Does anyone else think nomad subjugagtion is too powerful?

[Congo_Jack]

I'm on my first playthrough since I got Horse Lords. Been playing as Miaphysite King of Egypt starting from the earliest point. I ended up in a massive war with the Byzantine empire over 1 province. They had about 35,000 men but during the war I destroyed almost their entire army. Then all of sudden, like within 2 years the entire empire became part of Khazaria due to a subjugation war.

Given Khazaria only had about 7,000 men some might think 'well done, they picked the right time to strike' but seriously the entire empire in one war! Thats nuts!

*Also rather annoying for my game given I now have the Umyads to the west, the Ghulids (used to be Abbisids) to the east and the now Muslim former Byzantine empire to the north. Oh and the taking of Constantinople triggered Crusades and Jihads even though its only 912.

[Yaldabaoth]

Yes, everyone does. Except the guys at Paradox.

[Surimi]

Yes, it's pretty insane.. Nomads in general are a bit ridiculous at the moment.

The new infamy system should help a little, but even so I'd advise playing CK2 Plus for a while, where nomads are much, much less ridiculous.

[Orthum]

Yeah, I will say they seemed completely insane, unless your the biggest nomad around, your going to get crushed. I mean I guess I just don't know the mechanic... but Still they seem to instantly show up with massive armies and subjegate everyone in the area.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Deep Hurting:

Yes, it's pretty insane.. Nomads in general are a bit ridiculous at the moment.

The new infamy system should help a little, but even so I'd advise playing CK2 Plus for a while, where nomads are much, much less ridiculous.

I'm glad I started CK2 when I did, because Coalitions/Infamy are going to ruin it. Do not want.

Heck, I already avoided buying Horse Lords because of how broken Nomads are. I love how the "fix" is to introduce an even worse mechanic.

[Taiwan Number One]

The devs are pretty stupid so I wasn't surprised when nomads happened.

[Congo_Jack]

Well if infamy/coalitions are added i hope they even it up rather than penalise both nomads and others.

Cos now I'm in Jihad city with 1 measlily holy order (that hates me and is usualy at war with its own rebels) to help me.

[Zeetarb]

Originally posted by Setsuna:

Originally posted by Deep Hurting:

Yes, it's pretty insane.. Nomads in general are a bit ridiculous at the moment.

The new infamy system should help a little, but even so I'd advise playing CK2 Plus for a while, where nomads are much, much less ridiculous.

I'm glad I started CK2 when I did, because Coalitions/Infamy are going to ruin it. Do not want.

Heck, I already avoided buying Horse Lords because of how broken Nomads are. I love how the "fix" is to introduce an even worse mechanic.

Infamy/Coalitions? That's not actually being added is it? I mean I used to half-joke that the devs aim was to turn this game into EU, but if they're adding mechanics like that in than it's not really joking it's the actual intention. Seriously I cannot understand why Paradox want every game they make to be EU.

[markdb92]

If you think its too powerfull mod it out. Kinda simple to do so.

[Taiwan Number One]

I would rather CK2 do it's own thing too, but infamy/coalitions might be needed to add any degree of difficulty as a nomadic/large realm. Reckless expansion is too easy atm.

[Surimi]

CK2 is pretty much the only Paradox game which has no infamy system, and it seems like the way they're implementing it will mostly penalize Empires and higher tier titles which have the potential to expand very fast. This all sounds pretty squarely pointed at nomads, basically.

I'm quietly optimistic. The game has always been too easy once you have an empire rank title.

[Zeetarb]

Originally posted by Deep Hurting:

CK2 is pretty much the only Paradox game which has no infamy system, and it seems like the way they're implementing it will mostly penalize Empires and higher tier titles which have the potential to expand very fast. This all sounds pretty squarely pointed at nomads, basically.

I'm quietly optimistic. The game has always been too easy once you have an empire rank title.

I haven't dealt with nomads, but I assume it's as stupid and poorly thought out as every other expansion lately. Way of Life still absurdly aiming at producing seduction and meme-ish humour than gameplay I assume?

The answer for making it difficult with Empire tier titles should have been internal rather than external - I mean during this period how many empires were brought down via external forces than internal? I remember vassal wars used to be a lot trickier, and during this time period a handful of Earl's could often stand level in wars on the Kings of England, France or other European countries, yet in CK2 it's almost always a joke.

[Surimi]

Originally posted by Zeetarb:

Way of Life still absurdly aiming at producing seduction and meme-ish humour than gameplay I assume?

Like most meme-ish humour, the whole seduction complaint is based on an exageration of what actually tends to actually occur. Obviously, if you have an extremely large realm then the sheer number of landed characters will mean that some will inevitably do seduction. Likewise, high ranking women do tend to be targets of seduction more than lowly countesses. But generally, unless you're marrying people with the lustful trait, I've never found it to be a problem.

Originally posted by Zeetarb:

The answer for making it difficult with Empire tier titles should have been internal rather than external - I mean during this period how many empires were brought down via external forces than internal?

There really aren't that many empires (in the sense of what CK2 would call empire tier titles) in this period..

HRE - survived until the 19th century (N/a)
ERE - collapsed mostly due to the 4th crusade. Ultimately conquered by Ottomans. (External)
Abbasid Caliphate - Waxed and waned for several hundred years due to a combination of internal and external pressures. Ultimately conquered by the Mongols. (Both)
Delhi Sultanate - Passed between several dynasties during the CK2 timeline. Ultimately conquered and replaced by the Mughal Empire after the end of the timeline (External).

The rest, unless I'm missing any out, are all nomadic empires which tended to break up due to the practice of dividing lands amongst all available heirs.

Mongol Empire - Broke up due to succession problems. (Internal)
Golden Horde - Broke up due to succession problems shortly after the CK2 timeline, but rival claimants were supported by neighbouring Christian states. (Both)
Seljuk Empire - Broke up due to succession problems.
Ilkhanate - Ruling family died during the black death. Broke up during resulting succession crisis. (Internal)
Timurid Empire - Survived to the end of the CK2 timeline. Declined due to a combination of internal and external problems, but the Timurid dynasty would continue to rule Northern India as the Mughal Emprie. (Both)

So yeah, external conquest played a role in the decline of most empires.. apart from nomadic empires which, as mentioned, tended to get divided up.

Also, I'm really not sure anything has changed at all as regards vassal wars..

[Zeetarb]

Not sure how you say "most" ... most of the examples you listed were actually internal conflicts even by your own statements though. While external stuff played a part, in almost none of those was it a coalition formed against them (Except the Byzantines, but that was a Crusade even if the mechanics can't handle that type of diversion).

My understanding was that the move to change the vassal wars so that they form a state under the leader compared to all being allied together meant the troop levels are smaller, though not sure on the specifics. It has been something I've seen raised since the changes I believe between 2.0 and 2.1.6 somewhere.

As far as Empires, I was also thinking more of the less-official Empires, the Angevin empire in England for example, or various large Scandenavian realms. While external forces played a part it was internal processes that enabled that part to take place, and again there wasn't really any coalitioning going on against them.

[Ás Fífldjarfi]

Subjugation does tend to make wierd thing happens, in most of my plays scandinavia ends up beeing dominated by Finland, and then gets supplanted by the nomads eventually.

I haven't played as nomads before, and I have no idea how they work, I see a large khanate in civil war, and as the byzantines I attack them, the game tells me the Khan only has about 4000 troops, but still I end up fighting about 50.000 men over the course of the war, and since all their lands are so damn worthless, and their empires so damn huge, those war take ages.

It gives me great satisfaction though, conquering empty plains and building castles and cities there and then dole it out to relatives.