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.
I disagree. There should be horde units all the way to tech 30, imho. Especially since there are Native American and Subsaharan units all the way to Tech 30.
The only way I can really accept "Reform or Die" is if reformed hordes got ideas awesome enough to be worth going through the trouble in the first place.
You stating something does not count as refuting. Your opinion is not fact. If you would actually provide evidence that contradicts what I say, then it will be refuted. So far however, the only evidence you have put forwards was a Wiki article that disproved your own point.
Ok then, lets make it simple; give examples of Hordes (however you wish to define them) that were around in 1800, preferably spread over all the regions where they exist in 1444. I will then be able to see what you define as horde and provide my counterargument.
I haven't said Hordes needed nerfing, I have already stated that I will reserve by judgement on whether it is actually a nerf (since many of the changes may benift them) for when I play on the patch.
Ah. That might explain it. "Preserve our troops" causing a needless ragequit. Also, I'd started as Crimea and tag switched to Romania, just for kicks; doubt that would've done anything, though. Nice to know I'm just wrong, rather than completely imagining things. Thanks.
It's so rare to be able to reform, in the first place, the mere thought that I'd encountered yet another nerf was more than I really cared to tolerate after thinking I'd hit the jackpot with my monarch's legitimacy (nothing really special about the stats, though), saving up the substantial admin resources to get stability up (more non-trivial requirements for Horde nations), while praying he'd live long enough and I'd still have enough admin to execute the reform (which also requires maxing out an admin idea).
Dude, you're moving the goalpost, again. 1800? 1600? Reformed. Horde. I've lost track of what your argument is? What is it you're trying to prove, anyway? That Hordes are and should be inferior to every other type of human? Apparently, Paradox agrees with you. Yay. You win.
Then why are you so vociferously defending another round of nerfing that Paradox is implementing in 1.8, one of them specifically and only targeted at human players. Players who would, mostly, be happy to "reform or die", if that were a realistic option.
Last edited:
One, I am not the only one putting forth evidence. Evidence that also includes multiple hordes having cities, not just Timurids.
Two, the wiki article explicitly mentions hordes in the 1700s and 1800s... Hundreds of years after your claim that 'they all perished'
Three, you have yet to explain why Hordes should be singled out for not having unit upgrades, in spite of the fact that Native Americans were wiped out (as sovereign entities) far sooner.
I think most (if not all of us) can agree that PDS could AT LEAST give the hordes 2 things if nothing else:
1 - more unit upgrades, they don't even need to be better then say late-eastern units. maybe while infantry has on average lower pips then the rest, cav usually would have higher pips from early to mid game, (by close to late game is where the more shock cav starts showing up world wide).
1.1 - DO keep in mind. hordes already have a 75%(or lower in AOW) tech cost. getting the other military values such as tactics; morale, etc TAKES time!
2 - much reasonable requirements for reforming. people forget that getting 90% legitimacy as a horde can be very tricky, with all the annoying events about you being at peace , not to mention tribal succession crisis.... one ends up relaying on luck more then anything else, since other sources of ligit. are very scarce.
Im sure we can all agree on this 2 points mkay?
1 - more unit upgrades, they don't even need to be better then say late-eastern units. maybe while infantry has on average lower pips then the rest, cav usually would have higher pips from early to mid game, (by close to late game is where the more shock cav starts showing up world wide).
1.1 - DO keep in mind. hordes already have a 75%(or lower in AOW) tech cost. getting the other military values such as tactics; morale, etc TAKES time!
2 - much reasonable requirements for reforming. people forget that getting 90% legitimacy as a horde can be very tricky, with all the annoying events about you being at peace , not to mention tribal succession crisis.... one ends up relaying on luck more then anything else, since other sources of ligit. are very scarce.
Im sure we can all agree on this 2 points mkay?
Be careful with tag switching. The reform decision is unique. You will take on whatever ideas are the base ideas of the TAG/cultural ideas you have while reforming. For example, if you drift to Bengali, THEN reform, you get Bengali ideas. If you drift to Russian, form Russia, then reform, you get Russian ideas. If you reform first then form Russia, you will have horde ideas still.
hmmm... wonder if I still have that save. Don't think it was ironman. Not sure what version, though. Pretty sure I switched first. Romania's default ideas are generic, pre 1.8? But thinking about it, I'm not sure I finished loading the save to double check; may've just given up at the screen like itsuart suggests.
