Why nerf hordes more

[RobRoy3]

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.

Well, I wish they'd say something like that, if it were true. Even if it's somewhat cynical, it would at least provide a logical answer to why they're nerfing Hordes more now, if not a particularly satisfying or compelling one. Right now, the only response is basically: "We don't like it that you're using a legitimate game feature to sidestep restrictions imposed by a much more problematic game feature. So, instead of addressing the problematic game feature having little to no historical justification, we're going to completely eliminate the legitimate one, despite the ample historical justification it DOES have and despite the fact that it's removal affects all players."

I'm somewhat skeptical, though. If a Steppe Horde DLC were your plan, wouldn't you save your map changes in that part of the world to accompany whatever other changes you implemented? Granted anything is going to look a bit thin after AoW, and maybe map changes work better if you do them all at once, but from a Marketing perspective, you'd want to have your DLC/patch appear a bit meaty, no?

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.

Simply not true without a convenient definition of "Horde" versus "non-Horde", which, again, devolves into a semantic argument. Ditto, a convenient definition of "vassalised", which is another game mechanic.

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.

Yes, if you use game mechanics and convenient definitions, you can make an argument that "most" Hordes didn't exist in late game.

...The nerfs may be unfair from a gameplay perspective... but from I historical perspective I think they make sense.

Obviously I disagree, completely. I think even a casual knowledge of Russian and Central Asian history refute that. But since we keep repeating the same arguments, they're kind of pointless.

And they still don't answer why we need to nerf Hordes more. Are Hordes underperforming in your game?

 

[Novacat]

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.

I notice you keep repeating the same crap despite the fact it has been refuted...

 

[Haccoude]

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.

And I pointed out that the difference that caused in culture was that the Timurids and Qoyunlar was closer to settled people in governance than the Kazakhs were when they settled on their own.

 

[josh127]

Well, I wish they'd say something like that, if it were true. Even if it's somewhat cynical, it would at least provide a logical answer to why they're nerfing Hordes more now, if not a particularly satisfying or compelling one. Right now, the only response is basically: "We don't like it that you're using a legitimate game feature to sidestep restrictions imposed by a much more problematic game feature. So, instead of addressing the problematic game feature having little to no historical justification, we're going to completely eliminate the legitimate one, despite the ample historical justification it DOES have and despite the fact that it's removal affects all players."

I believe he made the comment at the last AMA, but even if that's not the case, I remember a comment to the same affect at some point. I doubt that it would be coming soon though. If you're planning a large makeover in a short time, it makes no sense to implement a change like this now. If this were a Minghals level exploit, sure, but this is just WAD, and they're upset that their plan to railroad how you play Hordes isn't working. The answer always is a sledgehammer when it comes to players doing things they don't like, they never use precision tools to tune it.

 

[Zander]

Well, I wish they'd say something like that, if it were true. Even if it's somewhat cynical, it would at least provide a logical answer to why they're nerfing Hordes more now, if not a particularly satisfying or compelling one. Right now, the only response is basically: "We don't like it that you're using a legitimate game feature to sidestep restrictions imposed by a much more problematic game feature. So, instead of addressing the problematic game feature having little to no historical justification, we're going to completely eliminate the legitimate one, despite the ample historical justification it DOES have and despite the fact that it's removal affects all players."

I am personally very glad - and I'm not the only one - that they're removing the ability to replace your entire army with foreign troops. The fact is that this was only used by players, only by players who knew the system well, and when it was used was generally used to replace your entire army, which is not realistic at all.

Now, I'm also totally in favor of giving Hordes some more unit upgrades than they have. In my own games I have modded that in. But I'm not in favor of keeping one broken feature because another feature is broken, especially when it only affects players who could (a) reform, or (b) mod it.

 

[RobRoy3]

I believe he made the comment at the last AMA, but even if that's not the case, I remember a comment to the same affect at some point. I doubt that it would be coming soon though. If you're planning a large makeover in a short time, it makes no sense to implement a change like this now. If this were a Minghals level exploit, sure, but this is just WAD, and they're upset that their plan to railroad how you play Hordes isn't working. The answer always is a sledgehammer when it comes to players doing things they don't like, they never use precision tools to tune it.

