Eastern factions. Help me pick

[palmtree]

After a Roman campaign I'm in the mood for a change and I figured I might as well pick something as geographically far away from Rome as I could, recreating the Persian empire sounds good. However, I have a hard time deciding on a faction.

I figure it's a tossup between Pahlava and Baktria, with Saka not looking very interesting.

I've looked over the faction descriptions and units but not having seen any of these factions in action I don't feel like I have a grip on how they play.

[burn_again]

If you're new to EB I'd recommend Baktria, as they are easier than Palahva. They have a decent economy and access to good infanty and cavalry from early on, while Pahlava starts as a Horse Archer faction. Pahlava is fun too, but might be too difficult if you haven't played the game for a while. Saka is incredibly difficult at the start, so I wouldn't recommend them. For Baktria you should also find lots of AARs and starting guides here in the forum.

[Bootsiuv]

Baktria is probably my favorite faction....they get some great units, they have easiest access to the wealth that is the Indus valley, and they have the coolest faction color IMO.

Baktria = r0x0r5!!11!!eleventeen!!1!1

[Hooahguy]

ya..... my armies look good in deep blue! ;-)
go Baktria!
lol

[Elminster12]

Baktria is the easier of those, and thus probably the better start-point. Saka especially is really rough sailing at the beginning. Plus, they do have a really large unit roster and those juicy Indian provinces to expand into. Be sure to use a level three government in at least one of those provinces for elephants and indian longbowmen!

[Hound of Ulster]

Pahlavi. All cav armies with the Pahlavi can cut through the Seleukids like a hot knife through butter.

[beatoangelico]

Baktria is the easier of those, and thus probably the better start-point. Saka especially is really rough sailing at the beginning. Plus, they do have a really large unit roster and those juicy Indian provinces to expand into. Be sure to use a level three government in at least one of those provinces for elephants and indian longbowmen!

a lv1 gov is enough for getting the longbowmen :inquisitive:

[Elminster12]

a lv1 gov is enough for getting the longbowmen :inquisitive:
It is now? That's good.

[The Persian Cataphract]

May I suggest the Pahlavân? They may not have as simple a starting position as Baktria, but their form of government is flexible and extends to the benefits of sedentary and nomadic forms; Furthermore, while Baktria has a comparable power in cavalry, the variety of the Pahlavân is unmatched and an equestrian army can almost be contructed to one's deepest wishes. Furthermore, only two factions have the potential to harness the strength and spectra of the Iranian Plataeu, one being Hayasdan in their reformed period, and the other being Pahlavâ; Whereas Hayasdan emphasizes a bit more on infantry, while Pahlavâ focuses on mounted archery, both are very comparable in their late-game potential, except for now, Pahlavân has the upper edge in being able to harness steppen lands. It further means that they have the potential to utterly defeat the Sacae at their own game, and practically make the steppes a frontier of their own.

Another favourable factor is casualty control. When in control of Seleucid, Bactrian, Pontic or Armenian armies, the significant lack of horse-archery, the general has to expect significant casualties, unless in command of battle-hardened veterans or pitted against a clearly inferior foe. On the other hand, Parthian armies are expensive. Luckily, later on this shouldn't be a problem as they ought to have a very "mercantile" campaign game. Furthermore, the Pahlavâ do get one of the most ass-kicking if not the most ass-kicking bodyguard units in their late game, along with an equally powerful recruitable late cataphract unit. The Pahlavân are "poor" on infantry, but not all infantry is poor; The Hyrcanians make excellent shock troops, the Iranian axemen are a well-to-do light auxiliary unit, Persian hoplites are solid when assigned for sentry duty, levy phalangites, some of the finest foot-archers in the mod, late Partho-Hellenic infantry make decent "imitation legions", Babylonian spearmen, Eastern hellenic medium infantry and of course the unbeatable masters of distasters, Iranian archer-spearmen (No, I'm serious... There is no reason not to love those guys, I mean they fire arrows and they can hold a line pretty good until your cavalry can bring the smackdown... What more could you possibly ask for? ~:joker:). The key is to use infantry only as auxiliaries and/or as garrison personnel; On boot, the Pahlavân get their own flavour of elephantry as well, a representation of elephantry in the Indo-Parthian/Sûrên-Pahlavân/Gondopharid veneer.

For those who cannot live without high performance infantry, artillery and armoured elephants, Baktria fills those voids pretty neatly. But if you want a faction in where you'd like a nearly maxed out cap on available cavalry, including the fine quality horsemanship available in the steppes, while being able to rear a very "Persian" army, the Parthians make a good option. If I really lobby for them, I have even higher thoughts of them :grin:

[Treverer]

If you like cav & HA, then pick Pahlava. If you like it easier and you prefer a good mix of (absolutely amazing looking) infantry & cavalry, pick Baktria.

