One reason this Steppe DLC is unbalanced: Herd is immortal. Your passive Herd change is always positive no matter how bad the steppe season is.

[The Shacks]

So, I'm currently finding it pretty difficult to get the 75k horse capital needed for the final government level! It was quite a grind to get to my current 26k, and it kept getting reduced because I was at war and lost people. I find it really exhausting to increase the number of horses, and it's actually incredibly difficult. Harder than playing tribal. How do you do it?

- Dont be afraid to constantly demand herd from your tribs and vassals when you can.
- Change everyones contracts to ensure they are giving you an f*ton of herd.
(With the above two, bare in mind nomad vassals run on dread a lot more, they wont be so pissy when you change things, unlike feudals. I just gave everyone suzerain rights and then whacked herd tithe to max )
- You want a few key upgrades in your yurts nice and quick, specifically the court yurt and the food one I forget its name right now. Spec into kneeling matts and such in the court yurt to boost up vassal herd ammount. Your main yurt also has some strong modifiers for this early on.
- Do humiliation wars against the other nomads with big ol' herds.
- Get a LOT of tribs and convert them into vassals. ( as a nomad you can declare wars whilst armies are raised. Endless war ;p )

 

[Silens]

What @Silens says!

However, I should caution that creating a modifier of -0.05 will NOT take out herd. It just places a small dent in your monthly gain. You need to place a modifier of less than -1.00

I merely copied the existing entry, which is at -0.05 atm, so people looking for it based on my post can easier find the right entry.

Also, you get lots of positive modifiers outside of the steppe season. Even a -1.00 isn't anywhere near cutting it, if you have +300% in total from other sources. You'd need to go to extremes of -3 to -5 to make a visible dent here.

Attacking the herd conversion ratio would also be an option. Or, if you want an extreme solution, reduce herd capacity by -10k % and cut the growth of all herds everywhere to just 5%. Combined with a moderate negative multiplier, you'd really wreak havoc.

 

[Delterius]

Currently you have people disbanding their empires and still maintaining herds worth hundreds of thousands on the back of a single county + building bonuses. If this was intended then one wonders why Fertility and Tributary Mechanics exist at all.

The devs have a stated preference for releasing things in an OP form rather than under selling their DLC. Which makes sense, what makes for good thumbnails makes for good business. That wouldn't be a problem if their following efforts to re-balance the game weren't so measured as well. I don't doubt that the devs intend to rebalance Khans of the Steppe after release. I can only look at the half-measures made to rebalance Roads to Power as proof that they won't go far enough.

Even so at bare minimum CK3 Nomads should not be even more overpowered than CK2 Nomads, which did have a population cap that relied on having a large empire and did see their population decline if you were above that cap. A novel occurrence in that game to be sure, but one that should happen in CK3 when you literally give out the entire steppe to somebody else and confine yourself to a single desert county.

 

[DawramBashere]

I'm fully in favor of introducing negative herd income, but I would restrict herd loss to the player only, as I'm not confident the AI can handle it properly yet. For the player, herd loss could serve as a strong incentive to migrate during bad seasons, as well as a natural limiter on growth. However, the system should be more nuanced than simply triggering herd death. Ideally, if the player has only a small herd, it should still be able to survive and even grow slightly—even in tough conditions—since a small number of animals can typically live off the land. On the other hand, a large herd should start to decline during a bad season, reflecting the strain on resources.

 

[Ral Rednaxela]

@Torredebelem and @Silens, in thinking about this more, do you think it would be possible to implement a simple population dynamic, where your Herd would have a passive Loss and passive Gain that are both dependent on your Herd total, and County Fertility that takes into account it's owner's Herd total? Using a large negative herd_gain_mult at least allows for some kind of Herd decay but it doesn't care about how big your Herd is, which misses a lot of nuance. Like if you had a huge herd and downsized to one province, the fertility of the province should decrease rapidly because you have so many animals and eventually you would start losing a bunch of your Herd total because there's so many animals that can't eat.

I know I'm probably taking the concept of "Herd" more literally than the devs intended, but what I described above feels like how it should work if one were to do it faithfully and it feels way more fun that the current implementation.

 

[Silens]

@Torredebelem and @Silens, in thinking about this more, do you think it would be possible to implement a simple population dynamic, where your Herd would have a passive Loss and passive Gain that are both dependent on your Herd total, and County Fertility that takes into account it's owner's Herd total? Using a large negative herd_gain_mult at least allows for some kind of Herd decay but it doesn't care about how big your Herd is, which misses a lot of nuance. Like if you had a huge herd and downsized to one province, the fertility of the province should decrease rapidly because you have so many animals and eventually you would start losing a bunch of your Herd total because there's so many animals that can't eat.

