I suppose there's paranoia from Divine Wind, in which the Golden Horde was actually a threat to the Russian states, rather than a nuisance.
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 suppose there's paranoia from Divine Wind, in which the Golden Horde was actually a threat to the Russian states, rather than a nuisance.
No, the problem is that pro-nerf faction keep repeating, that this is "debate based on opinions" (I wonder if it's somehow related to lack of arguments supported by references on their part?). There is no such thing as debate based solely on opinions, it's just expression of opinions. And opinions without clearly stated arguments in their support are worthless, even poisoneus because they distract people from the topic being discussed.
So, because AI wasn't programmed to use X we should remove X? Maybe it would be better to teach AI to use it instead? Why nerfing humans? I don't get it.
More BT - more MP to spend on coring. So hordes are net negative with that. And due to LA cap their RoI of forementioned MP (and AE for that matter) is less than before.
A lot's been said in this thread and there's some interesting reading, when people aren't getting too emotionally involved in it. I've only read some of it, so I might be repeating what someone else has said.
So, I'm with Wiz in general here: the way player hordes were recruiting in other cores didn't make a lot of sense thematically, the AIs weren't doing it, basically it wasn't the intended use of the mechanic. I can understand why it's been removed.
But I would say two things... hordes have their strengths, but their own disadvantages as well, tech maluses and the local autonomy change. So they should, I think, get upgraded units at various stages above tech 9, even if those units are distinctively poorer than those in other tech groups. I don't think they'll be OP as a result.
Secondly, the event to reform government should have it's requirements looked at, so that it's practical, possible, and even likely from the sixteenth century onward. Without having to rely on good fortune. It's something that players should be able to engineer, and that the AI should be able to do reliably.
One or both of these changes would be most welcome, and surely they'd only be good for game balance.
So, I'm with Wiz in general here: the way player hordes were recruiting in other cores didn't make a lot of sense thematically, the AIs weren't doing it, basically it wasn't the intended use of the mechanic. I can understand why it's been removed.
But I would say two things... hordes have their strengths, but their own disadvantages as well, tech maluses and the local autonomy change. So they should, I think, get upgraded units at various stages above tech 9, even if those units are distinctively poorer than those in other tech groups. I don't think they'll be OP as a result.
Secondly, the event to reform government should have it's requirements looked at, so that it's practical, possible, and even likely from the sixteenth century onward. Without having to rely on good fortune. It's something that players should be able to engineer, and that the AI should be able to do reliably.
One or both of these changes would be most welcome, and surely they'd only be good for game balance.
I just saw my first ever AI horde reform. I was shocked when Timurids rivaled me in ~1700 (as Venice, having crushed the Ottomans). No Mughals likely, they don't control Delhi yet, and probably won't succeed in doing so, with Russia coming down on them like a hammer. But I'm still shocked. I'm not sure how the AI managed 90+ legit and 3 stability at the same time.
The problem is that we know that hordes were stronger and lasted in longer EU4. The field of history is as sure in this, as it is in Spain colonizing vast parts of the Americas.
Why does Spain gain a colonist in it's NIs? I mean the strengths and history of Spain is merely opinions. So it is my opinion that Spain's colonist idea should be replaced with +1 heretic tolerance, and their bonus true faith tolerance replaced by +25% religious unity.
Any argument for why Spain shouldn't get those NIs instead which as much as mentions the word history, also applies to not further nerfing hordes. So, would you have a problem with Spain getting those NIs? How about if Russia switched NIs with Japan or Prussia, would you have a problem with that?
I had to read what you were saying twice, but I think I get your point. It's not just an opinion that Spain was a prolific coloniser and an extreme advocate of Catholicism, it's historical fact. Likewise, because it's historical fact that the hordes were more successful than we see from the gameplay experiences of EU4, it would make more sense to find ways to improve the hordes, rather than to weaken them.
I do happen to think though that we need a better way to do this, the gamey way that hordes used non-horde units is not ideal, even if it remained in the game for a long time.
The biggest reason they had to use non-horde units was because they didn't get units of their own upon teching up. So just give them new units and you fix the biggest complaint people have with playing hordes. If you want them to reform, get rid of the legitimacy requirement, and you fix the second biggest complaint people have with playing hordes.
