Dev Diary #162 - Steppe by Steppe

[JoeManyak]

Nomads grow their Herd by extracting Fertility. Allowing Nomads to grow their herd out of the Great Steppe would mean adding Fertility to all counties outside of the steppe too. Fertility is meant to represent Grazing Land, so it has no use outside and it would just contribute to UI bloating for settled governments.

I want to make something clear. You do not have to switch out of Nomadism as soon as you hold a county outside of the steppe. You can have land inside the steppe that gives you Fertility and therefore Herd, and land outside that gives you some taxes. If you are playing a Genghis Khan type of campaign you will have both things.
If you, however, only own land outside of the steppe it will be hard for you to be a Nomad, even if we don't force you to switch, since you will have no way to grow your herd other than having Nomadic Tributaries (which could still be a viable option).

Let them bloat, they just must be a lot weaker due to lower fertility so hardly make any problems. Other thing is that if you blocking them from coming to europe without losing fertility, it gonna feel VERY hardcoded :c


Idea with fertility in whole world sounds very cool (just cut it down out of steppe, so it would weaken nomads and push them to settle, but not enforce). Other thing is that if u add fertility to whole world, u may add something like great hungers, dry seasons etc. in future, so if u fight for oil in victoria 3, you gonna fight for arable land in ck3.


Why i cant burn the whole france (for example) and use it lands as arable lands without castles? I agree, it should be hard, but possible!

 

[Scyobi_Empire]

Big question here: Any chance there can be integration of nomads in other parts of the map? Like the Sahara and Arabia?

i hope they do what they did for the extra admin governments for places like france and egypt, where there's a game rule for the arabian, anatolian and african nomads as while the DLC is mainly focussed on the steppe nomads, there were nomads in other areas too

edit:

I will now commit the sin of quoting myself. This part of the post has received certain amount of attention and I want to clearly communicate what we are intending to do. This was in response to someone asking to add them as a Game Rule, same as we did with other Admin realms other than Byzantium. What this does not mean is exclusive or bespoke content, or new seasons available for the regions that would be getting Nomads.

As I mentioned before this expansion is focused on the Eurasian Steppe, and expanding the scope of that is not possible more than in the form of a game rule and minor tweaks.

 

[YOME67]

Will there be a Silk Road mechanic (such as the CK2 Silk Road mechanic) with this new add on in order to connect China world with the current world existing in CK3?
It could also be interesting in terms of rewards for adventurers but also for nomads who would use the Silk Road path to gain more money or herds thanks to provinces you own.
Could be also interesting to block Silk Road path if the zone where the Silk Road path is at war. Create some strategic hubs / monuments like in Karakorum where you could have some trade/gold/herd bonuses, etc....
Having a Chinese influence stat on eastern part of steppes for example too.

 

[ray243]

Can you be a grand khan/emperor of other smaller emperors?

 

[tribnia]

Hoping in new nomad system, being Greatest of Khans could also benefit your descendents, somewhat replace the Paragon trait for Tengrism. Descendents of Genghis Khan, known as Altan Urag, are still viewed as having high legitimacy among nomads even centuries after the fall of Mongol Empire.

 

[mirza.akdeniz]

Sadly it doesn't seem like there have been any changes.

Yeah, I also saw it, I was just teasing. But devs sometimes use different game builds during the development phase, so there was a possibility that the screenshots were taken from different builds.

 

[guiskj]

Not quite correct. The Khazar dynasty was not so "insignificant." The Khazars had a sufficient level of recognition by other states and a significant status, enough to be on par with the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Emperor Leo III married his son to a Khazar princess to strengthen a powerful alliance between the two states against the Arab Caliphate.


Now, if you were talking about a Byzantine emperor marrying the daughter of a Kipchak Khan (even a rather large and powerful one), that would indeed be humiliating. However, many states in history accepted such humiliation to avoid raids from nomadic tribes.

You are really missing the point of my original post on this thread. Please don't dilute a genuine ask for a fix in gameplay with a need to discuss ultra specific historical cases.

Just be upfront about it, do you or do you not agree that Cultural Acceptance should be accounted for in Marriage Acceptance, in a similar manner that Religion is a major influence in Marriage Acceptance? That is what I am requesting, so unless you take direct issue with this gameplay change, please stop derailing my point.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Hoping in new nomad system, being Greatest of Khans could also benefit your descendents, somewhat replace the Paragon trait for Tengrism. Descendents of Genghis Khan, known as Altan Urag, are still viewed as having high legitimacy among nomads even centuries after the fall of Mongol Empire.