At least the Minghals exploit rose to the level that no one denied it was pretty egregious (fun, though, and harmless outside MP). And the fix(es) didn't have too much affect on other aspects of the game.

This "exploit" is a matter of perception, to begin with; the "fix" truly is a sledgehammer removing a perfectly functioning, entertaining, historical game feature; and the rationale for the "fix" is blind support for another game feature that is questionable at best, completely ahistorical and borderline racist at worst.

I am personally very glad - and I'm not the only one - that they're removing the ability to replace your entire army with foreign troops. The fact is that this was only used by players, only by players who knew the system well, and when it was used was generally used to replace your entire army, which is not realistic at all.

Now, I'm also totally in favor of giving Hordes some more unit upgrades than they have. In my own games I have modded that in. But I'm not in favor of keeping one broken feature because another feature is broken, especially when it only affects players who could (a) reform, or (b) mod it.

Maybe some players took it to extremes, and yes it appears that the AI didn't use the feature, but recruiting foreign troops is absolutely realistic (especially by Hordes, actually). Better to figure out why a player is motivated to replace his ENTIRE army with foreign troops than to remove a feature that was most certainly NOT broken.

And, as someone who did use the feature (outside of Hordes), rest assured that replacing your entire army was seldom feasible or desirable. And remember that there is a very small window during which one can gain much from foreign recruitment.

 

[scrumhalf01]

After thinking about it for a day it could be fun with the changes...much more difficult but after you gain ground in the beginning the previous hordes were way too easy. Once you got an ottoman core it was game over and blob like crazy. My first game will be with Mongolia! After reforming the hordes still maintain their no cost to reinforce..correct? We would just lose the horde government.

 

[nOxr]

I'm somewhat skeptical, though. If a Steppe Horde DLC were your plan, wouldn't you save your map changes in that part of the world to accompany whatever other changes you implemented? Granted anything is going to look a bit thin after AoW, and maybe map changes work better if you do them all at once, but from a Marketing perspective, you'd want to have your DLC/patch appear a bit meaty, no?

I can imagine that they would like to follow up AoW with a smaller flavour DLC in the size of Res Publica, just to shift gear a bit. Special features for the steppe hordes would suit such a smaller dlc. I'm pretty sure such features will come eventually, but I have no idea if it's the next or not.

 

[josh127]

At least the Minghals exploit rose to the level that no one denied it was pretty egregious (fun, though, and harmless outside MP). And the fix(es) didn't have too much affect on other aspects of the game.

This "exploit" is a matter of perception, to begin with; the "fix" truly is a sledgehammer removing a perfectly functioning, entertaining, historical game feature; and the rationale for the "fix" is blind support for another game feature that is questionable at best, completely ahistorical and borderline racist at worst.

At this point it feels like "exploit" is anything creative players come up with. I mean, I can't land Kongo troops in Benin pre-war with Hausa because "France could land troops in Scotland and wreck England". It's not like the horde "exploit" made the game unplayable for anyone, but "reform or die" and supporting that with patches to stop other methods shows the fact that Paradox doesn't support players getting creative with how they want to play the game.

 

[RobRoy3]

After reforming the hordes still maintain their no cost to reinforce..correct? We would just lose the horde government.

Oh. No. You lose the admittedly decent Horde ideas and get those fabulous generic ones. Yes, every other nation seems to be getting decent ideas; the generic ones are now reserved just for Central Asians? But maybe there's something we don't know in that regard in 1.8?

Of course that's if you DO succeed in reforming. It's not like people are opposed to the concept of reforming. It's that they can't. Among the previous nerfs to Hordes, was an new requirement that they have very high legitimacy before they could reform (90 or 100, IIRC). Maybe that's not a problem for most nations, eventually. But Hordes have no real way to raise their legitimacy and with their succession system, you're entirely dependent on luck. But wait, you say, I seem to recall an event that let's Hordes sack/loot and earn some legitimacy? Oh, sorry, too many people were actually reforming, so nerf #6152 took care of that.

