Why nerf hordes more

[YuriiH]

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.

Similar phrase “Rifles were very terrible for infantry” may also aply to any country's infantry that is trained in the bow and arrow, but especially in the sword(!) or pike(!)—you need to put all your efforts to train your huge army of dummies (that know only 'hack and slash' or 'pike wall') how to load a bullet, aim and fire.
Let us recall mounted firearms of 16th century such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter
or mounted riflemen of 18-19th century such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussar and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carabinier
or many others...
As I have mentioned, LVL 18 could represent one generation to learn how to use the boom-sticks when mounted, and to adjust the size of those boom-sticks to be suitable in mounted position.
60 years of training into more advanced weapon is enough, provided that military organisation is high and military technology does not fall behind.

That would also be good in terms of marketing: 1) DLC for the hordes revam for $8.99 with new mechanics (as NAs), 2) DLC for horde model reskin for $1.49 with rifled cavalry, 3) DLC for horde music for $1.99 with some altaic/tatar/mongol music
And of course a bunch of new content for those who do not buy the DLC: 'hordes get min +50% autonomy (that cannot be reduced without DLC mechanics)' + 'new horde unit types (that, say, require double expenses which cannot be decreased without DLC mechanics)'

 

[YuriiH]

IMO, hordes should be able to raise legitimacy by winning wars, if the system is kept as it is now.

Extremely great idea!
That is all about hordes: to show power over neighbours. The chief who shows power - is highly legimate, unlike the chief who is defeated in wars.
And the other side of the coin: loosing wars and probably white peace decreases legitimacy significantly (by 25 / 10 respectively). This will make 'conscession of defeat'/'white peace' with minor partners in wars extremely unpopular among horde-players.

 

[mgoetze]

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.

You forgot some, such as the house of peace nerf and the strongly reduced army tradition from looting.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Extremely great idea!
That is all about hordes: to show power over neighbours. The chief who shows power - is highly legimate, unlike the chief who is defeated in wars.
And the other side of the coin: loosing wars and probably white peace decreases legitimacy significantly (by 25 / 10 respectively). This will make 'conscession of defeat'/'white peace' with minor partners in wars extremely unpopular among horde-players.

as long as this bonus stay minor (since in the beginning of EUIV it was there and was really OP) it could work...

if it was something like -25 legitimacy when war is lost... -10 legitimacy when white peace... +5 legitimacy when war is won...
anything stronger would upset the balance far too much in favor of the hordes which are not supposed to have high legitimacy stable dynasties...

 

[wingzero890]

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.

Completely true. I do not understand why Hordes are the only group that has been consistently nerfed in just about every patch.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Completely true. I do not understand why Hordes are the only group that has been consistently nerfed in just about every patch.

because they had easily exploitable mechanics... and because they are supposed to perform very badly (except the very early game), unless they reform (which is supposed to be really hard)...

 

[YuriiH]

anything stronger would upset the balance far too much in favor of the hordes which are not supposed to have high legitimacy stable dynasties...

That is true. To think, the horde chief IS obliged to win wars. It is his position that necessitates this course of actions, giving minor legitimacy (or legitimacy boost (!), say, +0.01-1 per year of truce time depending on warscore and basetax of the neighbour) when winning, and taking major when loosing.

E.g.,
If the horde of 150 basetax annexes some 15 basetax minor, this will not upset the balance at all because the boost could be 1 * 15/150 * 100% = 0.1 per year for 15 years.
If the horde of 150 basetax defeats with concession some 15 basetax minor ally, the boost could be 1 * 15/150 * 10% = 0.01 per year for 6 years (probably more or less, I do not remember the truce timer).
If the horde of 15 basetax defeats Ming with over 9000 basetax with 100% , the boost could be 1 * over 9000/15 (NMT 3) * 100% = 3 per year for 15 years.

 

[wingzero890]

because they had easily exploitable mechanics... and because they are supposed to perform very badly (except the very early game), unless they reform (which is supposed to be really hard)...

If by 'supposed to' you mean, in terms of game design, then that's not debatable since Paradox has made it clear what they want players to do when playing Hordes now (reform or die hurr). However, the mechanics for reforming are pretty terrible, because
A) They remove player choice and force you to take one of three predetermined idea groups and
B) Legitimacy requirement can kill your attempt to reform, which is something that players cannot influence in any meaningful way. If you get one bad pop up or early ruler death, say goodbye to reforming.