Only if there is a way to puppet them. Like how the caliphs, Japanese emperors (and sometimes even shoguns), and Merovingian kings were sometimes puppets. A hereditary regency, basically. Having all the powers of the liege without technical being the top liege.

 

[Slime99]

You are really missing the point of my original post on this thread. Please don't dilute a genuine ask for a fix in gameplay with a need to discuss ultra specific historical cases.

Just be upfront about it, do you or do you not agree that Cultural Acceptance should be accounted for in Marriage Acceptance, in a similar manner that Religion is a major influence in Marriage Acceptance? That is what I am requesting, so unless you take direct issue with this gameplay change, please stop derailing my point.

I think on top of this distance and rank/power should also matter. People of different cultures married each other all the time, but the current system has no penalties for marrying someone 2000 kilometers away just because you can. Cultural acceptance could also decrease marriage acceptance, but it would make sense to overlook that for an alliance or someone of great prominence.

 

[guiskj]

..."People of different cultures married each other all the time..."

That may be the case for Kings and Emperors, but I bet anything that Dukes and Count tier rulers were vastly more likely to marry those of the same culture, or at least similar culture, which is what Cultural Acceptance tries to model (cultural proximity).

I am all for Kings and Emperors to give military alliance a bigger weight than to say Cultural Acceptance or even Religion.

But I have looked at the code, and it is rather simple and uniform, meaning what works for an Emperor also works for a Count, which is one of the reasons that lead to my original issue: a bunch of weird marriages across the center of the map (because nearly the whole world is within diplo range) that starts producing very odd looking children which just gets worse as the game goes on.

I'll drop this now, now. I have either made my point to the Devs or I am unlikely to ever do.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

 

[yokyoka]

I will now commit the sin of quoting myself. This part of the post has received certain amount of attention and I want to clearly communicate what we are intending to do. This was in response to someone asking to add them as a Game Rule, same as we did with other Admin realms other than Byzantium. What this does not mean is exclusive or bespoke content, or new seasons available for the regions that would be getting Nomads.

As I mentioned before, this expansion is focused on the Eurasian Steppe, and expanding the scope of that is not possible more than in the form of a game rule and minor tweaks.

If the tribal/clan nations in sahara region will receive their own detailed update in the future, adding optional gamerule which will become useless after the regional dlc for Sahara is unneeded in my opinion.

 

[Tricontinental]

Tengri be praised, the Steppe expansion is coming!

Can you speak to what happens if a nomadic entity submits to or gets subjugated by settled clan or feodal realms?

 

[Bisonmask]

Love what I'm seeing thank you for bringing back the greatest government type

I know this system is meant for the Eurasian Steppe but will we see some of these mechanics ported to work for Arabian and Saharan pastoralists?

There should be one Gurkhan per steppe region imo (East, Central, West) or at least one that can be declared per region, the Eastern and Western steppes especially shouldn't prevent each other from having local hegemons. A Mongol type state that controlled the entire Eurasian steppe was extremely rare, iirc it only happened that once, and it was fairly common for a large Steppe empire to exist on the border of Persia or Europe while another existed on the border of China or India.

And it seems like Confederations are more of a defensive thing when creating and expanding them should probably be the main way to become Gurkhan. As you grow in dominance, other clans should flock to your side and managing them and their relationships with you and each other should be your main political concern. CK2 gestured at this but it would be very cool if CK3 filled out the idea, especially because this is one way to make characters matter more given how systemic the nomad government looks right now.

I don't see anything that would prevent the ERE, Abbasids, or other group from occupying much of the Steppe as they do now and I don't see anything about the decline of Steppe empires. It's already annoying that imperial governments only expand but it would be much worse for gameplay if 200 years into every game you were stuck with an enormous Turkic empire that only died to the Mongols, especially for players on the Steppe

There should be independent or semi-independent trading cities on the Steppe, especially if this year is going to see any trade gameplay added. These mining, farming, or trade post towns functioned as nodes across the Steppe where goods were exchanged and taxes were extracted, there are even a few well known examples of Khans sponsoring the creation of such cities