Not important, anyway, except to provide another data point on how frustrating, rare, and (ahistorically) difficult it is to "reform" as a Paradox Horde.
W/B
I've never looked at my legitimacy while playing a horde....I didn't realize it was that difficult. The +3 stab and an idea group is difficult enough!
Random chance isn't difficulty, unless you're looking for the fake variety :/.
Probably, there has already been similar suggestion for hordes as follows, but anyway:
Hordes present the idea of very conservative society, but not foolish to think that bow and arrows outperform gunpowder.
Still, they use the same cannons as Europeans, but not ballistas and catapults, and they do develop military technology.
You can also recall native Nothern Americans that were forced to pick up rifles. However, the NAs felt behind Europeans, and we are talking about military technology advanced horde nations.
Therefore, two upgrades of infantry is a must:
LVL 15: a 12-pip “horde musketeer”, and
LVL 28: a 18-pip “horde reformed musketeer”.
Mediocre unit types that show that new technologies cannot be used immediately with great effectiveness.
Logically, the cavalry should also use similar technologies to provide mounted riflemen:
LVL 18: a 16-pip “horde rifled cavalry”, and
LVL 28: a 24-pip “horde reformed rifled cavalry”.
It is obvious that nations that live in tents and gaze horses should be better riders than any other civilized country; therefore, better cavalry for midgame and late game (provided that they have good technology, and hence weaponry).
LVL 15 for infantry is three techs (30 yeas?) behind Europeans get firepower (represents one generation to learn how to use those boom-sticks).
LVL 18 for cavalry is three techs (30 years?) after the hordes get hand-used firepower (represents a generation to learn how to use the boom-sticks when mounted).
LVL 28 and 28 for both cavalry and infantry could represent possible reform in military organisation and technological breakthrough in rifles.
The only problem for AI hordes is to stay alive and kicking until these levels of technology that is almost impossible for an AI.
Hordes present the idea of very conservative society, but not foolish to think that bow and arrows outperform gunpowder.
Still, they use the same cannons as Europeans, but not ballistas and catapults, and they do develop military technology.
You can also recall native Nothern Americans that were forced to pick up rifles. However, the NAs felt behind Europeans, and we are talking about military technology advanced horde nations.
Therefore, two upgrades of infantry is a must:
LVL 15: a 12-pip “horde musketeer”, and
LVL 28: a 18-pip “horde reformed musketeer”.
Mediocre unit types that show that new technologies cannot be used immediately with great effectiveness.
Logically, the cavalry should also use similar technologies to provide mounted riflemen:
LVL 18: a 16-pip “horde rifled cavalry”, and
LVL 28: a 24-pip “horde reformed rifled cavalry”.
It is obvious that nations that live in tents and gaze horses should be better riders than any other civilized country; therefore, better cavalry for midgame and late game (provided that they have good technology, and hence weaponry).
LVL 15 for infantry is three techs (30 yeas?) behind Europeans get firepower (represents one generation to learn how to use those boom-sticks).
LVL 18 for cavalry is three techs (30 years?) after the hordes get hand-used firepower (represents a generation to learn how to use the boom-sticks when mounted).
LVL 28 and 28 for both cavalry and infantry could represent possible reform in military organisation and technological breakthrough in rifles.
The only problem for AI hordes is to stay alive and kicking until these levels of technology that is almost impossible for an AI.
Rifles were very terrible for cavalry, especially when you have a huge number of cavalry trained in the bow and arrow. Horde cavalry should probably upgrade like normal, while Horde Infantry upgrades should be a bit far and fewer.
IMO, hordes should be able to raise legitimacy by winning wars, if the system is kept as it is now.
Indeed. The (Apparently OP?) sacking event. What was that 1.2?
It used to give money and legitimacy IIRC.
Yup. First horde nerf was in 1.2 which removed that event and nerfed the manpower/forcelimit bonus from 100% to 50%.
Then second horde nerf in 1.3 which removed westernization for hordes and made reform a requirement
Then third horde nerf in 1.4 or 1.5 which removed the ability for Timurids/Manchus to tag switch to Mughals/Qing without reform
Yeah, Paradox really, really has it out for the hordes.