Why nerf hordes more

[Zwirbaum]

And here's the screenshots of the game. Granted, the last wars against Austria and France were decades ago, and I don't know how I'd have fared in the 1800s, but my point stands — I beat them well above 20 MIL, as I had to in order to conquer Taiwan (my expansion was slow)

Spoiler

Diplomacy

Tech

Ideas

Religion

Subjects detail

Military

Policies

Cosmopolitaine Taiwan

But please, go on about how I'm "just plain wrong." I must be lying because hordes are just impossible to use without bypassing their tech units, right?

No one said that you are lying. We are just saying that you are wrong. That's difference. Also when you have Ottoman PU'ed under you, I don't think that you defeated France and Austria all by yourself.

 

[Clownie]

No one said that you are lying. We are just saying that you are wrong. That's difference.

It really isn't, when I'm claiming something that happened to have actually happened. In order to be wrong, I must then either be deluded or lying.

 

[Novacat]

It really isn't, when I'm claiming something that happened to have actually happened. In order to be wrong, I must then either be deluded or lying.

Memory is a fuzzy thing and you probably are not remembering the exact circumstances (or were not paying close enough attention... Not uncommon to forget/miss stuff in the heat of a hundred things going on at once)

 

[gall]

At the begging true horde should have problem with proper administration, later it would generate problem with military too (due to lack of resources, organizational problems). Northern Hordes was problem for Russian army do to climate and terrain, at least partly.
Developers are partially right. Hordes reformed after all, but bit by bit. Settled communities are denser, have better basis for knowledge transfer, higher economical growth rate etc.

 

[solidprice]

If that's the case you should at least remove the legitimacy/lower the needed amount. That's a purely luck-based mechanic easily screwing your game.

this. i hate rng, because its usually against me. it gets old. fast.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Tech lead + current cannons + top tier general + vassal units will win, but that doesn't mean your own units are winning, aside from the cannons . Those pictures would be much, much more convincing with pictures of the battles.

A Ryazan that size could give you the front you need easily, not to mention you can also just assault down Taiwan with a conquest claim and sit on it for ticking war score.

Developers are partially right. Hordes reformed after all, but bit by bit. Settled communities are denser, have better basis for knowledge transfer, higher economical growth rate etc.

More than 1 of the 1444 hordes were closer to "settled community" than they were to "Temujin's Mongol Empire".

 

[Zwirbaum]

Tech lead + current cannons + top tier general + vassal units will win, but that doesn't mean your own units are winning, aside from the cannons . Those pictures would be much, much more convincing with pictures of the battles.

A Ryazan that size could give you the front you need easily, not to mention you can also just assault down Taiwan with a conquest claim and sit on it for ticking war score.



More than 1 of the 1444 hordes were closer to "settled community" than they were to "Temujin's Mongol Empire".

Also he has a personal union junior Ottoman Empire, which is not small according to the screenshots

 

[wingzero890]

To answer OP's question ("why nerf hordes more") there are three compelling arguments why this has to be done:

1. They aren't white Europeans (who are the best group of people in Europa Universalis - genetics, man!)
2. They aren't Christians (and Christianity is the religion of the world which deserves best bonuses, amirite folks?)
3. They are far away from Sweden (which is a centre of civilisation as we all know and the further away you go the less important things become)
4. They aren't Norse (VIKINGS! BEARDS!)

Plus they are primitive barbarians whose only point of existence is to be devoured by blobbing Russia and Ottomans (and perhaps Spain during Spanish conquest of Siberia), so they really don't deserve any attention. /s

Seriously though I think that Paradox is just nerfing them into oblivion to charge for a DLC later, I see no other explanation seeing how much attention every corner of ROTW got in AoW.

qft

 

[Clownie]

Tech lead + current cannons + top tier general + vassal units will win, but that doesn't mean your own units are winning, aside from the cannons . Those pictures would be much, much more convincing with pictures of the battles.

All of this is true, and while Ryazan and the Turks did do quite a bit of stuff on their own, the bottom line is they did it on their own. Again, why would I lie? I didn't conquer Taiwan like that, it was from a coalition war, from which I admittedly got most of the warscore by killing not-France things, but still killed quite a few France things on my turf.

I don't even disagree with the assertation that Horde nerfs are stupid, I disagree with the assertation that they are completely unable to fight AI late.

 

[oblio-]

My main concern related to Hordes is that Paradox seems to be adverse to high risk - high reward options.

And that's what unreformed Hordes are. They should be walking on a tightrope once they advance past 1600, and it should be possible to have a fun game without using vassal crutches.

Want to bet that as result of this change horde players will all turn to releasing the meanest, baddest marches possible, keeping them just under 60 base tax and then feeding them cash so that they keep up on military tech using higher level advisors and also to allow them to field decent number of troops?

At this point I'm not convinced that this is any less "exploity" than outright controlling those "foreign" units.




Oh, and I almost forgot, the AI. Hordes do not reform, ever, and they get destroyed by me or by Europeans like they're made out of paper. That is incredibly boring. At least tell us that the AI reforms now.