But ... you can recreate the "Old Persian"/Achaemenid Empire with the AS, the Ptolemaioi, Pontos or Hayasdan too, though the last two are REALLY tough.

It is your choice, in the end.

Yours, T.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I disagree with the inclusion of the Ptolemaioi having the credentials to substitute the once Achaemenid colossus; Their access to Iranian units is not comparable to that of AS, Baktria, Pahlava, Hayasdan or Pontos. While Ptolemaioi certainly has the capacity of great expansion, the composition of its armies resembles something else, as does their organization and administrational machine. Otherwise your assessment bears merit :2thumbsup:

[Treverer]

I disagree with the inclusion of the Ptolemaioi having the credentials to substitute the once Achaemenid colossus; Their access to Iranian units is not comparable to that of AS, Baktria, Pahlava, Hayasdan or Pontos.
Well, that was unknown to me. Thanks for the information & also for your compliment.

Yours,
Treverer

[Andronikos]

This is a great thread. I especially like The Persian Cataphracts post about Pahlava. What misses is Foots post about Hayasdan. I am considering starting a game for eastern faction and Pahlava wins. So will you persuade me to another faction? (I played for Bactria 0.80 and want to play for them later, btw it is one of my favourite factions, but now I want to try something more eastern)

[larsbecks]

Baktria is a fun campaign if you'd like a good income and the ability to crush the Seleukids in a civil war. If you want to become the new Persians Pahlava is a better role playing campaign. Plus I love the horse archer fighting style (of both the Pahlavans and Saka).

[palmtree]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I started a Baktrian campaign cause I like infantry, and India seemed tempting too. Was content with slowly building up my strength and pushing east when the AS attacked me for no good reason. You'd think that with them being at war against the Ptolemaioi they wouldn't want a second front, but RTW's ai is crap, no news there.

Anyway, with them declaring war I figure I'm better off conquering a town or two of theirs before taking india.

I might be in the mood for a Pahlava campaign later for the all-mounted fix, or possibly a Hayasdan campaign, if I'm feeling suicidal.

[jhhowell]

When in control of Seleucid, Bactrian, Pontic or Armenian armies, the significant lack of horse-archery...

You'll have to drop Hayasdan from that list, they get horse archers early and often. In the suggestions thread I've advocated for making the Scythian HA a little harder to get (regional MIC-2 instead of the current MIC-1). Not to mention those godlike cataphract archers in the factional roster - though I dare say the Parthians should have something at least as good if not better. ~:)

Palmtree, Hayasdan is not a suicide campaign. Just don't play on VH, but that goes for almost anyone other than AS, IMHO. If your Bactria game is on VH, that would be why AS jumped you early...

[Treverer]

@ Palmtree:

in my ongoing Baktrian campaign (H/M), I'm actually getting my provinces via ... say, a bit nasty way: my armies are relativly small (= garrisons & mobile defence forces) and I rely on my spies to revolt AS cities. Two of them have revolted so far and are now Baktrian. Alright, alright, this isn't the "most heroic" way to expand, but it's funny nevertheless. And it allows me to prepare the conquest of India.

Yours, T.

EDIT: on my post above I wrote that Baktria has the most beautiful units. Well, that was incorrect, as it should be: "Baktria has the most beautiful units of all Hellenic/Successor factions". IMHO, the Getai units look wonderful/splendid too. (Haven't seen too many other so-called Barbarian units so far.).

T.

[Thaatu]

If you wanted to recreate Persia, you should've picked Seleucids. What's the point of spending hours upon days playing a game, when you could've accomplished what you want with a few clicks? In about five minutes might I add.

[tapanojum]

If you wanted to recreate Persia, you should've picked Seleucids. What's the point of spending hours upon days playing a game, when you could've accomplished what you want with a few clicks? In about five minutes might I add.

This logic can apply to any games then. Whats the point of playing a game when you can type a cheat code and instantly win...isn't winning what you want to accomplish?

[MiniMe]

:help:
Need help too
I'm getting no joy at all while finishing my current KH campaign and it is not because of KH, these dudes rule. In fact, they steamroll.
I'm very depressed cause I can't decide, should I start Pahlavans or Hayasdan as my next campaign. Both of them seem to be very interesting, both of them have very interesting background and great unit rooster.

as per Baktria - I'd like to assure everybody Baktria was a very good campaign, but they are not an eastern faction in it's true sense. Not with all these longpike and elite_hoplites. However, I must admit, my base baktrian unit was eastern to the bone. Zee awesome Persian Archer-Spearmen. Love these guys. If I was gay, I would gave my heart only to an honest persian Nizagan-i Eranshar :laugh4:

And my favourite asian mercenarys were and are Babylonian spearmen. Babylonian macemen, you should call them. Babylonian meatchop-assault/defend_the walls-infantry I call them :clown:

[palmtree]

Palmtree, Hayasdan is not a suicide campaign. Just don't play on VH, but that goes for almost anyone other than AS, IMHO. If your Bactria game is on VH, that would be why AS jumped you early...