But if by 'supposed to' you mean in terms of how they performed historically, the post-mongol Tatar nations were more powerful than their Eu4 representations in every way. Examples that show how this assumption that Hordes only performed well in the 'early game' is wrong (pre 1500s, I presume) have been posted again and again in this thread, I suggest you read up a little on this topic my friend.

 

[Giacomo1405]

If by 'supposed to' you mean, in terms of game design, then that's not debatable since Paradox has made it clear what they want players to do when playing Hordes now (reform or die hurr). However, the mechanics for reforming are pretty terrible

of course, by supposed to... i mean intended to by the game... so 1.8 will be good balance for the reform or die design...
also, there is nothing wrong about making extremely hard to reform...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

because they had easily exploitable mechanics... and because they are supposed to perform very badly (except the very early game), unless they reform (which is supposed to be really hard)...

zero credibility if you don't address counter arguments already made.

 

[Giacomo1405]

zero credibility if you don't address counter arguments already made.

i seriously don't understand what you mean here...
are you saying that i should explain in detail why some of the old mechanics could be exploited and why they are supposed to perform badly unless they reform?

there is no need for that, these are things that the devs have already explained...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i seriously don't understand what you mean here...
are you saying that i should explain in detail why some of the old mechanics could be exploited and why they are supposed to perform badly unless they reform?

there is no need for that, these are things that the devs have already explained...

Actually, no. Wiz utterly failed to provide a sound basis for the 1.8 nerfs to hordes, particularly the nerf to local autonomy.

The whole concept of reform needs to die in a ditch in the first place. It represents a non-trivial degree of ignorance to the state of the horde nations in 1444 and the complete lack of unit upgrades specific to these nations only raises an eyebrow as well. Neither you nor any developer has made a convincing argument against the more eloquent forms of these arguments made previously, and the lack of even addressing them directly by most posters is very telling.

The only possible argument for barring a nation that wielded guns from unit upgrades that utilize guns (and whose troops were used as mercenaries century+ after they stop being viable in EU IV) is balance. Hordes underperform on a consistent basis aside from the now-nerfed Timurids (which aren't a topic of this thread specifically; that nerf was warranted to a degree), which completely obliterates any competent balance argument. It's not like these nations were overperforming in MP environments, and they haven't even been viable choices in many months. Nerfing nations that are already weaker than they were historically and routinely get pounded out of existence in-game, often before they actually were in reality, is not something that Wiz or any other poster has managed to defend in a reasonable manner even 22 pages deep.

It's much better to make quotes then talk about something else when you can't address the quotes though, it seems, as most take this as valid discussion :/.

 

[Peachrocks]

It's much better to make quotes then talk about something else when you can't address the quotes though, it seems, as most take this as valid discussion :/.

But if people actually had to face an argument and weren't allowed to go on about irrelevant or inaccurate claims there would be hardly any 'discussion' on forums at all.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Actually, no. Wiz utterly failed to provide a sound basis for the 1.8 nerfs to hordes, particularly the nerf to local autonomy.

The whole concept of reform needs to die in a ditch in the first place. It represents a non-trivial degree of ignorance to the state of the horde nations in 1444 and the complete lack of unit upgrades specific to these nations only raises an eyebrow as well. Neither you nor any developer has made a convincing argument against the more eloquent forms of these arguments made previously, and the lack of even addressing them directly by most posters is very telling.

The only possible argument for barring a nation that wielded guns from unit upgrades that utilize guns (and whose troops were used as mercenaries century+ after they stop being viable in EU IV) is balance. Hordes underperform on a consistent basis aside from the now-nerfed Timurids (which aren't a topic of this thread specifically; that nerf was warranted to a degree), which completely obliterates any competent balance argument. It's not like these nations were overperforming in MP environments, and they haven't even been viable choices in many months. Nerfing nations that are already weaker than they were historically and routinely get pounded out of existence in-game, often before they actually were in reality, is not something that Wiz or any other poster has managed to defend in a reasonable manner even 22 pages deep.

It's much better to make quotes then talk about something else when you can't address the quotes though, it seems, as most take this as valid discussion :/.

In truth, I'm not sure that i (or anyone else) can provide incofutable proofs of something like what's the correct balance... my posts, those of the others and even yours are more opinions that inconfutable truths...
that said, the 2 changes that are being discussed are the 25% authonomy and the no more foreign units...

The reason behind the "no more foreign units" is that it is considered a gamey exploit... since a player can completly circumvent the absence of hordes units upgrade by recruiting only foreign units... recruiting only foreign units it's not WAD so this change has been made...

