Hardest faction

What would you say was the hardest faction to play as, and why? I waould say the Saba.

For the Hai and Pontos, the early game poses big financial problems but if you can expand into the weak neighbouring provinces (ie take the rebels and pontos of you are Hai, and vice verse) then you can hold out against the sucsessor spam and begin to make real progress. The Saka, although they have no money, have arguably the best units in the game and they have no dangerous neighbours as Baktria and the AS are busy elsewhere.

So I would say the Saka are the hardest, as you have to be a very good commander to break the sucsessor armies with red sea hoplites and arabian light A-S (ie all your units are naff). Your financial situation isnt great but it has potential. However your strategic position is shockingly bad. Expanding means taking on PT's or the AH, neither of which you can beat without being awsome on the battlefield. Moving your armies takes forever due to the deserts, and it is very hard to play the AS and the PT's off against each other. Altogether a very hard faction to play as.

So, are you saying the hardest faction is Saba, or Saka Rauka?

Read what he said. He means Saba, he just accidently spelled Saka - but since he's talking of deserts, Arabs and Ptolemies, I really don't think he MEANT Saka ;)

He is saying that that Saba is the hardest....

I disagree with that though. It is true that you face two superpowers from the beginning, and that you do so with the weakest unit roster in the game. However, the invasion route from Egypt is easily guarded (red sea coast) and once you unify Arabia, the distance of the desert serves as a general security advantage. You make decent money, and you have the option of invading Ethiopia within ten years, and India within 20. If you do that, you have a decent empire right off, and you can attack the Egyptians and Selucids from multiple directions, making you more of a danger to them than they are to you. Also, you get the good regional units from India (elephants, Longbowman, and those Infantry guild warriors) and Ethiopia (Swordsmen, elephants) that help you to turn the tide when you do face serious armies. Finally, you get levy hellenic phalanxes from your core provinces (regional mic) and although they are not great compared to other phalanx armies, with a few chevrons experience they can be made to be dangerous. Overall, if you handle your early/mid-game well, I think Saba is challenging, but not desperate.
I personally have had more trouble with Early game Baktria, although they can be made into a powerhouse later. I think that the really hard factions are the ones that start out at war with their neighbors, so my vote goes to the Gauls or the KH. Yes they have great units, and once consolidated they are in a great position for expansion and economic growth, but those factions face desperate times in the early game, and the loss of a single battle can derail your early game dramatically. If you don't cheat, and throw in a house rule or two, Averni/Aduei, and KH are tough, and you might not really be established even fifty years into the game.

The Aedui really aren't too hard if you simply throw everything at the Arverni right off the bat. If you fight on hills and bridges you'll destroy their local numerical superiority. If you relentlessly press your advantage, the Arverni can be eliminated within the first two years. It should only take two heroic victories.

After that, money will still be tight until you control about 8 provinces (Tolosa and the Alpine provinces have mines-use them!). Bataroas/Botroas assaults covered by slingers should do the trick nicely, as you don't want to rack up debt while starving defenders out.

If you do this, you'll have a robust confederacy by the time the Romans knock circa 265 BC.

With the Arverni happens the same. You have to throw your armies against the Aedui in your first turn. You'll be able to destroy or weaken them easily. After that you can unify the Gaul and so on.

I agree that the beggining for Baktria is very hard. You have to handle the Grey Death soon. And when the war begins it will never end till you have totally destroy AS.

When I've conquered India (without much trouble), the AS began to attack me, and now, many years after, they keep on attacking me. They are forcing me to conquer their provinces to prevent new attacks (now I'm ready to attack Persepolis and Gabai), when I didn't want to expand so soon to the west.
I've tried to give some province to other factions, but the AS attacks them and recover the provinces soon, and keep on attacking me. I just want some peace!
So now I decide to make them total war till I've destroyed them or perished in the attempt.

At least the Sakas are still allies. And the Pahlava a protectorate (I have to use the cheat force diplomacy to achieve that and avoid their destruction by the Sakas).

I dont think KH is so hard if you are prepared to lose Athens for a few years if necessary. Obviously it better to hold onto it, but Maks should lose so much in trying to take it, you can even turn this into a temporary advantage...

