Why nerf hordes more

[Tacticus101]

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?

I said that most hordes fell off by the 1600s. The people replying to me (including you I believe) responded by claiming that plenty of Hordes lasted until after 1800. I am simply asking for examples.

But you know, if you wish to continue to avoid the question, attacking me directly and putting words in my mouth then feel free. I mean, seriously, that last bit? when did I say anything like that?

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.

I am not defending the nerf, I am defending the (first) post I made on this thread, the one from which this chain of argument started:

On a relevant note, does anyone have a list of Hordes that actually survived beyond 1600, the date where their armies start to be seriously outclassed?

Because from what I can see:
-Timurids fell apart and became the Mughals or Persia
-The Golden Horde and all the Russia hordes were conquered or became vassals
-Crimea became a vassal/protectorate of the Ottomans
-The Uzbeks formed Bukhara
-The Manchurians formed Qing
-The Buddhist hordes mostly reformed or were conquered/vassalised by Qing or other nearby powers
-Some hordes in Siberia arguably remained independent, mainly by being a long way away from major powers.

Any other hordes?
Almost all the surviving Hordes (and all the Major ones) reformed or were vassals of another power.

For the most part it seems that a falloff date of 1600 is reasonably accurate.


Plus, in my view the idea of Hordes having to rely on vassal armies to succeed beyond early game is reasonably accurate. The golden horde is a particular example of this, but all hordes frequently demanded tribute and soldiers from conquered lands rather than directly occupying it themselves.

The funny thing is that no one has answered by question yet, they just keep repeating that I am wrong in different ways. (its cool though, TMIT is back, he at least tends to provide evidence).

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.

One: My question has nothing to do with them having cities, it is (quoted from the post I first asked it): "does anyone have a list of Hordes that actually survived beyond 1600, the date where their armies start to be seriously outclassed?". Although, I haven't seen any of those other evidence since I posted that.

Two: The wiki article you gave, the section you pointed to of hordes past 1600 was filled (entirely as far as I could see) with vassals of Persia or, at the very best, semi-autonomous city states that broke away. All it did was prove my point that hordes didn't survive unless they reformed or became subjects of another nation.

Three: Because they reform differently from Native Americans. Also, because I think it is historical that they rely on vassal troops for a lot of their armies. Note however, I have already said that I think Hordes should get more unit types.

 

[RobRoy3]

I said that most hordes fell off by the 1600s. The people replying to me (including you I believe) responded by claiming that plenty of Hordes lasted until after 1800. I am simply asking for examples.

You should probably be more aware of who you're responding to and what they said, rather than conflating everyone who might disagree with you into one person. Seems to me, though, lots of people were providing you with examples, if not an exhaustive list. But I noticed you were declining to accept that the examples provided fit whatever definition you were applying at the time.

But you know, if you wish to continue to avoid the question...

I'm sorry, was there a question that was relevant to the topic raised in this thread that hadn't been answered? Were you asking for a list of Hordes? After 1600? After 1800? Do you lack internet access?

...attacking me directly and putting words in my mouth then feel free. I mean, seriously, that last bit? when did I say anything like that?

Which attack was that? The hyperbole about Paradox treating Central Asian nations as deficient? Perhaps you haven't noticed, yet? These are the only nations that are not allowed to take advantage of the technological advancements they have achieved? The only nations with no realistic path toward producing any kind of more modern units? The only nations who consistently get nerfed in every patch, without any kind of historical justification? (No I do not count knee-jerk, borderline racist, responses by people ignorant of the most basic Central Asian and Russian history as historical justification. If that describes you, I'm sorry. If not, let's try not to be so thin-skinned)

I am not defending the nerf, I am defending the (first) post I made on this thread, the one from which this chain of argument started:

Pity things were allowed to get so off-topic, then. I believe I reiterated the OP question in every response to you - why do we need to nerf the Hordes, again, in this patch? Every post you make seems to be both defending the recent nerfs, and promoting the belief that Central Asian powers somehow deserve nerfs because they don't fit your definition of... what exactly? "Advanced historical empires"? What is that, anyway?

The funny thing is that no one has answered by question yet, they just keep repeating that I am wrong in different ways. (its cool though, TMIT is back, he at least tends to provide evidence).