I know I'm probably taking the concept of "Herd" more literally than the devs intended, but what I described above feels like how it should work if one were to do it faithfully and it feels way more fun that the current implementation.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but my guess is that it's not that simple I'm afraid. County fertility and equilibrium, when at 0, have a herd growth of 0. Herd is mana, it always goes up, worst case is that it doesn't grow.

Base Gain = CountyFertility * HERD_GAIN_FROM_COUNTY_MULTIPLIER (with the latter being set to 0.5)

Fertility can never reach negative values, that is the fundamental problem you try to solve here.

You'd have to allow for a scale not from 0 to 100, but from -100 to +100, and that's not as easy as adding or removing a line of code. The base for zero growth would have to be in the middle of the scale, not at the low point. That is only something the devs can do.

If you want to build around that and use the modifiers we have, you'd have to remove all herd capacity bonuses from the game, like deleting each and every one of them. Be it Yurt upgrades, traits, seasons, rank bonuses etc. Every single one of them would have to go, no mercy.

Then you tie hard limit increases of herd size to the number of counties. Let's say 10k herd size per county you hold. Only way to increase herd size limit would be more land. Losing land = less capacity. And it's here already that you'd have to change the balance of 6 max counties on highest rank, you'd have to find a completely new balance.

And then you go ahead and set the penalty for being over the herd size limit not to -0.95 (which is a 95% penalty to growth), but rather set it to -5.00 (a 500% decrease to simulate starvation from overcrowding).

So, now we have land-based herd size limits, and massive starvation when above your limit.

Next would be what I call the Mecca solution. Islam has mandatory Hajj, and you get slapped with a negative modifier to piety the moment you are born, and keep it until you do at least that one pilgrimage. If you do it, the negative modifier is not removed, but rather offset by a positive modifier of the same size, so the net result is zero. That is pretty easy on performance, as it doesn't have to check constantly if someone is or isn't eligible for a modifier. No, it just applies it through one event and is done with it otherwise.

Applied to herd I'd slap a mandatory high penalty on herd growth on everyone, so that herd growth always trends to a strong negative value. And then I'd steer herd growth by adding positive modifiers to the things you desire: county fertility bonuses, seasons, skills etc. Losing some bonuses would put you to negative growth, and that's how you simulate a trending value without actually having a trending scale.

But again, that a looooooot of work. The balancing alone would be a challenge, the sheer amount of files you'd have to comb for every little modifier, and it would still leave the question open of how the AI could handle it. Let alone constantly updating your files after every patch.

It's certainly doable, though, if that was the question. The exact solution you have in mind, which is a dynamic herd-fertility growth/decline based on actual herd size (and not just the limit, with a binary 0 or 1 yes or no exceeding limit or not value), would probably enter the can-only-changed-by-devs territory. But again, I'm not an expert, you'd have to ask a really experienced modder for ideas on such a profound change.

 

[TempestM]

as a nomad you can declare wars whilst armies are raised. Endless war

Btw one of the important reasons why nomads are OP for no reason. I guess they wanted to emulate CK2 when hordes were retinue, and retinue was always raised. Buy why can I raise my 20k levies from my feudal vassals together with my 3k MAA and put them on the border before the war starts, while other feudals can't? What's the point of giving nomads this buff?

 

[Apocal]

I'm fully in favor of introducing negative herd income, but I would restrict herd loss to the player only, as I'm not confident the AI can handle it properly yet. For the player, herd loss could serve as a strong incentive to migrate during bad seasons, as well as a natural limiter on growth. However, the system should be more nuanced than simply triggering herd death. Ideally, if the player has only a small herd, it should still be able to survive and even grow slightly—even in tough conditions—since a small number of animals can typically live off the land. On the other hand, a large herd should start to decline during a bad season, reflecting the strain on resources.

This is exactly the advantage a smaller nomad group should have. Being a big nomad should be a "crap or get off the pot" situation.

Btw one of the important reasons why nomads are OP for no reason. I guess they wanted to emulate CK2 when hordes were retinue, and retinue was always raised. Buy why can I raise my 20k levies from my feudal vassals together with my 3k MAA and put them on the border before the war starts, while other feudals can't? What's the point of giving nomads this buff?

I'm not sure, but I think it is a way of acknowledging nomads were, effectively, always mobilized. Agree it doesn't make sense for feudal levies to show up like that though.