That's literally all they need.
great to see you back TheMeInTeam!
woah! reforming sounds a lot more fun now!:wub:
i wonder now which countries hordes could form the best.....
would lol if the best country to form Manchu to Qing and japan in 1.8 would be Oirat!
(filler for reaction .gif)
woah! reforming sounds a lot more fun now!:wub:
i wonder now which countries hordes could form the best.....
would lol if the best country to form Manchu to Qing and japan in 1.8 would be Oirat!
source
Hussars and Reiters used mainly carbines and pistols which possessed far worse ballistics than rifles, and thats considering the era when a trained bow and arrow user could compete with a musketeer. Hordes had huge numbers of very well trained horse archers, so it is kind of understandable that they would not be as wowed by firearms as Europeans were. The main benefit of firearms is that they required little training to use effectively, and thus brought about the beginnings of a conscript army that would eventually render the professional armies of feudal Europe obsolete.
Mughals is case in point, they had a large number of horse archers, but at the same time they also had a huge number of conscripts with matchlocks. IMO, 'Advanced' Steppe troops should probably involve Horse Archers with Rifled Infantry.
Wont ever happen. That would be a huge nerf to Russia.
Last edited:
1) Players exploiting a mechanic should never be sufficient cause to remove that mechanic, especially when the mechanic is long-standing, WAD, and the removal has consequences beyond the alleged exploit. If the offending exploit has no meaningful impact on anyone else's games, why even consider a nerf to begin with. Better to investigate why an exploit is deemed necessary and address the underlying issues. And, no, redefining mechanic that was WAD last week as not WAD this week, simply because you don't like how one small group of players is using it doesn't really work. Nor is it convincing to assert that the mechanic isn't needed or useful, anymore, when that is simply not the case.
2) "huge boost" demonstrates that you really need to familiarize yourself with this mechanic. I suspect you also need to familiarize yourself with Horde play, too, if you consider the reform process appropriately "hard".
3) Did you just assert that all mechanics that are only used by the human player should be removed from the game? Does that include the new ones they're releasing today?
Don't joke. If I search through ancient disks, I suspect I can find a version of EU that models much of that region exactly as you describe. So I do not consider this option so far-fetched.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.
I like being with Wiz, too, but I can't understand why they didn't address the root problem(s), instead of removing a symptomatic response. The root problems are fairly easily addressed, as you, yourself, demonstrate in your next two sentences. This mechanic is hardly an ideal one for Horde players, it's just the best they can come up with. But it is (was) a moderately useful, entertaining, and historical mechanic for many players in niche situations. No more, for no good reason.
See. You just fixed most of the problem, right there. And you didn't have to remove a perfectly sound game feature.
And the even simpler, more elegant solution that has been proposed for months. And ignored.
Instead they chose to nerf Hordes more, with little of no apparent thought of collateral consequences. Why? Still unclear, but one begins to suspect that it's ingrained behavior by now.
Well, one thing I don't want us to do is to antagonize the developers. That's why I'd prefer if we move over to the other topic:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?809803-Horde-Improvement-Suggestions-Thread!
I hope that they sift through this topic and find a way to keep unreformed hordes in the game, even late game.
Hordes should be a sort of EU4 "benchmark" - if you're able to play a successful unreformed horde late game, it means that you're a decent player.
As a reward you can play a very aggressive game, as a drawback your empire is much harder to keep together than a normal country: every time your ruler dies all hell breaks loose unless you can keep the lid on.
As you said, horde depiction in EU has evolved from earlier games, so I doubt that they're actually "against" hordes, it's just that they are currently a very low priority - this is what we should be focusing on.
Hordes have huge potential - the draw of Timur or Genghis Khan, of Mongolia and Crimea and the Golden Horde are great. They can easily become some of the most played countries in the game.
Something worth mentioning: I don't condone unreformed hordes in multiplayer. Against decent human players unreformed horde players should be stomped. Or on very high difficulty levels (if they are ever added to the game).
I hope Paradox sees horde potential and does something about it
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?809803-Horde-Improvement-Suggestions-Thread!
I hope that they sift through this topic and find a way to keep unreformed hordes in the game, even late game.