If you have a genuine question, that hasn't already been answered, I'm sure people any number of people will respond to it. TBH, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking for a history of Central Asian civilization, though, or how Steppe tribes conquered, governed, integrated, assimilated, and evolved in Central Asia over several centuries, no, I'm really not inclined to respond to that. Unfortunately, such basic things like the definition of a "Horde" or a "Khanate" is going to touch on those things. If you're asking for a list of search terms to conduct research, seems like you should be able to find that fairly easily, but try these: Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Bukhara, Dzungar, Qongirats, Khiva, Kyrgyz, Kokand, Kashgar, Qasim, Turkmens, Kirgiz, Samarkand, Astrakhan.

If you decide that some of these useful, great. If you don't, sorry. If they meet or don't meet your definition of ... whatever you think relevant, that's great, too. But I'd prefer to hear some compelling argument why Hordes need another nerf in 1.8. And if you don't think they do, maybe you should be more aware that you're coming across as if you do. Or better yet, as Oblio- suggested, maybe we should continue a more productive discussion in the other thread.

 

[Tacticus101]

You should probably be more aware of who you're responding to and what they said, rather than conflating everyone who might disagree with you into one person. Seems to me, though, lots of people were providing you with examples, if not an exhaustive list. But I noticed you were declining to accept that the examples provided fit whatever definition you were applying at the time.

In all the posts since I first posted (8 pages) there has been one set of examples given, a linked Wikipedia article. They applied to a limited number of hordes in one particular area of the world. I have already provided, multiple times, reasons why I don't think those examples are valid. If you want to argue against my reasons then feel free, but simply stating I was wrong (without reading my posts apparently) is not a valid method of debate.

I'm sorry, was there a question that was relevant to the topic raised in this thread that hadn't been answered? Were you asking for a list of Hordes? After 1600? After 1800? Do you lack internet access?

I made a claim, supported by examples. You disagree. Yet for some reason you feel that I should be looking up on google ways to disprove my own argument rather than actually providing any evidence yourself?

Which attack was that? The hyperbole about Paradox treating Central Asian nations as deficient? Perhaps you haven't noticed, yet? These are the only nations that are not allowed to take advantage of the technological advancements they have achieved? The only nations with no realistic path toward producing any kind of more modern units? The only nations who consistently get nerfed in every patch, without any kind of historical justification? (No I do not count knee-jerk, borderline racist, responses by people ignorant of the most basic Central Asian and Russian history as historical justification. If that describes you, I'm sorry. If not, let's try not to be so thin-skinned)

Well, the attack would be the incredibly patronising and immature way you address your posts to me. I mean, you did just label me borderline racist and ignorant for suggesting that the Hordes did die out by the 1600s. Its cool though, I am not offended, your ad hominem arguments are actually mildly amusing.

Pity things were allowed to get so off-topic, then. I believe I reiterated the OP question in every response to you - why do we need to nerf the Hordes, again, in this patch? Every post you make seems to be both defending the recent nerfs, and promoting the belief that Central Asian powers somehow deserve nerfs because they don't fit your definition of... what exactly? "Advanced historical empires"? What is that, anyway?

Every post I make is defending my claim that Hordes dying out by the 1600s, or more accurately falling of significantly in the military department, you make the link to nerfs. The fact that you somehow interpret posts where I very clearly say "i don't think hordes need a nerf" and in some cases suggest buffs is more of a reflection on your attitude than mine, maybe you should consider why you regard any criticisms of your arguments as Knee-jerk, racist and ignorant.

If you have a genuine question, that hasn't already been answered, I'm sure people any number of people will respond to it. TBH, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking for a history of Central Asian civilization, though, or how Steppe tribes conquered, governed, integrated, assimilated, and evolved in Central Asia over several centuries, no, I'm really not inclined to respond to that. Unfortunately, such basic things like the definition of a "Horde" or a "Khanate" is going to touch on those things. If you're asking for a list of search terms to conduct research, seems like you should be able to find that fairly easily, but try these: Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Bukhara, Dzungar, Qongirats, Khiva, Kyrgyz, Kokand, Kashgar, Qasim, Turkmens, Kirgiz, Samarkand, Astrakhan.

If you decide that some of these useful, great. If you don't, sorry. If they meet or don't meet your definition of ... whatever you think relevant, that's great, too. But I'd prefer to hear some compelling argument why Hordes need another nerf in 1.8. And if you don't think they do, maybe you should be more aware that you're coming across as if you do. Or better yet, as Oblio- suggested, maybe we should continue a more productive discussion in the other thread.

Im not sure what you are on about here...you appear to be rambling about the definition of Hordes, what is the relevance of this?

 

[RobRoy3]

Im not sure what you are on about here...you appear to be rambling about the definition of Hordes, what is the relevance of this?