 

[CrazyRat]

The devs have a stated preference for releasing things in an OP form rather than under selling their DLC. Which makes sense, what makes for good thumbnails makes for good business. That wouldn't be a problem if their following efforts to re-balance the game weren't so measured as well. I don't doubt that the devs intend to rebalance Khans of the Steppe after release. I can only look at the half-measures made to rebalance Roads to Power as proof that they won't go far enough.

Honestly, I think that it is not a nomadic-to-non-nomadic balance problem per se. I mean, I am sure that PDX can - and probably will - just fiddle with some numbers (Herd income, Herd to Nomadic Horde conversion, etc.), and make it so that the strongest nomadic realms you typically see will not terribly disrupt the balance.

I am less sure that it will lead to the fulfilling gameplay of nomads. Ultimately, the gameplay loop of small, independent nomads – migrating around, and the like – currently does not work, since the steppe becomes terribly crowded, and dominated by semi-sedentary hordes. There is little hope it will change unless something dramatically changes.

That basically may limit gameplay opportunities with nomads, since there isn’t that much stuff you can do as vassal (you cannot even create bigger tier titles unless I am missing something); and well… as far as the empires go, they have terribly awkward interactions with anything that isn’t steppe (like razing development), so the fantasy of the well-managed empires ruled by nomads isn’t there either.

 

[The Shacks]

I like that nomads can declare war on the fly, feels thematically correct. But I can see why it would feel unfair or OP in some scenarios.

 

[Benismann]

You modifiy file 09_mpo_modifiers file inside common/modifiers. Inside you edit the modifiers:

court_astrologer_white_zud_modifier = {
    icon = county_fertility_positive
    county_fertility_growth_mult = 0.2
    herd_gain_mult = -1.5
}

court_astrologer_cold_zud_modifier = {
    icon = county_fertility_positive
    county_fertility_growth_mult = 0.3
    herd_gain_mult = -1.5
}

court_astrologer_severe_drought_modifier = {
    icon = county_fertility_positive
    county_fertility_decline_mult = -0.3
    herd_gain_mult = -1.75
}

court_astrologer_havsarsan_zud_modifier = {
    icon = travel_speed_positive
    domicile_travel_speed = 0.33
    herd_gain_mult = -2.5
}

Of course, your values to herd_gain_mult might vary. Just make sure they are below -1

As for my mod, it is in my sig and will only be updated with this and more stuff on Friday. Beware that Dark Ages is a very comprehensive mod addressing thousands of different angles of the game, so it might not be for you.

You know there's "domicile_monthly_herd_add", you could've maybe possible used that instead?

In my mod i just threw in a yearly event that nukes 5-6% of your herd. It's not much for when the season is good, but if you're not gaining 0.5% of your current herd monthly (which is what happens if you lose most of your realm and/or a very harsh season comes) you will be losing it at some rate. It might even not be enough, i dont know, i didnt get to test it out much yet.
And the mod plug is in signature :Р

 

[Benismann]

Kinda agree. Playing Temujin so far it's really not bothered me thjat I went through two White Zuds. Fertility and bad seasons need to be more impactful. I immagine if I play a small nomad that stays small it may affect me a lil bit more but still.

Tributaries also have to be way weaker. They're literally just better vassals rn. You should have to be massive, like starting Cumans or smth, to be able to ignore migration system. And even then, a particularly harsh season should force you to do smth.

 

[Benismann]

but there isn't anything like herd_gain_add or herd_loss_add that can subtract like other currencies (for example Gold or Prestige).

domicile_monthly_herd_add exists.

 

[Pendables]

Royal Court came out over three years ago and the bonus for exceeding grandeur is still quadrupled for kingdoms below size 25. I wouldn't be optimistic about balance fixes.

 

[Torredebelem]

You know there's "domicile_monthly_herd_add", you could've maybe possible used that instead?

In my mod i just threw in a yearly event that nukes 5-6% of your herd. It's not much for when the season is good, but if you're not gaining 0.5% of your current herd monthly (which is what happens if you lose most of your realm and/or a very harsh season comes) you will be losing it at some rate. It might even not be enough, i dont know, i didnt get to test it out much yet.
And the mod plug is in signature :Р

I have followed on the steps of @Silens and now a powerful penalty to herd applies to all Zud plus drought. I am also considering adding events about plagues and robberies for herds that will cull the numbers from time to time. Will need to add agency to the players in ordeer to not feel arbitrary and totally random. So, it is time to think about something the players can affect...

@Torredebelem and @Silens, in thinking about this more, do you think it would be possible to implement a simple population dynamic, where your Herd would have a passive Loss and passive Gain that are both dependent on your Herd total, and County Fertility that takes into account it's owner's Herd total?