If there were actually a realistic path toward reforming, you wouldn't see so much complaining. Sure, it might still be nice to have access to higher tech units for nations that don't/can't reform (but do manage to evolve technologically), but the choice isn't really between "reform or die" the choice is between "get lucky or die", especially if there is no way a player can ever get new units, no matter how technologically advanced they stay.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen the AI reform a Horde, either. Ever. But that's not too surprising if the "die" option is really the one favored.

 

[unmerged(463193)]

Oh. No. You lose the admittedly decent Horde ideas and get those fabulous generic ones. Yes, every other nation seems to be getting decent ideas; the generic ones are now reserved just for Central Asians? But maybe there's something we don't know in that regard in 1.8?

Of course that's if you DO succeed in reforming. It's not like people are opposed to the concept of reforming. It's that they can't. Among the previous nerfs to Hordes, was an new requirement that they have very high legitimacy before they could reform (90 or 100, IIRC). Maybe that's not a problem for most nations, eventually. But Hordes have no real way to raise their legitimacy and with their succession system, you're entirely dependent on luck. But wait, you say, I seem to recall an event that let's Hordes sack/loot and earn some legitimacy? Oh, sorry, too many people were actually reforming, so nerf #6152 took care of that.

If there were actually a realistic path toward reforming, you wouldn't see so much complaining. Sure, it might still be nice to have access to higher tech units for nations that don't/can't reform (but do manage to evolve technologically), but the choice isn't really between "reform or die" the choice is between "get lucky or die", especially if there is no way a player can ever get new units, no matter how technologically advanced they stay.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen the AI reform a Horde, either. Ever. But that's not too surprising if the "die" option is really the one favored.

yup pretty much. get lucky or die is a great way to put it. this really needs to be changed...

 

[scrumhalf01]

What ideas would the horde gain once reformed? I'm looking at the list of generic Idea's and don't see any that would pertain. So reforming you lose anything decent about a horde and have the honor of playing a generic nation for the rest of the game....

 

[Novacat]

Oh. No. You lose the admittedly decent Horde ideas and get those fabulous generic ones. Yes, every other nation seems to be getting decent ideas; the generic ones are now reserved just for Central Asians? But maybe there's something we don't know in that regard in 1.8?

I am pretty sure you keep the Horde ideas.

 

[scrumhalf01]

I've never reformed any government so I'm not sure what happens but it only looks like we'd lose:
National manpower modifier +25%
Land forcelimit +50%
Better relations over time.-50%

Always have Casus Belli on neighbors.
Bonuses for fighting in home provinces that are plains or desert.

I assume the Khan events would end as well. What about looting?

 

[Novacat]

Looting is normal. You basically lose all of your horde bonuses and become a generic Muslim/Chinese tech country with Horde ideas.

 

[SknerusMck]

The worse thing [and most stupid] for me is that hordes that won't reform won't get units upgrades - i can't understand why the hell, i will search for a mod for hordes, or i will try to do it alone.. Maybe then i will be able to play horde and get fun o.o

 

[RobRoy3]

Looting is normal. You basically lose all of your horde bonuses and become a generic Muslim/Chinese tech country with Horde ideas.

Maybe it changed? Maybe I'm dreaming? Like I said, I gave up on Hordes a while ago. But last time I did, I could have sworn I lost my NIs and got the generic ones. My apologies if that's not the case.

But it's still the case that getting the opportunity to reform is entirely dependent on rolling a 90-100 legitimacy king, right?

 

[scrumhalf01]

Ya there should be some unit upgrades to at least keep them somewhat competitive into tech 15 or so but after that they need to "reform or die".

 

[josh127]

The worse thing [and most stupid] for me is that hordes that won't reform won't get units upgrades - i can't understand why the hell, i will search for a mod for hordes, or i will try to do it alone.. Maybe then i will be able to play horde and get fun o.o

I think most everyone would have accepted that as an alternative.

 

[wingzero890]

The worse thing [and most stupid] for me is that hordes that won't reform won't get units upgrades - i can't understand why the hell, i will search for a mod for hordes, or i will try to do it alone.. Maybe then i will be able to play horde and get fun o.o

Veritas et Fortitudo handles Hordes quite well, with things like tribute events and such for the Golden Horde. Try it out.