"Nomads" were not literally nomadic and shouldn't literally need to move around in order to maintain their growth. The issue on the steppe that caused the migration of people was that when periods of growth ended or plateaued, there were few ways to intensify calorie extraction (that hadn't already been implemented). That meant reaching the "carrying capacity" of your *long-term grazing land* (that you owned and defended) incentivized taking someone else's. If you succeed they then have to find new land, but most of the land is occupied (if you fail they'll take yours). This also happens when carrying capacity sharply drops due to climactic shifts or drought

So you see a pattern of steppe peoples being pushed off of ideal land to inferior land (the north, Central Asian mountains etc.) or out of the Steppe entirely in search of fodder to feed their herds (mostly sheep but you've made a fine abstraction here) and therefore their people. Notable exceptions are seen when steppe polities unify into Khanates and then expand more because they can than because they have to but in the wake of such coalitions collapsing you see the same pattern of internecine war followed by the losers leaving the Steppe

Also I'm not a fan of how the end goal is becoming an agrarian kingdom, even for purely gameplay purposes pushing play in that direction reduces the playspace for what could be the most fun part of ruling a horde: succession crises

TLDR:
Amazigh bands when?
Three Gurkhans
Offensive confederations and blood brothers
Steppe cities

"Nomads" weren't nomadic, they shouldn't need to move around every couple years to get a bonus they should move when something (human or climate) forces them to move.

Not everyone wants to be Kublai, let me ride my horses over everyone under the endless sky

 

[DukeoftheWorld]

Considering that might and strength were considered very important in nomadic warrior societies, it would make sense to make prowess matter more for player characters by making them able to take part in battles as knights and more actively as commanders, there should be specific mechanics and events if you are a knight/commander in a battle (expanded duels for one).

Also, as it often happened in history, player rulers subjugated by nomadic conquerors should get forced to battle for their new dominators.

 

[AHumpierRogue]

I will now commit the sin of quoting myself. This part of the post has received certain amount of attention and I want to clearly communicate what we are intending to do. This was in response to someone asking to add them as a Game Rule, same as we did with other Admin realms other than Byzantium. What this does not mean is exclusive or bespoke content, or new seasons available for the regions that would be getting Nomads.

As I mentioned before, this expansion is focused on the Eurasian Steppe, and expanding the scope of that is not possible more than in the form of a game rule and minor tweaks.

Frankly, IMO I would prefer you reverse course here. Just don't make them nomads. Leave it open for future expansion by the team(even if you never actually get there) rather than having it in this odd limbo state. If someone really wants it, I am sure a dedicated mod for Saharan Nomads would probably get made.

 

[Alpusykk]

Will culture move with migration? It have to be like that, like Magyar invasion

 

[Renarin]

Love what I'm seeing so far and I haven't finished yet so I'll delete if this is unnecessary

I know this system is meant for the Eurasian Steppe but will we see some of these mechanics ported to work for Arabian and Saharan pastoralists?

"Nomads" were not literally nomadic and shouldn't literally need to move around in order to maintain their growth. The issue on the steppe that caused the migration of people was that when periods of growth ended or plateaued, there were few ways to intensify calorie extraction (that hadn't already been implemented). That meant reaching the "carrying capacity" of your *long-term grazing land* (that you owned and defended) incentivized taking someone else's. If you succeed they then have to find new land, but most of the land is occupied (if you fail they'll take yours). This also happens when carrying capacity sharply drops due to climactic shifts or drought

So you see a pattern of steppe peoples being pushed off of ideal land to inferior land (the north, Central Asian mountains etc.) or out of the Steppe entirely in search of fodder to feed their herds (mostly sheep but you've made a fine abstraction here) and therefore their people. Notable exceptions are seen when steppe polities unify into Khanates and then expand more because they can than because they have to but in the wake of such coalitions collapsing you see the same pattern of internecine war followed by the losers leaving the Steppe

Also I'm not a fan of how the end goal is becoming an agrarian kingdom, even for purely gameplay purposes pushing play in that direction reduces the playspace for what could be the most fun part of ruling a horde: succession crises

TLDR: "Nomads" weren't nomadic, they shouldn't need to move around every couple years to get a bonus they should move when something (human or climate) forces them to move. And not everyone wants to be Kublai, let me turn Eurasia into and endless pasture

It sounds like larger domains can sustainably feed your herds, and they just plateau out even if Fertility is depleted, so I think that Nomads migrating based on long-term climactic shifts or to gain/recover land through conquests but otherwise migrating within a defined territory is already represented.

