Talk:Steppe hordes
B - This article is considered a B-class article on the wiki quality scale
Tatars Zaporozhie?[edit source]
Zaporozhian historical monarchy have russians name (e.g. Ivan, Vassyl). Why historical have tatar culture?
Golden Horde[edit source]
Newb request here -- can somebody create a "Golden Horde" individual page? I'd like to add strategy but do not know how to go about creating a new page and don't want to mess it up. Thanks~
{on that note -- making an individual page for as many new/existing nations as possible would probably help us get a bunch of edits/adds as I bet many are as new/computer-dumb as myself}
Updated Religion[edit source]
I noticed that Psychoguineapig updated the Steppe Horde religions to account for the new Tengri faith and the splitting up of Buddhist groups and that those changes got reverted by another user with a few exceptions. It seems more relevant to refer to the hordes as Vajrayana than just simply as Buddhist so I'm putting those changes back in place. Perses (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (CEST)
- Looks like you're right, go ahead and put the information back in. Dauth (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2015 (CEST)
Category[edit source]
This page needs to be in a category other than a version. Dauth (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2016 (CET)
No Savanna Shock Bonus[edit source]
Apparently savanna doesn't count as 'plains' when deciding whether hordes get shock damage bonus or penalty. Might be an unnoticed bug though since you're not supposed to play hordes in savanna. --AlexSSB (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2018 (CEST)
Development lost from razing[edit source]
Currently the razing section states "Lowers the province's 
development by 1 in each category and an additional 1 for every 5 development in that category before razing (rounded down)". I tested this in 1.31.4 and this is wrong. A better formula would be (development - 1)/3 rounded up. That formula is correct up to 52 dev in one category, but then it becomes slightly wrong. Does anybody know the real formula? I'll put that new formula on the wiki for now with a note that it is not entirely accurate. I put the values from my tests and the results of the new and old formula in the following table:
| Dev before razing | razed dev in the game | old formula | new formula |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 9 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 10 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 11 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 12 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 13 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 14 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
| 15 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 16 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| 17 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| 18 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| 19 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| 20 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| 21 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| 22 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| 23 | 8 | 5 | 8 |
| 24 | 8 | 5 | 8 |
| 25 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| 26 | 9 | 6 | 9 |
| 27 | 9 | 6 | 9 |
| 28 | 9 | 6 | 9 |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 10 |
| 30 | 10 | 7 | 10 |
| … | |||
| 50 | 17 | 11 | 17 |
| 51 | 17 | 11 | 17 |
| 52 | 17 | 11 | 17 |
| 53 | 17 | 11 | 18 |
| 54 | 18 | 11 | 18 |
| 55 | 18 | 12 | 18 |
| 56 | 18 | 12 | 19 |
| 57 | 19 | 12 | 19 |
| 58 | 19 | 12 | 19 |
| 59 | 19 | 12 | 20 |
| … | |||
| 10000 | 3300 | 2001 | 3333 |
| 10001 | 3300 | 2001 | 3334 |
| 10002 | 3301 | 2001 | 3334 |
| 10003 | 3301 | 2001 | 3334 |
| 10004 | 3301 | 2001 | 3335 |
| 10005 | 3302 | 2002 | 3335 |
| 10006 | 3302 | 2002 | 3335 |
| 10007 | 3302 | 2002 | 3336 |
| 10008 | 3303 | 2002 | 3336 |
| 100000 | 33000 | 20001 | 33333 |
| 1000000 | 330000 | 200001 | 333333 |
| 1000001 | 330000 | 200001 | 333334 |
| 1000002 | 330001 | 200001 | 333334 |
--Grotaclas (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you really want a formula, in program code it would be:
((d + 1) / 3) - (d % 3 / 2) * (d / 53). A conditional statement would be easier to comprehend I think. --Malkanto (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)- The formula doesn't seem to match what I see in the game (and put in the above table) or maybe I misunderstand the formula. The d is the development before razing and % is modulo, right? And it is ((d % 3) / 2) and not (d % (3/2)). Are some parts of the formula rounded in some way? But even with rounding I don't see how it can match some of the high values, because for example (10002+1)/3=3334.33 is 33.33 higher than the observed value, but the modulo would be 0, so nothing gets subtracted. --Grotaclas (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your proposed formula is actually correct, after a bit more testing @ravy#0001 found one that works above 50: ceil((d - 2) / 3) - floor(d / 300) Proof --Jasperfirecai2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- The formula doesn't seem to match what I see in the game (and put in the above table) or maybe I misunderstand the formula. The d is the development before razing and % is modulo, right? And it is ((d % 3) / 2) and not (d % (3/2)). Are some parts of the formula rounded in some way? But even with rounding I don't see how it can match some of the high values, because for example (10002+1)/3=3334.33 is 33.33 higher than the observed value, but the modulo would be 0, so nothing gets subtracted. --Grotaclas (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