The reason behind the minimum cap on hordes is connected to the idea the hordes where less efficient in province exploitation then stable governments... i've no problems with this... the balance changes with this is that Hordes underperforn (in comparion to RL) a little bit (in ai hands), fading away sooner... but since the perfect balance it's almost impossible to reach it's not that bad... if they were to overperform we would have a major problem because it could cause problem to Muscovy-Russia as major threat on eastern Europe for the most part of the game (and balance-wise Russia is more relevant to the game because it influence all of Europe and the entire world while the hordes only their regions)... so if we need tweak the balance of the game a little bit in favor of russia to have a better outcome for the game, so be it... the perfect balance is almost impossible to reach there will always be someone who tend to underperform or overperform mst of the times (in ai hands)...

all the others changes made have reasons like this, which are all based on opinions on what should be happening in the game, not on scientific truths... (the basic idea is that some of the hordes mechanic in the beginning were OP so they have been tweaked, removed, changed)

The idea that the hordes game should be focused on the "reform or die" system is what the devs thinks would work best for the game and changes have been made trying to make this work... i think it'll works well enough...

But if people actually had to face an argument and weren't allowed to go on about irrelevant or inaccurate claims there would be hardly any 'discussion' on forums at all.

i know this is not an accademic discussion about the society and military organization of the hordes... this is a discussion on what makes a good game with concern for historical plausibility, nothing more... Opinions are relevant...

 

[unmerged(463193)]

i dont understand why all these people are supporting these nerfs to hordes. do they even play the hordes? do they even have any historical knowledge about the hordes other than "herp derp hordes live in tents lol"?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The reason behind the "no more foreign units" is that it is considered a gamey exploit... since a player can completly circumvent the absence of hordes units upgrade by recruiting only foreign units... recruiting only foreign units it's not WAD so this change has been made...

I shot this down in a rain of horde arrows and nobody so much as bothered to address the points I made on this mechanic, earlier in this thread. Until they do, quoted argument is utterly lost.

The "it's not WAD it's an exploit" is a random assertion out of left field levied on an obviously intended mechanic that existed since 1.0. Suddenly they didn't like how it was applied in one case and it's a bug? No sell, especially given its limitations, which are many (including no auto upgrades, constant drain on manpower, no viable use of mercenaries, dependence on enemy tech, and limited unit type choice that typically goes against horde strengths). Rather than addressing that...people claiming this is an "exploit" just kind of avoided that reality. Debates are only won by ducking the arguments if nobody calls each other on it.

The reason behind the minimum cap on hordes is connected to the idea the hordes where less efficient in province exploitation then stable governments... i've no problems with this

What your bias lacks a problem with is not relevant. You can not and I suspect strongly will never be capable of fielding evidence as to why a majority of the hordes in this time period at 1444 were materially worse at administration than a typical monarchy...or tribal despotism. That's not surprising though. PI can't do that either.

Give me a reason to change my mind.

the balance changes with this is that Hordes underperforn (in comparion to RL) a little bit (in ai hands), fading away sooner... but since the perfect balance it's almost impossible to reach it's not that bad... if they were to overperform we would have a major problem because it could cause problem to Muscovy-Russia as major threat on eastern Europe for the most part of the game (and balance-wise Russia is more relevant to the game because it influence all of Europe and the entire world while the hordes only their regions)...

Incoherent. You're trying to claim that since they already underperform, it's okay to nerf them in the name of reality happening more consistently. But, reality is happening less consistently, which you admitted by acknowledging they underperform. I don't even need to argue with this, you claimed yourself wrong. Besides, Russia generally ignores the 100% core cost and HRE walls regardless, making this non-argument exercise in arguing against oneself even more silly .

the perfect balance is almost impossible to reach there will always be someone who tend to underperform or overperform mst of the times (in ai hands)...

Nobody asked for perfect balance. We are asking that balance is not deliberately made worse, and you are arguing in favor of balance deliberately being made worse because it can't be perfect. That's unsound.

all the others changes made have reasons like this, which are all based on opinions on what should be happening in the game, not on scientific truths... (the basic idea is that some of the hordes mechanic in the beginning were OP so they have been tweaked, removed, changed)

Hmm, but perhaps some of us consider previous nerfs appropriate, but not recent nerfs. This thread is about why we're nerfing hordes more, not why we nerfed them a year ago. Citing the reasoning for nerfing them a year ago is questionable, even more so when you realize that it's been a solid 10 months since hordes other than Timurids even had a modest chance of outperforming history, and the Timurids only managed it thanks to unity rules changes and the inability for anybody of consequence to rival them.