I'm not sure. You keep bringing it up. I lost track of what you were arguing awhile ago. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing of relevance here, if you agree that Hordes don't need a nerf.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

-Timurids fell apart and became the Mughals or Persia

Good ole Timmy got conquered, it wasn't just falling apart. The nations that did so were other hordes too. The land Aq Qoyunlu took is what became Persia, not Timmy, though it's interesting they're not mentioned in your list . Anyway, in the case of Timurids, there is no clear historical break point of "reform" that shows up. Mughals is an Indian term for Mongols (or something along those lines), is it not? What "formation" actually took place? It seems to me a largely conquered tribe rose up, conquered a large chunk of India, and continued. At what point did this mythical "reform" take place? The Mughals, even early in history, clearly used firearms.

-The Golden Horde and all the Russia hordes were conquered or became vassals

It's hard to use conquered nations as a basis for either side of the argument, similar to using conquered nations in Europe to support them having more autonomy it just wouldn't make sense. GH you could argue already "reformed" by 1444 based on its population though.

-Crimea became a vassal/protectorate of the Ottomans

This is a bit misleading. While true that they were at one point, Ottoman influence over Crimea increased and waned across the time period. Ottomans respected the khan of Crimea through much of this period, Crimea being a protectorate of Ottomans was not a through-the-period setup at all.

-The Uzbeks formed Bukhara

The Uzbeks conquered into Timurids, then "formed" Bukhara. Once again, it's not clear exactly at what point that nation stopped being a "steppe horde government" and started being a regular old monarchy, mostly because the distinction was never as emphatic as the game represents and also partially because that transition away from pure nomadic lifestyle had already begun for most of these nations by the 1444 bookmark.

-The Manchurians formed Qing

Not...exactly. This is a special case, and certainly not how depicted in the game. This is an excellent case against the reform requirement to form Qing though; this transition happened lightning fast and with nowhere near the stab alteration the game implies.

-The Buddhist hordes mostly reformed or were conquered/vassalised by Qing or other nearby powers

1. What % of these hordes was actually Buddhist in 1444 ?
2. The only Buddhist hordes in the game are Oirat and Mongolia. Oirat nearly lasted the entire period, probably the most nomadic example so far, and far outlasted numerous western/eastern European examples.

-Some hordes in Siberia arguably remained independent, mainly by being a long way away from major powers.

Kazakh *did* survive the entire period, and a few decades past. They did this while bordering and raiding Russia. They used long barrel rifles later in the period on infantry. There's no "arguable" there; Kazakh was an independent entity. At what point did they "reform" via technology differently than other nations in the period to merit special treatment in the game though?

Crimea, Kazakh, Bukhara, Mughals, Oirat, were all independent nations with no clear cutoff of when they stopped being "horde" and yet survived the majority or all the period, fielding infantry with firearms well after your 1600 cutoff. Claiming these nations were hordes is roughly as accurate as claiming their 1444 versions were hordes; I've never been able to find evidence of a hard shift in governance between their supposedly historical "switch".

The definition of "horde" in the first place, and whether anything in history merits such a hardline distinction in the game, is a very real and central point to this discussion. I haven't seen any evidence of these nations showing a hard governmental shift akin to what is required to "form". They conquered lands and then gradually (or in the case of Qing, not very gradually) took on elements of that culture.

 

[bbqftw]

Apparently hordes can't make marches.

I am really hoping this happened due to "hordes can't be marches" being miscoded...

As a side note, I wonder if hordes being unable to protectorate North American nations is intended. Maybe also a similar case of "hordes can't be protectorates" also being miscoded.

 

[Novacat]

I made a claim, supported by examples.

Your examples are incorrect. Nearly a half dozen people are telling you they are incorrect. That is why you should look things up.

 

[forrseti]

With the change in looting one more nerf to the hordes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The sad thing about this particular thread, is that not only was it relevant at the time, it remains relevant every patch since. It's basically impossible to truly necro it :/. 25% LA floors, gimping them out of using or even being marches (why exactly?), taking away their CBs as subjects, and now trashing looting...the "fun" never ends. BYZ players don't know the real pain.

There has been no true gameplay justifications for horde nerfings in over a year, yet patch in and patch out we see them again, directly or indirectly, sometimes both.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Yes, and you werent even here when in Sept. 2013 patch 1.2 they removed the sacking event which gave hordes legitimacy. Ah and did you know that Horde gov. used to give +100% Manpower/Forcelimit?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, and you werent even here when in Sept. 2013 patch 1.2 they removed the sacking event which gave hordes legitimacy. Ah and did you know that Horde gov. used to give +100% Manpower/Forcelimit?