I'm playing all campaigns on H/M. VH makes diplomacy useless, on H it's atleast an option some of the time.

[The Persian Cataphract]

You'll have to drop Hayasdan from that list, they get horse archers early and often. In the suggestions thread I've advocated for making the Scythian HA a little harder to get (regional MIC-2 instead of the current MIC-1). Not to mention those godlike cataphract archers in the factional roster - though I dare say the Parthians should have something at least as good if not better. ~:)

Agreed, Armenia's available spectrum of recruitable cavalry and light horse, is far more comparable to that of the Parthians, but still not quite there. The Parthians have pretty much the same availability of auxiliaries as Sacae or the Sarmatians. The Parthians do get an equivalent cataphracted horse-archer, but this also applies to the two other steppen factions.

What the Parthians do get is two of the most powerful cavalry units available in the mod. Hayasdan gets one rather equivalent unit, as does the Saka-Rauka and Baktria (These are the late general's bodyguards). This is a significant advantage to the Parthians; They no longer need to amass generals in order to form the super-heavy nucleus, but they can recruit by necessity and convenience.

[palmtree]

Since I didn't see it in the FAQ I figured I'd ask here instead. Does Baktria get reform events? I'm mainly thinking of the "early" bodyguard which hints that they do.

[burn_again]

You'll get the late bodyguards with the vanilla marian reforms - there must be a huge city in Italy (not Rome I think). There are no further reforms for Baktria.

[Pharnakes]

Correct.

[kambiz]

recreating the Persian empire sounds good. MiniMe is right ,Bakteria is not really an eastern faction ,And surely not amongst those who can revive the Achaemenid empire. Although majority of population is Indo-Iranian ,Still they considered as subjected people. I also disagree with Saka for this role as well. They might were ethnically close to Iranians ,But culturally not ,And did not share the common interests with Inlanders !

Besides Pahlava ,Imo only Pontus and Hayasdan can be real successors of achaemenids and truly revive it. The duling family of pontus is Persian ,And the population is a mixed of nearly everything. Hayk who were a former Achaemenids Satrapy ,though might not be ethnically iranian ,But culturally and militarily are so close to them and share the common interests. thus with some justification ,Iranian would not saw them as invaders.

BTW ,Bakteria already chosen !

[Sarkiss]

MiniMe is right ,Bakteria is not really an eastern faction ,And surely not amongst those who can revive the Achaemenid empire. Although majority of population is Indo-Iranian ,Still they considered as subjected people. I also disagree with Saka for this role as well. They might were ethnically close to Iranians ,But culturally not ,And did not share the common interests with Inlanders !

Besides Pahlava ,Imo only Pontus and Hayasdan can be real successors of achaemenids and truly revive it. The duling family of pontus is Persian ,And the population is a mixed of nearly everything. Hayk who were a former Achaemenids Satrapy ,though might not be ethnically iranian ,But culturally and militarily are so close to them and share the common interests. thus with some justification ,Iranian would not saw them as invaders.

BTW ,Bakteria already chosen !
Armenian Yervandids (Oronids) through intemarrige were related to Achemenids

[Andronikos]

Kambiz? "Bakteria" in my language means "bacterium", do you call Baktria Bakteria in your country? :beam:

[kambiz]

Kambiz? "Bakteria" in my language means "bacterium", do you call Baktria Bakteria in your country? lol No my friend,We call it "Bakhtar" ,Not Baktria Nor Bakteria :wink:
BTW ,Your language is english or Greek???

[The Persian Cataphract]

Furthermore, "Bakhtrish" and its core city "Zariaspa" are the Old Persian designations for these areas.

[jabarto]

May I suggest the Pahlavân?...

Wow, your post makes it seem kinda hard not to love those guys. I've never tried them, but I think I'll give them a shot in my next campaign.

[Andronikos]

My language is Slovak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia

Wow, your post makes it seem kinda hard not to love those guys. I've never tried them, but I think I'll give them a shot in my next campaign.
Completely agree, it was really a good post, I would say it was a short argumentative essay.

[kambiz]

Hehe TPC is scientist/Scholar And he usually post his opinion in scientific way ... I like that :yes:

[palmtree]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

[LusitanianWolf]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.
Agreed.
I've started my invasion to the steppes to hunt them and its killing my economy.

[beatoangelico]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

always better than "destroy or outlast the Arche Seleukia" doesn't it? :croc:

[kambiz]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.Agree. Pahlava has the same problem with its victory condition ! Generally ,Any expansion into steppe as a victory condition does not sound reasonable

[icydawgfish]

You'll get the late bodyguards with the vanilla marian reforms - there must be a huge city in Italy (not Rome I think). There are no further reforms for Baktria.

