-
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.
Honestly, this whole thing feels like another issue which stems entirely from the 100 warscore cap in peace deals. Devs want to represent the fast conquests typical of the Mongol or Timurid empires, but also don't want to let western Europeans do the same thing. The only actual thing blocking conquest in real life was the ability to integrate (or pacify) new territory and the reactions from other countries, which would obviously not be the same in every situation or every region.
- 6
- 2
- 1
Its hard to say, we haven't played the game yet and the real experience could be different from description.
Personally I prefer making it an option, annex land is not always the best choice especially for hordes. Plundering is often more profitable.
Personally I prefer making it an option, annex land is not always the best choice especially for hordes. Plundering is often more profitable.
- 1
The devs are also just kinda... wholly misunderstanding what those conquests even looked like, to their detriment.
They were subjugation wars, not outright conquest. Subjugation that only when those subjects rebelled (or were instigated to rebel) were they annexed. The war score problem doesn't exist when things are approached coherently.
Mihrabanids? Subjugated; never rebelled, stuck around until the 16th century. Kartids? Subjugated, rebelled, annexed. Muzaffarids? Subjugated, rebelled, annexed. Sarbadars? Joined Timur, slowly dissolved by way of their own succession tendencies leading to partition; always loyal. Jalayirids? Survived Timur, annexed by the Qara Qoyunlu. Hazaraspids? Subjugated, ousted by Timur's successors. Korshidis? Subjugated, lasted until the Safavids.
Seriously this whole issue with "hordes not conquering fast enough" doesn't exist because they shouldn't work that way anyway. This is a problem of their own making, and the solution is so simple that I've already outlined it several times elsewhere: just give Timur a boost to subjugation. That's all you need. Naturally that means he'll subjugate and probably grab some peripheral territories. Also give him a way to do an annexation war against disloyal subjects.
Tada, you now adequately represent his conquests.
Last edited:
- 20
- 3
- 2
- 1
I dont think the devs did their research. The issue starts with the tatar yoke and how it is just a money sucking machine. It obviously was that, but it was much more than just that. The devs are trying to implement unique governments and gameplay-styles, which is fine in my book. I am no fan of being incentified to create a rural society either, but people at least have more variety.
Imo you should be able to start an auto-conquest war (against other hordes), but you should be incentified not to conduct them. Your aim as a step lord should be to first increase in size (if you are not big) and then to create a tributary power-base.
Auto-conquest was bad in Imperator, and I don't see it being better here. EU3 had a system where Horde-occupied provinces would be annexed automagically after X years (I don't remember how long) and even that was kinda shaky.
I'd sooner throw my hat behind a CB that unlocked a "Horde Conquest" peace treaty which cost a large, flat amount of warscore (80-100%, regardless of occupied territory) that took maximum war reparations and all occupied land. Antagonism (can we still call it AE for short) would scale with land taken, of course. Something more like enforcing a union, but conquest.
I'd sooner throw my hat behind a CB that unlocked a "Horde Conquest" peace treaty which cost a large, flat amount of warscore (80-100%, regardless of occupied territory) that took maximum war reparations and all occupied land. Antagonism (can we still call it AE for short) would scale with land taken, of course. Something more like enforcing a union, but conquest.
- 4
- 1
At a minimum I'd like auto conquest to be something the horde side can trigger to happen, rather than something that is automatic. If you want to just raid then you should be able to. If you want to conquer and for that to lead to vassalisation (or a tributary status) then that should be an option too.
Then you need AI logic about when it would want to auto conquer and when it wouldn't.
Then you need AI logic about when it would want to auto conquer and when it wouldn't.
- 3
Whatever limitations or restrictions they end up imposing on ability to auto conquer, it should be easier for Timur imo
- 1
Mabye only autoconquer steppe, grasland and only land adjacent.
This way russia will stay under the yoke in war.
Mongol armies could be used to burn down forest etc. but labor extensive.
This way russia will stay under the yoke in war.
Mongol armies could be used to burn down forest etc. but labor extensive.
I don't know where people get this idea that world conquest will be easy, or even possible. According to the devs, it's still a struggle to even do historic boarder, and there are so many systems that don't just dissuade blobbing but actively punish it. It's not as simple as, you conquer china so you have issues with china for a bit like in EU4, EU5 they're going for you conquered china, and your entire global empire is at risk of shattering unless you spend the next 100 years hard focusing on keeping it together.
Decline is an intended goal with the game.
Decline is an intended goal with the game.
Market isn't dependent on what country the province belongs to, so no need to worry about that part.
.png){kind=avatar}
Me (and other players) asked Pavia in Golden Horde Dev Diary about hordes mechanics: auto-conquer, borders raiding and razing. He did not responded to any our question about mechanics. Why?
- 3
he answered about the raiding, its basically if im not wrong a decision that'll give devastation to a province
- 1
They already answered what auto conquering was some time ago I believe
Could be that they didn't have time or are still tweaking them
Actually it does, there is the country modifiers of Market Attraction and the other one (defense like), there seems to be a boost for your provinces to be in your market and you can always enbargo any country.
they could add a special CB that allows auto-conquering(like Antigonian wars in Imperator)
- 2
Honestly if the mechanic belongs anywhere it's in the revolutionary wars at the very end of the time period (and it may well be implemented there, we haven't heard much about late game yet). I think for hordes particularly vassalization wars are a lot closer to how they tended to expand than outright conquest, and we can see this in how two of the main post mongol hordes in the game are represented as IOs rather than unitary states
- 7
- 2
To be honest, this shows nothing except that the Mongol expansion can be re-enacted. Will that nation be able to conquer western Europe and India? Will it last more than 50 years or collapse into multiple khanates?
- 1
If anyone has any doubts, this is not merely a problem with Timur, but also how nomadic empires work in general. There were two Mongol invasions of Hungary and they didn't annex anything either time. The Russian principalities survived the Mongol conquest.
I think in general my problem with these games is that the default form of conquest is direct annexation, when really, this should be the hardest type of conquest to enforce., especially for hordes. That's why this feature is so inexplicable, it is a hard-correction in the wrong direction.
Last edited:
- 8
- 2