 

[le cur]

The Cultural Head gets to take the cultural name (The Mongols), while the smaller rulers have a combination of their House Name + Culture (The Borjigin Mongols). To better reflect the dynamics of the Steppe, we have also changed the way that the Cultural Head is selected in Nomadic governments: the ruler with the biggest Herd becomes the Head instead, independently of their title.

The names on the map, as well as this naming convention using culture are still work in progress, and we are open to hear your suggestions.

Late to this, but I have two points:

1. The Cultural Head should get "The" before their Culture, but minor rulers shouldn't; having "The Mongols" on the map feels more specific than just "Mongols", but "Borjigin Mongols" is specific enough as it is. Also, as you've pointed out, "The Borjigin Mongols" is starting to get too big for the map.
2. How does Cultural Head status translate when a Culture is split between Feudal and Nomadic rulers? For instance, if I were to do a New England steppe nomad game, would I automatically become Anglo-Saxon cultural head just because I have a herd while the ruler of Deira apparently doesn't?

Especially concerned about that last one; I love Roads to Power, but one annoyance I've seen is that any Administrative ruler automatically becomes House Head, even where they ought to get a cadet branch instead. I was playing as a major Clan ruler, steadily conquering my way through Persia, when suddenly I lost my House Head status out of the blue because one of my grandchildren had been vassalised by an Administrative realm and then adopted their governance system. Extremely frustrating, especially because I had to deal with it by starting a cadet branch and my grandchild then immediately joined that branch instead. Now my old House exists exclusively as an Administrative noble family, even though all its members are part of a new cadet House.

Sorry, went off on a tangent there. The point is I'd like to see some contingency for if this happens; either you have some means of comparing (e.g. Feudal rulers stay as Culture Head provided there are no Nomads of equivalent or greater rank) or, at worst, you give priority to other ruler types unless the Culture has the right Heritage or Traditions.

The two special and rare seasons of Havsarsan Zud and the Blessing of the Blue Sky explore these effects even further, with the Blessing amply increasing the Fertility of the subregion and the terrible Havsarsan Zud allowing rulers to take a desperate stance, making all of their subjects obedient and getting an invasion CB on settled people. One of the academic reasons given for the Mongolian Invasion is, after all, the lack of pasture in the Steppe at that point in time.

Is there a reason the drought isn't referred to as a Zud? It's my understanding that just as snowfall is a White Zud, drought is a Black Zud. If you want to be really pedantic you could even call them Tsagaan Zud and Khar Zud, respectively, but I get why you'd prioritise clarity. Still, I think you should at least call it Black Zud, to keep the theme going. Also: will the big seasonal changes be marked by any events for traditional landed rulers? In my view, a landed ruler whose realm is near the steppe should get something about how traders bring news of plentiful/disastrous conditions on the steppe. Perhaps you could have the option to take advantage of the situation (trade with the enriched nomads, resettle refugees in your lands), or it could have no direct effect; the main thing would be to give landed players a warning.

EDIT: one more thing caught my eye while I was looking through the replies.

There will be Decisions to Expand the Steppe in some areas like Hungary. Other than that Nomads can hold Castle holdings: they won't be able to use them for much other than getting some taxes, but they can have them.

Will there be any Decisions to reduce the Steppe? For instance, if Hungary gets retaken by sedentary powers, will they have any lingering effects from the Steppe having been expanded there, and if so, will they be able to reverse them? Furthermore, as people have pointed out, much of Ukraine was basically Steppe for this period. Could an ambitious Eastern European landed ruler, perhaps even a sedentarised Khazar Khaganate, turn it into something approaching the agrarian land it is today? I note that currently Kerch gives Kuzarites a massive buff to Steppe Development; are there plans to change how that system works? Because if so, it could tie neatly into any efforts to sedentarise the frontiers of the Steppe.

Anyway, this all looks excellent. I was excited for and delighted by Roads to Power, and I'm excited for this. Keep up the good work!

 

[lazprune]

Nomads grow their Herd by extracting Fertility. Allowing Nomads to grow their herd out of the Great Steppe would mean adding Fertility to all counties outside of the steppe too. Fertility is meant to represent Grazing Land, so it has no use outside and it would just contribute to UI bloating for settled governments.

What about it not being shown when playing non-nomadic? Some non-great steppe regions are places that became nomad dwelling areas such as Anatolia under the Seljuks or Hungary under the Avars.