The idea that the hordes game should be focused on the "reform or die" system is what the devs thinks would work best for the game and changes have been made trying to make this work... i think it'll works well enough...

It's an ahistorical insult to a large group of people and it runs directly counter to historical evidence, all while making ahistorically weak nations worse.

 

[Freudia]

The reason behind the "no more foreign units" is that it is considered a gamey exploit... since a player can completly circumvent the absence of hordes units upgrade by recruiting only foreign units... recruiting only foreign units it's not WAD so this change has been made...

It wasn't considered a 'gamey exploit' two patches ago, where we got Paradox confirmation that it was a fully-functional WAD mechanic. The necessity for such a mechanic purely exists only because of hordes not getting better units by teching up, unlike every other tech group in the game. What changed between then and now that resulted in what was once a WAD mechanic becoming a 'gamey mechanic', and why does that have to be removed while maintaining the bogus "hordes aren't allowed to get better units as a horde ever" nonsense?

 

[Giacomo1405]

I shot this down in a rain of horde arrows and nobody so much as bothered to address the points I made on this mechanic, earlier in this thread. Until they do, quoted argument is utterly lost.

The "it's not WAD it's an exploit" is a random assertion out of left field levied on an obviously intended mechanic that existed since 1.0. Suddenly they didn't like how it was applied in one case and it's a bug? No sell, especially given its limitations, which are many (including no auto upgrades, constant drain on manpower, no viable use of mercenaries, dependence on enemy tech, and limited unit type choice that typically goes against horde strengths). Rather than addressing that...people claiming this is an "exploit" just kind of avoided that reality. Debates are only won by ducking the arguments if nobody calls each other on it.



What your bias lacks a problem with is not relevant. You can not and I suspect strongly will never be capable of fielding evidence as to why a majority of the hordes in this time period at 1444 were materially worse at administration than a typical monarchy...or tribal despotism. That's not surprising though. PI can't do that either.

Give me a reason to change my mind.



Incoherent. You're trying to claim that since they already underperform, it's okay to nerf them in the name of reality happening more consistently. But, reality is happening less consistently, which you admitted by acknowledging they underperform. I don't even need to argue with this, you claimed yourself wrong. Besides, Russia generally ignores the 100% core cost and HRE walls regardless, making this non-argument exercise in arguing against oneself even more silly .



Nobody asked for perfect balance. We are asking that balance is not deliberately made worse, and you are arguing in favor of balance deliberately being made worse because it can't be perfect. That's unsound.



Hmm, but perhaps some of us consider previous nerfs appropriate, but not recent nerfs. This thread is about why we're nerfing hordes more, not why we nerfed them a year ago. Citing the reasoning for nerfing them a year ago is questionable, even more so when you realize that it's been a solid 10 months since hordes other than Timurids even had a modest chance of outperforming history, and the Timurids only managed it thanks to unity rules changes and the inability for anybody of consequence to rival them.



It's an ahistorical insult to a large group of people and it runs directly counter to historical evidence, all while making ahistorically weak nations worse.

The problem you think this is a history exam that can be passed or failed because there is a real truth that must be found and supported by (inexistent) sound proofs...
While this is a debate based on opinions and while i state that my opinions are just that: opinions; you try to sell your "opinions" as facts...

for what concerns the 2 nerfs discussed (others like Novacat started talking also of others nerfs, thats why i referenced to them)

The idea that a mechanic is no longer WAD because of players exploits is enough for me to accept it's removal (and i call it a player exploit not because it used to give a huge boost to the hordes but because the ai was completly unable to use it, and i don't like mechanics that can be used only by human players)... no need for more then that...

On the topic of hordes cap 25% i'm stating that the balance of total province richness
(and the ai hordes outcome/performance) in 1.8 should continue to be as it was in 1.7: the 25% authonomy caps is balanced by the increased number of provinces and total BT in horde lands compared to Russia... i don't think that the 25% min cap will nerf the hordes when you account the increased total BT...

 

[wingzero890]

Hordes should just be removed from the game as playable nations and all their provinces turned into uncolonized areas. We can represent the Tatars and Mongolians with native uprisings when you attempt to colonize the province, just give them 10k strength and max ferocity and aggressiveness.

 

[Golladan]

On the topic of hordes cap 25% i'm stating that the balance of total province richness
(and the ai hordes outcome/performance) in 1.8 should continue to be as it was in 1.7: the 25% authonomy caps is balanced by the increased number of provinces and total BT in horde lands compared to Russia... i don't think that the 25% min cap will nerf the hordes when you account the increased total BT...

Hordes weren't the only ones to get more provinces.