Is it possible for the Vanilla reforms to occur with MMA's city mod?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Is it possible for the Vanilla reforms to occur with MMA's city mod?
If you have v3.1...

[MiniMe]

always better than "destroy or outlast the Arche Seleukia" doesn't it? :croc:
:skull: BTW, does any faction has such a terrible victory condition? :skull:

[Elminster12]

:skull: BTW, does any faction has such a terrible victory condition? :skull:
I'm guessing the Ptolemies...

[MiniMe]

So that must be the true reason nobody likes and plays poor Ptolyes...
Not that I ever considered to play as them, and ever will.

[artavazd]

So that must be the true reason nobody likes and plays poor Ptolyes...
Not that I ever considered to play as them, and ever will.


Also Armenia

[mrtwisties]

As is evident from a lot of my posts, I've recently started playing with the Saka and am really enjoying it. It's a very different experience from almost any of the other civilisations that I've played, and I highly recommend it if you'd like to try something new.

For me, the biggest advantage is the Saka generals. Of course, they're great (virtually free) armoured cataphracts, and therefore very useful on the battlefield. But it's the traits and ancillaries that the Ksaya Saka Rauka get that are the real kicker for me. They get innate movement bonuses (like "lives on the move" and "horde chief"), they get even more movement bonuses when you move them around fighting a lot (like "rider" and "brutal"), and you start off with one drillmaster and two quartermasters that you can pass from general to general.

I have an all cavalry army led by a general that is a horde chief (+80%), good attacker (+10%), famous rider (+20%) and ruthless disciplinarian (+10%) with an understanding of logistics (+10%). He is also brutal (+10%) and enthusiastic (+5%), and is accompanied by a drillmaster (+25%) and quartermaster (+10%). To see this guy blitz his way from Seleukeia to Pella in just a few turns was truly a thing of beauty. Incidentally, his son looks like he might wind up being even faster.

When you have generals like these, it's possible to take a different, dare-I-say-it buccaneering attitude towards the game. No more methodical, Roman-like imperial expansion. You travel the world winning glory and looting the cities of sedentary agriculturalists. Feel like seeing the Pyramids? Then let's blaze our way through the Levant. Where next? The Caucasus? I've heard that England can be quite beautiful in summer...

You won't get much of a sense that you're recreating the Persian empire with these guys. Bringing the civilised world to its knees is more like it. But if you're after an exciting, bloody game where personalities loom large and every battle counts, look no further than the Saka.

[MerlinusCDXX]

As is evident from a lot of my posts, I've recently started playing with the Saka and am really enjoying it. It's a very different experience from almost any of the other civilisations that I've played, and I highly recommend it if you'd like to try something new.

For me, the biggest advantage is the Saka generals. Of course, they're great (virtually free) armoured cataphracts, and therefore very useful on the battlefield. But it's the traits and ancillaries that the Ksaya Saka Rauka get that are the real kicker for me. They get innate movement bonuses (like "lives on the move" and "horde chief"), they get even more movement bonuses when you move them around fighting a lot (like "rider" and "brutal"), and you start off with one drillmaster and two quartermasters that you can pass from general to general.

I have an all cavalry army led by a general that is a horde chief (+80%), good attacker (+10%), famous rider (+20%) and ruthless disciplinarian (+10%) with an understanding of logistics (+10%). He is also brutal (+10%) and enthusiastic (+5%), and is accompanied by a drillmaster (+25%) and quartermaster (+10%). To see this guy blitz his way from Seleukeia to Pella in just a few turns was truly a thing of beauty. Incidentally, his son looks like he might wind up being even faster.

When you have generals like these, it's possible to take a different, dare-I-say-it buccaneering attitude towards the game. No more methodical, Roman-like imperial expansion. You travel the world winning glory and looting the cities of sedentary agriculturalists. Feel like seeing the Pyramids? Then let's blaze our way through the Levant. Where next? The Caucasus? I've heard that England can be quite beautiful in summer...

You won't get much of a sense that you're recreating the Persian empire with these guys. Bringing the civilised world to its knees is more like it. But if you're after an exciting, bloody game where personalities loom large and every battle counts, look no further than the Saka.

yeah, with Saka it's more like kicking off the Mongol invasion 1500 years early.
:charge: :charge: :charge: :hmg: :hmg: :hmg:

[mrtwisties]

yeah, with Saka it's more like kicking off the Mongol invasion 1500 years early.

Absolutely. And until Genghis: Total War comes out, it'll do nicely. :beam:

[kambiz]

Mongols :thumbsdown:

[mrtwisties]

You're only saying that because they did awful things.

...

Which is a pretty good reason, I guess.