Please remove that hordes can auto conquer

[Polesie Admiral]

Hey this is a suggestion to remove the hordes' ability to auto conquer as it has a lot of problems from sieging far away war allies of the enemy will grant you their locations, to the fact it'll be way too easy for a world conquest to the fact that not every land the hordes sieged became theirs, see Tokhtamysh siege of Moscow, the city wasn't then annexed into the horde, so please devs, make that hordes would have to conquer the same as any other country

 

[Gurtannon]

For your example, It could me made such that hordes only auto conquer if they have land border to your Capital then there is no need to remove the entire mechanic,

but it could be made more restrictive I agree, maybe tie it to horde unity etc if your horde unity is low you cant auto conquer low control (as if you integrated value) locations

For example at 100 horde unity, you can auto conquer any location, at 90 horde unity you can only Auto conquer locations you would have more then 10 control etc as historically the unity was the main factor of whether they could expand or not

 

[NosgothKingdom]

Further restrictions could be a time for the province to flip and require them to own the province capital.

What I worry the most with this is the buildings in the province, i.e. the horde conquery your province, they delete a bunch of buildings, you reconquer it 2 days later and now your buildings are gone + you potentially have separatism (if this still exists).

 

[Gurtannon]

Further restrictions could be a time for the province to flip and require them to own the province capital.

What I worry the most with this is the buildings in the province, i.e. the horde conquery your province, they delete a bunch of buildings, you reconquer it 2 days later and now your buildings are gone + you potentially have separatism (if this still exists).

Yea they should be time limit for those buildings to be destroyed as well (like 10x of the time of the autoconquer duration) but I am fine with horde conquests destroying buildings as it makes sense

 

[NosgothKingdom]

Yea they should be time limit for those buildings to be destroyed as well (like 10x of the time of the autoconquer duration) but I am fine with horde conquests destroying buildings as it makes sense

Destroying buildings because of looting, sieges or war chaos is fine and should happen even if less with non horde wars as well, what I am worried is unintended destruction, such as: they conquer your province -> it changes market -> price of goods in new market is low, so the building is unprofitable -> AI destroys the buildings (before you can reconquer the province). Or abuse, i.e. you conquer someone's capital knowing you cannot hold it and destroy everything before loosing it again just to tank their economy.

 

[Gurtannon]

Destroying buildings because of looting, sieges or war chaos is fine and should happen even if less with non horde wars as well, what I am worried is unintended destruction, such as: they conquer your province -> it changes market -> price of goods in new market is low, so the building is unprofitable -> AI destroys the buildings (before you can reconquer the province). Or abuse, i.e. you conquer someone's capital knowing you cannot hold it and destroy everything before loosing it again just to tank their economy.

I dont think AI destroy building much, as far as I know, there is also a button for closing buildings, it fires the pops working there therefore building just stays afk, they would probably choose that option

 

[SirTickleBear]

I want it to stay purely for the flavour aspects of it, as unique mechanics is a powerful tool to deliver flavour. I want my horde to feel different to playing as a landed nation. I want my hordes conquest of China to feel different to a regular nation conquering China. Also from what I understand it's only a certain CB that gives them that ability so not every war will result in them using it (I forgot where I read that though so could be wrong). They could maybe tie that CB to internal stability of the horde or something like that so you can't always use it, and maybe make it give more antagonism than other CB's as well.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

No auto-conquering, but give them the ability to automatically annex all occupied locations when peace is signed, bypassing any warscore limits.

 

[Bozkurt]

I don't think we can comment on it without seeing it in action. I am sure they have some balance and would notice it if it was too overpowered

 

[lukesilveira]

For your example, It could me made such that hordes only auto conquer if they have land border to your Capital then there is no need to remove the entire mechanic,

but it could be made more restrictive I agree, maybe tie it to horde unity etc if your horde unity is low you cant auto conquer low control (as if you integrated value) locations

For example at 100 horde unity, you can auto conquer any location, at 90 horde unity you can only Auto conquer locations you would have more then 10 control etc as historically the unity was the main factor of whether they could expand or not

Maybe tie it to a control threshold system. Say a horde occupies a province right next to the capital that gets annexed immediately. But some distant province that's densely populated with non-accepted culture and religion stays unconquered.

