Incongruous
08-29-2008, 23:34
Ok so I am now playing like my tenth Baktrian campaign, but this time decided to do something different.
I started to make my first conquests in India, Gandhara first, this meant that I left the Saka to go about willy nilly. At first they were kept in check by some starnge Seleukid conquests north of Baktria. But now in 256 B.C, the Seleukids have crumbled with the Parthians marching ever further south and the Saka claiming all north of Baktria. Due to my conquests I had pretty much no armies near Baktra and in 258 B.C the city was taken by the Saka. To haul my only army over the mountains and into Baktria would take a considerable amount of time and supplies would run low, not to mention that once there I do not know whether my outdated army could tackle hordes of heavily armoured horse archers.
So what do I do? Baktra was my best city and I was stupid in losing it, but is it worth the risk of taking it back? Or should I now consolidate in India and create a new Indo-Bakrian kingdom?
I started to make my first conquests in India, Gandhara first, this meant that I left the Saka to go about willy nilly. At first they were kept in check by some starnge Seleukid conquests north of Baktria. But now in 256 B.C, the Seleukids have crumbled with the Parthians marching ever further south and the Saka claiming all north of Baktria. Due to my conquests I had pretty much no armies near Baktra and in 258 B.C the city was taken by the Saka. To haul my only army over the mountains and into Baktria would take a considerable amount of time and supplies would run low, not to mention that once there I do not know whether my outdated army could tackle hordes of heavily armoured horse archers.
So what do I do? Baktra was my best city and I was stupid in losing it, but is it worth the risk of taking it back? Or should I now consolidate in India and create a new Indo-Bakrian kingdom?