As mercenaries they are more expensive by default anyway. But yeah, limiting foreign core recruiting to generals sounds reasonable.
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.
As mercenaries they are more expensive by default anyway. But yeah, limiting foreign core recruiting to generals sounds reasonable.
Not so much collapsed as in conquered. The Timurid empire was more or less conquered by the White Sheep Turks (Aq Q ingame) and the Uzbeks. The rump state that was left was what eventually became the Mughals.
Hordes using that was always more of a bug than a feature, since only players did it and it was very obviously a loophole around the intended design of units not improving.
It does feel cheep, but we do this only because horde units are useless. I think it would be wiser to address core problem instead of it's consequences.
I can't see any reason why nation, that can build and sail 3-deckers and successfully operate top-notch artillery can't use muskets in infantry/cavalry. It's as illogical as magic block that forbids attacking HRE member when you already at war with an Emperor.
For consistency hordes should be banned from naval units/ideas and artillery too. But once this done, one could just forbid playing them altogether. Or force reform by an event.
But why would the hordes get stuck with one level of unit when the native american have dozens ?
Because hordes change unit type on reforming government, natives use same units even Westernized.
Agreed.
An example from another field: text messaging (SMS) was more of a bug in the GSM system, than an actual feature. The operators didn't even promote it much. Teenagers liked the system, adopted it, its popularity spread through word of mouth and it became a huge part of the operators' income.
Not everything goes as planned, not everything that doesn't go according to the plan is bad.
I agree that requiring luck to be what determines whether or not a horde can reform is stupid; the original mechanic (gain legitimacy for conquering cities) not only fit better thematically but was better for gameplay. However, though it is fairly unrealistic to claim that horde governments at the start of the game were really that different from European-style monarchies, for gameplay purposes I think some mechanic needs to be present.
So, with that in mind, do people think that some sort of "horde advances" system, similar to that available for the NA natives with CoP, could be implemented? So, give hordes a set of unlockable advances (advances giving bonuses, let me note...no maluses, please) that model transitioning their governments to more 'conventional' ones? Then, once the advances are all unlocked and a horde borders a non-nomad-tech nation, the government can be reformed (this probably should change the tech group and units, but I'm not sure how that would best be implemented. Anyone have suggestions?)
Also, I would definitely say that hordes should have halfway-decent units up through the mid-game, for those who might not want to/be able to reform the government.
So, with that in mind, do people think that some sort of "horde advances" system, similar to that available for the NA natives with CoP, could be implemented? So, give hordes a set of unlockable advances (advances giving bonuses, let me note...no maluses, please) that model transitioning their governments to more 'conventional' ones? Then, once the advances are all unlocked and a horde borders a non-nomad-tech nation, the government can be reformed (this probably should change the tech group and units, but I'm not sure how that would best be implemented. Anyone have suggestions?)
Also, I would definitely say that hordes should have halfway-decent units up through the mid-game, for those who might not want to/be able to reform the government.
It's all well and good pointing out what makes hordes weak, but what I think we need to do is make practiceable suggestions about how to make them better.
Not buying it. Every time there's a feature, it's a feature right up until it is suddenly defined as an exploit. That dance was done with military access too. Recruiting from foreign cores only had some significant downsides:
1. Limited to one unit type once cannons exist (IE the entire time you'd actually want to do this), often the one horde gets 0 unit bonuses to improve combat ability (junking their 20% bonus which is tied for 2nd largest during long stretches).
2. No mercs at all after a while, except maybe to cover colonies or siege. Considering the no cost-to-reinforce and low maintenance from NIs, losing the ability to run merc-heavy armies and ignore manpower as a constraint at a large discount is a big opportunity cost.
3. No unit upgrades. Any time it was time for an upgrade, you had to keep obsolete units or delete them, and use your manpower pool to retrain entire new armies, often in territories with damaged or limited infrastructure due to conquest.
4. 75% tech penalty. There are only two major regions in the world that had a worse malus to tech. Good rulers don't offset what amounts to >1 point/category weaker ruler even compared to Muslim tech. This had serious consequences on idea progression.
So, this "exploit" (which was almost never/possibly never called as such by a developer for over a year since its implementation and regular use) actually comes with considerable downsides, including large windows of vulnerability while rebuilding armies from a limited number of provinces, no ability to reinforce mid-late game armies with mercs, and weaker idea development. Yes, you got some unique mechanics in return...and for 7 patches, it wasn't an exploit, now suddenly it is?
Actually, as a player I found it a unique mechanic that made horde games different from other countries in a rather interesting and fun way. Sure, you could railroad people into following the "reform or die" route, but why? It didn't hurt anything that people might enjoy the game a little different, and it's not like hordes were conquering the world because of it. And even with all that, for most people, going the reform route is probably the better choice anyway.
Don't neglect serendipity.
Could the EU3 system of requiring the Europeans to colonise horde territory (if I remember right) to actually get their provinces improve things? That'd make them more than the minor speed bump to Russia they currently are at least for a little while longer.
Considering a fair few of the hordes were still going around well into the 17th and 18th centuries, something should probably get done to improve the AI's survivability, rather than just "Expand far, expand fast, before they out-tech you"
Yuck! Is that a post of a dev? I curse the day I bought that game. european **** who don't know history.
I'm by no means saying the current design is perfect, just that you don't solve design issues through bugs and loopholes. This is part of my design philosophy, and I doubt it's going to change.
Start a thread with suggestions on how to improve hordes and I will read it.
