they will never able to do so.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I agree. Steppe nations are being unfairly treated, especially when it comes to their unupgradable units. Paradox, as always, need to read some more history and learn that there was more to these realms than blob fodder for Russia. Even calling them hordes is inaccurate in some cases - some nations classed as hordes were quite sedentary and did not wage wars very often.

 

[lordelenath]

I assume the removal of foreign core units is mostly due to PI's efforts to streamline some of the more opaque features of the game (which isn't a bad design goal at all!). It just feels bad because there's nothing added in exchange to either make it more interesting/appealing to actually reform/westernize (because Hordes are pretty generic if you do and only interesting if you don't) or out-weight the massive nerf to non-reformed Hordes.

 

[Darkath]

I'm all for more challenge, but stripping away a gameplay feature and leaving nothing in its wake is a little rough.

Word.

@wiz hordes had guns.

I saw Qing Era pictures of battles (XVIIth century) where you could see Qing troops battling against muslim hordes, in many of those you see firearms on both sides, and in one picture you see camels carrying canons on their back.

 

[Novacat]

The existing design on Hordes is that they should reform or die, pretty much. You can argue that design should change, but leaving an exploity workaround (recruiting in foreign cores) is not the way to go about it.

I am all for Hordes experiancing a decline in techgroup and unit quality, but the mechanic of Hordes getting no unit upgrades is just plain bad. Hordes were certainly in decline since the 1400s but they were still around even after 1800. In fact, it is even stranger that Hordes are singled out for this kind of treatment considering that Merchant Republics are currently one of the strongest forms of government in spite of the fact that they were all completely wiped out in the Napoleonic Wars. Also, Native Americans, India, and Sub-Saharan africa also experianced similar levels of decline as the Steppe Nomads yet their unit pips still scale all the way to tech 30.

There is absolutly no reason for Hordes to be singled out like this. So yes, the design should change. Hordes should get their own unit pips like every other country.

Then you have the fact that characteristically successful hordes like the Timurids and Manchus either never reach their historical borders, or are nerfed until they never reach their historical borders.

 

[Deuterium Dawn]

It's an exploit because Paradox wants hordes to die. Anything that makes the game play not exactly the way Paradox wants it to play is an exploit around here.

 

[ZangoZett]

What's the point of playing a horde if they're now designed to have to westernize? Right now, hordes are unique, fun, rewarding, and actually become more difficult to thrive as as time passes (in complete contrast to playing anything else). Forcing them to reform/westernize just makes them "Wow, that was a fun and engaging first fraction of the game. Time to play Genericland now, though."

 

[oblio-]

I agree with this. I'm not sure recruiting local troops should be considered an exploit.

Also, as to legitimacy - wasn't there once an event that granted legitimacy to hordes if they were raiding provinces? I think bringing that back, combined with allowing hordes to continue recruiting local troops, would be my preferred solution.

The thing is, what players did was to build their entire army out of these foreign troops. This feels cheap and was generally unheard of in history.
The right solution for this problem would have been, IMHO, to make these units much more expensive so that you'd have to pick and choose where you use them.
They also should be mercenaries - to limit mass recruiting - instead of regular troops.
There you go, problem solved.

You either stay an unreformed horde and somehow get huge amounts of cash to support your troops - which is no easy feat when you need that money for high level advisors to combat your huge tech penalty, or you just reform and get better troops and need less money to actually do something.

And for multiplayer, I doubt that not reforming would ever be an option if those foreign units were mercenaries.