Not easily done and trying to modify the base design approach of herd to something much more detailed. I would certainly prefer playing with the system you suggest but it is not in line with the overall design arch of paradox for Nomads, so, even if pulled off, it would feel detached from the rest of the game.

Herd is mana, it always goes up, worst case is that it doesn't grow.

Actually one can make the numbers go down if the modifier is set at less than -1.00. That is what I tested already and implemented for Friday's release.

 

[Benismann]

Royal Court came out over three years ago and the bonus for exceeding grandeur is still quadrupled for kingdoms below size 25. I wouldn't be optimistic about balance fixes.

I love how they made court cost AND expected grandeur scale with pure realm size and then just threw that thing in for some reason. Why.

 

[Delterius]

Honestly, I think that it is not a nomadic-to-non-nomadic balance problem per se. I mean, I am sure that PDX can - and probably will - just fiddle with some numbers (Herd income, Herd to Nomadic Horde conversion, etc.), and make it so that the strongest nomadic realms you typically see will not terribly disrupt the balance.

I am less sure that it will lead to the fulfilling gameplay of nomads. Ultimately, the gameplay loop of small, independent nomads – migrating around, and the like – currently does not work, since the steppe becomes terribly crowded, and dominated by semi-sedentary hordes. There is little hope it will change unless something dramatically changes.

That basically may limit gameplay opportunities with nomads, since there isn’t that much stuff you can do as vassal (you cannot even create bigger tier titles unless I am missing something); and well… as far as the empires go, they have terribly awkward interactions with anything that isn’t steppe (like razing development), so the fantasy of the well-managed empires ruled by nomads isn’t there either.

I think the nomadic to settled balance problem is less flagrant than it looks. It is intended (and desirable, I think) that Nomads have great disruptive potential towards West Asia. The problems we have stem from the creation of the Dominance mechanic. With it realms like the Byzantines and the HRE can be subjugated in ways that do not feel earned. Dominance I believe is a very good concept for CK3 because it allows the devs to create emergent scenarios for a Seljuk or a Sabuktigin to appear (rather that just spamming the game with Mongol Invasions). What exactly should be done besides tinkering the numbers a bit, I do not know. Perhaps the Tributary System should allow for a kind of relationship that is even more autonomous than a Tributary - basically a situation where the Byzantine Empire is paying off the Cumans, rather than being subjugated by them. That, I think, should be the relationship between large temporary nomad confederations and stable Empires.

Now I think the gameplay loop of small independent nomads might be less frustrating than it seems. To take my experience in CK2 for an instance, starting small in a crowded steppe only meant that you had to be an opportunist. The big Uyghurs are attacking the not as Big Kipchaks? You, the smaller Oghuz can probably take advantage of things and steal a county for yourself. It is not that different from being a clan or feudal vassal taking similar advantages. Moreover, CK3 does have one advantage (depending on the way you see things) in that you can almost consider Landless gameplay in a continuum with Nomadism. Even if you start as a small nomad who loses all his pasture, you can reclaim it afterward and create your own independent nomad realm.

Finally when it comes to the fantasy of the multi-government Steppe At the Top Empire, I think the key issue there is fixing things like Peace of the Great Khan. As long as enabling cities in the steppe isn't so buggy that it causes you to break the game into steppe republicanism, you'll have the fantasy of ruling, say, a Greater Iran whose capital is nomadic Samarkand and with many tributary governors across the persian plateau. After all, they'll only break free if you're no longer top dog, so its an empire all the same.

 

[FleetingRain]

Royal Court came out over three years ago and the bonus for exceeding grandeur is still quadrupled for kingdoms below size 25. I wouldn't be optimistic about balance fixes.

Wait, what. How does that work?

 

[Pendables]

Wait, what. How does that work?

You know how you get bonuses for being above your expected grandeur? That bonus not only scales based on how many levels above expected you are, it also gets multiplied based on how small your realm is. Playing as a kingdom with fewer than 20 counties has been basically unplayable since Royal Court since the buffs you get are so gamebreakingly big that nothing else matters.

This isn't hard to do, I just got it in a few minutes by starting as the king of Scotland, turning my amenities up all the way, speed 5-ing for a little while then clicking a few buttons to get the last bit.

 

[tribnia]

In Havsarsan Zud it becomes zero. If you happen to fight a strong enemy in that season...
Yet most on forum are too skilled to suffer from Havsarsan Zud before blobbing.
P.S. I just decided to start with conqueror inheritance: No Inheritance in the future for I just witnessed Mojmirids keeping the trait for ~200 years.