Hordes should be a sort of EU4 "benchmark" - if you're able to play a successful unreformed horde late game, it means that you're a decent player.
As a reward you can play a very aggressive game, as a drawback your empire is much harder to keep together than a normal country: every time your ruler dies all hell breaks loose unless you can keep the lid on.
As you said, horde depiction in EU has evolved from earlier games, so I doubt that they're actually "against" hordes, it's just that they are currently a very low priority - this is what we should be focusing on.
Hordes have huge potential - the draw of Timur or Genghis Khan, of Mongolia and Crimea and the Golden Horde are great. They can easily become some of the most played countries in the game.
Something worth mentioning: I don't condone unreformed hordes in multiplayer. Against decent human players unreformed horde players should be stomped. Or on very high difficulty levels (if they are ever added to the game).
I hope Paradox sees horde potential and does something about it
Actually, no. I cite facts to support my arguments and opinions. That is a very important step, because it affords the arguments and opinions credibility, credibility that doesn't exist when you can not back your opinions or arguments with any facts.
Despite your claim that there is no need for more, the reasoning is insufficient. I clearly showed that the mechanic had serious limitations that, when married to the 75% tech penalty, made the decision to remain horde non-trivial. Neither you nor Wiz was able to refute this, which is likely why you refuse to address it directly. I assert that you would struggle to demonstrate the "exploit" provided a consistently material advantage over reforming the government even in the previous patch, especially in the case of being able to reform into Muslim tech.
Hordes underperformed in 1.7, and this cap is only applied to hordes, not others who take the land. It can therefore be seen as a buff to Russia (which is ahistorically weak in Europe and ahistorically strong in Asia) and a nerf to the weaker nations, something that has yet to be justified.
But then they'd have 50% autonomy to everyone, and that isn't a horde specific nerf
.Indeed.
Have you ever seen a successful unreformed horde in a competitive MP environment? Even in 1.5 when I managed to take over Siberia instead of Muscovy with Kazan in one of the dogewars, administrative was my 2nd group and it was used to reform.
Very true. Yet more reason why steppe nations are currently castrated and need their testicles reattached.
Whoever suggested that the steppe nations deserve to be removed and made uncolonised land should be sent on a compulsory Central Asian history course.
Definietely. Their bodies should be removed from Earth who said them because of no-brain or must be sent on a compulsory Turkic-Mongol history course as you said. They just a bug for our eyes who said them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that was a serious suggestion, but rather someone mocking the logical conclusion of people claiming that it's okay to treat the steppe nations as sub-humans incapable of wielding weaponry even if they have the knowledge of how to do so.
Yeah, I was obviously joking (well, I guess it wasn't obvious.)
My favorite Eu4 campaign remains my Great Khan run; albeit the easier Golden Horde version.
I think the reason of non-developed mounted riflemen or underperformance of those was the fact that European nations had no such ties to horses as the hordes did (and some of their descendants do now). Europe has not so much space to provide enough pastures for horses, unlike Asian steppes. European horsemen simply used firearms of mass production that was somewhat adjusted by late 19th century.
I was assuming that one horde nation being extremely smart and lucky could develop its own firearms by late 16th century (1596—LVL 15), and put all efforts to adjust them for mounted use by the 1Q of the 17th century (1735—LVL 18). Besides the technology LVL 18 is called 'Carbine'—'The carbine was a shorter form of the musket'. The level would perfectly fit the concept of firearmed riders for the hordes.
The case of Mughals with riflemen + non-firearms riders was simply the lack of technological advance and pro-military development course. Mughal Empire earned its initial borders 100 years before the dates I am talking of, and India was covered much more with jungles back then (+mountains and hills to the N and NE, and deserts to the NW), not mainly steppes or plains to use mounted troops with great efficiency.
A compulsory central Asian history course would do many people good on this thread.
Even if they did perfectly fit, it would still not discount the fact that firearms were worse than bows for cavalry up until after 1800s (outside of the EU4 time period) when the integrated cartridge and breech-loader were invented. Until that point, bows were technically superior weapons. If EU4 went past 1820 then it would make sense for Hordes to use firearms, but it does not.
As I said before, theres a very good reason why even European cavalry has very few fire pips.