Then layer in specific modifiers for things like buildings, military presence, population density, and so on.

Or tie the ownership to control AFTER it is annexed, so the horde have incentives to build outposts or keep military units nearby.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Maybe only auto-conquering against other nomad tags?

 

[Kotyk-durkotyk]

I don't think we can comment on it without seeing it in action. I am sure they have some balance and would notice it if it was too overpowered

We have seen it in action on youtube and according to Pavia's reply, it actually 'worked as expected'. So he transferred the concern to Johan.

So this is a highly valid request.

 

[Streamlet]

Maybe only auto-conquering against other nomad tags?

Even there I don't think it makes much sense. For example, many of the wars between the Oirats and the eastern Mongols in the 15th-16th centuries were based around treaties and vassalization, not magical instant annexation. I'm fine with unique mechanics for hordes, but some of them seem to be only based on exaggerated ideas that they were nothing more than marauding conquerors

 

[Stevo76]

I'm happy with the auto-conquer mechanic. Conquering too quickly will make places almost impossible to administer, and I'm sure that hordes who overreach will be fairly prone to a quick collapse.

As long as control over a location reverts to 0, and things like revolt risk shoot up, I can't imagine there would be much benefit in expanding super quickly. If anything, it would make the horde incredibly unstable.

Maybe hordes should only be able to recruit soldiers from their primary or accepted cultures as well? Essentially to avoid using conquered peoples to rapidly fuel further expansion, and to make sure that you can't conquer widely without a strong and stable population base.

 

[Sindai]

I think it's fine as long as being overextended makes it impossible to avoid the horde succession disaster, and the disaster makes it nearly impossible to avoid rebels popping big chunks of the realm back off again.

 

[Ispil]

The auto-conquest is... incoherent on so many levels that I struggle to know where to begin. "Auto-conquest against other hordes" doesn't work; the other nomads were the areas where Timur conquered the least! And before you bring up the Golden Horde, keep in mind that all he actually did was replace the ruler; he never actually conquered the damn thing. He fought something along the line of eleven wars with Moghulistan and never conquered more than Ferghana. The Jalayirids are the westernmost extent of his conquests.

When Jani Beg conquered the Chupanids, it was at best ousting their ruler and replacing them with their own governor. "Auto-conquest" this was not.

As for the mechanic in general, this doesn't work in the slightest if you want to have things like border raids for slaves and the like. Crimea doing slave raids into Russia doesn't work if they auto-conquest Russia to do so. It's stupid, flat-out, and doesn't represent the slightest bit of reality. It's not even good gameplay most of the time; I don't think I saw a single content creator's screenshot that didn't have Timur conquer the Steppe instead of Iran.

 

[SuperLexxe]

---

Agreed. That mechanic is only fitting for civil wars, scripted and generic.

---

 

[Azgabeth]

Further restrictions could be a time for the province to flip and require them to own the province capital.

What I worry the most with this is the buildings in the province, i.e. the horde conquery your province, they delete a bunch of buildings, you reconquer it 2 days later and now your buildings are gone + you potentially have separatism (if this still exists).

I mean in general, i think there should be a time limit/ take time to destroy a building.

Maybe something like 30% of the time it takes to build a building. That’s how long it should take to destroy a building.

So if it took 366 days to build something, it would take 110 days to destroy it.

 

[MasterPaw]

While it sounds fun, I'm also worried about its balance

Maybe it could require a special event or have big stability penalties

 

[FleetingRain]

How about the chance of auto-conquering is a % equal to the current Horde Unity, divided by a factor of the current local Control?

Everybody loves RNG, right