 

[Sunaj]

See Wiz? Now you KNOW you're wrong .

...

<3.

Seriously though, post-defining features as bugs as a handwave gesture is questionable. Nations used foreign regiments historically. The bias against hordes well beyond reality is really obnoxious.



Even actually good nations like Portugal could make use of it, as could Muscovy, Poland, and Muslim tech nations. It was even more important in 1.5 and before, when you could mop people with god-mode Ottoman units even as nations like BYZ, getting several unit pips this way.

Honestly, it's a been thing as far back as Vanilla EU3 with hardly any issues with it, until now seemingly. This literally put me off of most of my hype "of" the expansion.

 

[Novacat]

I don't even disagree with the assertation that Horde nerfs are stupid, I disagree with the assertation that they are completely unable to fight AI late.

Except your assertion kind of flat-out runs counter to what TMIT has stated, and im willing to trust him on this considering that it has reflected my own experiances with the Steppe Hordes.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sweden, Brandenburg, and Poland seem like they'd make good marches.

Unfortunately, Johan said they're same-continent only, so only Crimea/GH/Kazan could do that. Asian hordes won't have viable march candidates.

Ultimately, unless you're doing a for lulz run you'll probably wind up reforming. Westernizing is more dicey, but anybody can reform after trashing Asia. It's not like administrative is a bad idea group for a nation with -25% core cost to stack on it, and the Sunni hordes won't need religious ideas most likely (unless you're Timurids, you can convert 1 Persian province and release them Sunni, and they'll do the rest, same with Iraq leaving very few challenging provinces to convert).

 

[Clownie]

My main concern related to Hordes is that Paradox seems to be adverse to high risk - high reward options.

And that's what unreformed Hordes are. They should be walking on a tightrope once they advance past 1600, and it should be possible to have a fun game without using vassal crutches.

Want to bet that as result of this change horde players will all turn to releasing the meanest, baddest marches possible, keeping them just under 60 base tax and then feeding them cash so that they keep up on military tech using higher level advisors and also to allow them to field decent number of troops?

At this point I'm not convinced that this is any less "exploity" than outright controlling those "foreign" units.

Pfft, this is a completely historical portrayal of steppe barbarian behaviour!

 

[Novacat]

I think I will just do what I have been doing and play non-Steppe Horde countries acting like Steppe Hordes. Once you fill the expansion group and deal with Muscovy you can pretty much do everything a Steppe Horde can do, and with western units/tech and swedish/brandenburg/Ottoman NIs, I can just roll up Asia like a cheap cigar.

 

[1alexey]

I fail to see why hordes need such a huge brick wall to smash into like not having units upgrades.
Make their units upgrade but at reduced rate, so that in 1444 they are competitive, by 1550 they are 2-4 pips behind, and by 1700, their units are just terrible.

Also Hordes having huge subjects is perfectly fine, they did simply subjugate anyone who lived outside steppes, and never really managed to settle more forested places as far as I know.

 

[oblio-]

Pfft, this is a completely historical portrayal of steppe barbarian behaviour!

Yes, yes, the Mongols were giving their subjects money to fight for them because their men were too busy hiding behind their mothers

Sweden, Brandenburg, and Poland seem like they'd make good marches.

Unfortunately, Johan said they're same-continent only, so only Crimea/GH/Kazan could do that. Asian hordes won't have viable march candidates.

Are you sure about marches? I know about client states, I did not know that marches had extra limitations

 

[Graerth]

Conquer Muscovy
Move capital to europe
Make your european marshy marshes.

 

[eon47]

Unfortunately, Johan said they're same-continent only, so only Crimea/GH/Kazan could do that. Asian hordes won't have viable march candidates.

As long as there's a land connection, you can still do it, I believe. Not that it changes the problem.

I agree with all of the reasons I've seen here, but one that I'll add is Paradox's inconsistency when it comes to this kind of railroading. I get that the hordes should usually be conquered by Russia (even if it should be the result of infighting and not crap units), but then that also means that the Manchu should consistently overrun China. However, I never see the AI do that, and this additional nerf is going to make it even less likely. You can't nerf hordes for realism like Wiz seems to suggest because real hordes weren't nerfed, and making them ahistorically weak to encourage Russia toward a historical outcome just makes more realism problems in other parts of the game.

Making Russia's rise dependent on Mongol infighting rather than useless soldiers would mean Muscovy would less consistently come to power, but it would be more realistic and a lot more fun. I'd much rather play a game where I have to struggle to survive against the Mongol hordes and really earn my Russia than one where half my enemies are incapable of fighting past the first century or so.

Edit: Actually, Oblio- might be right about marches and client states being confused. Someone should check.

 

[cpm4001]

Sweden, Brandenburg, and Poland seem like they'd make good marches.

Unfortunately, Johan said they're same-continent only, so only Crimea/GH/Kazan could do that. Asian hordes won't have viable march candidates.

Apparently they're same-continent only unless you have a contiguous land connection - which any eastern horde looking to march Poland/Sweden/Brandenburg would have.

EDIT: Whoops, got ninja'd.