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.
The Oirats lasted all the way into the mid-18th century, if you consider the Dzungars their continuation.
Edit: They (the Dzungars) also had firearms manufactories. Really, they're a pretty good case for why Paradox gets the hordes wrong.
Edit: They (the Dzungars) also had firearms manufactories. Really, they're a pretty good case for why Paradox gets the hordes wrong.
Last edited:
They appear pretty capable of pulling this off in EU4 still (left to their own devices and facing other similarly undisturbed NPC enemies) so I'm not sure what's so terribly wrong that Paradox does about them
I don't believe AI makes any extensive use of the looting mechanics, so it's doubtful this most recent change is really such a huge nerf to them as some people are making it.
The lack of gunpowder units, for one thing.
Also the Dzungars actually posed a credible military challenge to both Russia and the Qing. No nomad state is going to pose a challenge to anybody in a game of EU4 that lasts into the 18th century.
If the nomad state can hold quarter of Asia by the time the game ends then I'd estimate it can probably take on about anything but European power . I'm not sure why this isn't considered satisfactory and what should be a better/desirable state of things -- Oirats dining in Paris after rolling through Russia and half of Europe?
Take on anything? It's more like China fractures - With Ming being a paper tiger - and that Qing does not exists and no one else gives a crap about them. Also, generally the AI "reforms" late-game, but the fact that Nomad Unit tech lacks gunpowder units is ridiculous.
If a tech 1-1-1 state somehow survives into the 18th century because no one cared about them, are you going to assume they are OP or balanced?
I suspect the Oirats aren't holding their own as much as they are being ignored by Russia, which isn't really the same thing. A big Oirat blob formed the last time I played in Siberia, but I could cut through their stacks effortlessly with much smaller reformed horde armies, and I didn't even play that game to the end. Russia should be more interested in claiming Siberia, and hordes should be in a better position to resist.
They appear pretty capable of pulling this off in EU4 still (left to their own devices and facing other similarly undisturbed NPC enemies) so I'm not sure what's so terribly wrong that Paradox does about them
I don't believe AI makes any extensive use of the looting mechanics, so it's doubtful this most recent change is really such a huge nerf to them as some people are making it.
That Oirat looks impressive right up until the moment where you realise that it's sitting on provinces that are a) large and b) very low basetax. (Seriously, by my calculations it has precisely 9 provinces with a basetax higher than 3.)
And the looting change is a nerf to a player-controlled horde above all.
Most of the horde nerfs, individually, are not massive issues (with one or two exceptions like the "your units don't upgrade; also, you can't recruit anyone else's either, and we've decided that you aren't allowed guns apart from artillery" and "here's a free 25% autonomy for all provinces except your capital"); it's just that it's a cumulative thing that's been going on for patch after patch with no end in sight and - AFAIK - absolutely no explanation from the dev team as to why it's necessary.
1/4 of Asia? That's not c1/10th of the tax of Asia. At least give us the impression that you've played the area ever. In two lines you've managed to say multiple things suggesting you have not!
The "must reform to westernize" was a similarly large (albeit reasonable) nerf, but it combo'd really poorly with the "you must reform and need legitimacy to reform, but we removed the events that give you legitimacy so hope you have high luck skill".
Also, forcing players to reform in order to form nations was a pretty heavy nerf, because being pigeon hole'd into idea groups for reform earlier on has a material impact on your progression as a whole.
Russia could eat that Oirat in one and a half overseas expansion wars (looks like they already started)
I am sure we would see AI win with 15 pip disadvantage on infantry fire/shock alone ))
Maybe should stick to commenting about nations with easymode techgroups
I am sure we would see AI win with 15 pip disadvantage on infantry fire/shock alone ))
It's market stategie, first they distract us with mesoamerican then they nerf it, then boom new dlc, it's just gonna happen be patient
Due to the removal of ships and the way the mechanics are construed, the mesoamericans are not materially stronger now than in 1.7 or 1.9.2. They are not, however, as over-nerfed as the hordes have been since the start. Nothing buffed Mesoamerica (and the others in South America) as hard as the removal of the ridiculous -2/month penalty.
To be fair I understand Pdox' attempts to make hordes actually be beaten in this game, this was the timeframe where they finally were outmatched. Then again that didn't stop Paradox from making European pagans, who were similarly defeated or converted in that time period, extremely strong in CK2.
Pretty sure this does not apply to Suomenusko, and last time I played CK2, Tengri was still the op pagan religion that reformed faster than all the others because of conveniently placed sacred sites.
Hordes have been torn like tissue paper in the mid-late game since patches dating over a year ago. The only way it doesn't happen these days is when Muscovy gets pounded by the rebel mechanics, PLC, or 30YW, one of which finds its way onto them with some frequency. Even so, hordes can do basically nothing late game regardless, other than the ones that take something that lets them reform early.
Their nerfs have long since gone past the point of being "let Europe win". That's not a valid consideration. Besides, two of the hordes in this period were big winners, among the most successful nations in the world in the timeframe. On a ratio basis, how does that compare to European monarchies? Favorably.
How does it compare to, say, merchant republics? The answer to that really makes the horde nerfs look like a joke in the context of the game overall.
Nor from making Merchant Republics strong in EU4, when this was the timeframe where they fell harder and and faster than the hordes ever did.
Yet merchant republic government is very strong in bonuses.
I personally think requiring the hordes to reform before forming a nation like Qing or Persia was the stupidest thing they could've done. Now you rarely see Mughals, Persia, or Qing in games. And now the only reason I see Persia and Mughals is because Timmy collapses due to rebels, and Qing is no where to be found.
I'm sure in the next patch the hordes will get nerfed even more, like nomad tech being increased to 200% or lower tax income for horde governments.
Genoa, Venice, and the Hansa all lost lands during this time period. In fact, I can't think of a single merchant republic that gained territory.
In fact, by 1821 Venice was gonhe, Genoa was gone, and the Hansa were reduced to Lubeck.
In fact, by 1821 Venice was gonhe, Genoa was gone, and the Hansa were reduced to Lubeck.
I would argue that even The Hansa was gone by then. It hadn't functioned as a merchant republic for a long time. The last formal meeting was in 1669, from then on it was more or less just verbal adherence, though it was the three cities of Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen that still called themselves Hanseatic cities until 1862.
After that last meeting there was no actual Hansa left, and just cities who used it much like monarch use(d) all kinds of silly titles they no longer have/had any claim to.