I wasn't around before my join date, but I've heard. You could even westernize w/o reforming at first.

They were a bit strong in those times. By the time 1.4 rolled around, that had stopped being the case, but the nerfs never stopped. We're into double digits and PI just keeps hammering them.

 

[InnocentIII]

Having thought about it, I'm okay with this change. Coming up with strategies to terrorize as a late game horde will be fun.

I get the sense that you already have one.

So beacuse DDRJake posts his screenshots of Ryukyu WC, does it mean that Ryukyu should be hit with nerfbat, because screenshot of succesful WC with them? Also screenshots are done BEFORE 1.8 which will bring another batch of nerfs to already severly nerfed hordes.

Yes. Nerf Ryukuyu!

The problem, as someone who has yet to play Hordes, is how much is left that would make them worth the effort? If I'm playing Scotland and form the UK and it made me identical to England->UK, what was the point? So I guess it depends a lot on whether reformed Horde are different enough to warrant the effort at the start.

A Horde DLC wouldn't guarantee them remaining viable. Look at all the special stuff that Byzantium got, and all the efforts into making it unsurvivable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I get the sense that you already have one.

Actually, this happened. You can look at bbqftw's link. Hordes are one of a few NI sets that could get -100% attrition.

For fun, check the 1.10 patch notes and see what happened to -100% attrition, despite that it wasn't viable MP play. Like Wiz said, hordes are intended to be "reform or die", but they appear hell bent on gimping the hell out of horde flavor on top of that, to the point of removing content, tradeoffs, and making historical formations require a nonsensical reform just to still be worse than competing nations nearby.

A Horde DLC wouldn't guarantee them remaining viable. Look at all the special stuff that Byzantium got, and all the efforts into making it unsurvivable.

The harder hordes are on another level from BYZ. Play Mongolia until you can win independence within 10 years 3-5 times in a row. Then play any patch version of BYZ and tell me it isn't a joke by comparison . Even Aq Qoyunlu, which massively outperformed BYZ in this timeframe, is much harder than BYZ lol. I wonder if they still start with 10 unrest "base" for no reason.

A horde DLC that makes them stronger would make the patch behavior from 1.4 - now look dishonest, like creating a problem then selling the fix.

Hordes were in a fine place in the 1.5 area or so, just before PI took away their ability to do formable nations w/o first reforming. They had strong abilities but would tend to fall behind in tech. Their foreign core strategy forced them to use one unit type and made mercs a non-starter option for them, creating a tough choice because they don't pay reinforcement costs on mercs. They were a legit threat in their land for a while, but would eventually fall off, and were far inferior to competition like Muscovy or Ottomans, also limited to poor land in most cases.

So why the nerfs? Nobody could answer that then, and nobody will be able to do so competently now either.

 

[JStrayer]

I have kept off playing hordes for a while now after some initial enthusiasm with them, waiting for the Asian religion/horde DLC I feel is so needed. Each patch it feels further off... and disappointing DLC with a ridiculous mandatory nation designer isn't encouraging.

 

[DevastatingTech]

Typical PI worker: NERF HORDES NERF NERF NERF

I support this thread and TheMeInTeam

 

[Saintlukas]

I wonder if everytime Paradox sees a horde they have flash backs of mega GH from eu3 wrekting chaos far into the ages of long past. Of course back then hordes actually had unique mechanics and were pretty fun IMO

 

[zlamaj]

For some reason I never played as a horde. Looking at the history of nerfs for them, I sure as hell won't play one now.

 

[birincikalite]

For some reason I never played as a horde. Looking at the history of nerfs for them, I sure as hell won't play one now.

Does being weak make it not fun for you to play? IMO hordes are always fun. Were even more fun in EU III

 

[eon47]

For some reason I never played as a horde. Looking at the history of nerfs for them, I sure as hell won't play one now.

I wouldn't necessarily avoid hordes. I played GH in the last version, and I still enjoyed myself. That doesn't change how silly their treatment is, of course, but it's not a reason to put them off.

 

[EMT0]

The Khanate of the Crimea was so incompetent and feeble and unable to resist by game start that it raided Muscovy in 1571 and torched Moscow. Come on now. The Crimean Khanate were a staple of Ottoman cavalry and present in just about every European war the Ottomans fought. According to Wikipedia, the Crimean Khanate declined when the Ottomans declined, being unable to raid as much loot as before and suffering from a shortage of firearms. Which as a result, saw them losing to the Russians and most notably the Cossacks.