Its easy to build up economically on the islands and so long as you hold Sparta you should have decent troops as well.

I think I might give Saba a go now after reading the above, using Elephants and light troops to conquer Egypt sounds kind of fun...

Does Saka Rauka have more trouble holding onto places than most factions, due to revolts etc?

Yeah I havent played the Aedui or the KH, but I did play with the maks and arverni and u just gotta blitz the shit out of your enemies before they can recruit huge armies with their scripted money.

Oh and Saka is a poor nomad faction, if you are lucky u can recruit a unit once every ten turns, not to mention that with 1.1 u border the AS from the start with a war going on.

I've played the Romans, Carthies (both several times), Maks, Ptollies, Epeirotes, Casses, Swebozz, Arverni and Baktrian, and I've got only real problems with my actual Baktria campaign.

But I've played most of the other factions in the 1.0 version (with the exception of the Arverni).

I found Saba a bit difficult tactically with their native units vs the heavy phalanxes of AS and PT, but it was an excellent training ground for anti-phalanx tactics. Once I got some Indian units into the levant, using my light-infantry-vs-phalanx tactics, those dirty Greeks just scattered like dust before the might of my. . . :embarassed: sorry, back to topic.

Saba has weak native units, but can build a very strong economy and can draw from some excellent regional units like heavy gallic swordsmen, Indian guild infantry and elephants.

The most difficulty I've had was with Sauromate - poor provinces, expensive starting army and everybody hates you.

I will add that, after playing Saba, Getai was WAAAYYY easy tactically.

p.s. Just about my only universal house rule is I don't disband starting land troops.

I found the Sauromatae take a very long time to get going with, but once you do, you are unstoppable - none of the neighbouring powers to the west are prepared for horse archer hordes. Saba have a hard time of things to begin with, but as others have already said their isolation works to your advantage in the long run. Pontos are not too bad as long as you kick the Seleucids and Ptolemies out of Anatolia immediately. Hayasdan - very interesting terrain lets you build a fortress kingdom.
For me the Saka were the hardest faction, the distances you have to travel mean its hard to take settlements and get out of debt. Still though, after the initial challenge, same rule as Sauromatae applies.

As long as you hold Corinth as KH, Sparta and Corinth are safe because the Maks can't get across the isthmus so if you lose Athens, just build up on the islands, Sparta, and Crete.

Only faction I ever had trouble with was Hayasdan, but then again I tried them out when I just started playing EB.

Never had trouble with any of the nomadic factions.

KH may be a little difficult to some people, but just recruit a bunch of hoplites in Athens at the beginning. If the Makedonians try to take it, they'll get tons of deaths, or I'll just win if they wait too long. I can take it back easily in a few turns if I do lose it.

I need to try Saba though. People say it's hard, which I like in this game.

Nomads. It's crazy hard for me to get going with them.

I still say it depends on playing style. Having trained myself to swarm and swarm and swarm in Vanilla, and having the patience to do so, tactically nomads are a breeze for me. Even VH battle you just lure the general off, swarm him, and swarm everyone else.

Having played through Saka Rauka and most of Saba, I have to say tactically Saba is harder, having weak units (actually due to lack of money in VH campaign I have to resort to using skirmishers to hold the battle line instead of melee infantry)

But strategically, due to lack of fund, Saka Rauka is harder. I had to cover a front line of 4 provinces going north-south-east with two half stacks, leaving an open flank through the mountains, and still did not have any money for rebel-clearing. Even by end-game I only had 3 front-line armies even with a bigger empire, and my Saba right now has 5 (of course I had to save the 500k for the Saka Rauka victory but heck).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhampir

Nomads. It's crazy hard for me to get going with them.

---

Actually both the Saka and Sauromatae look easy in 1.1, Saka got easier starting diplomatics and with the Sauromatea u just gotta go west and south in the start cause greek and barbarian settlements are easy targets for your horse archers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parallel Pain

Having played through Saka Rauka and most of Saba, I have to say tactically Saba is harder, having weak units (actually due to lack of money in VH campaign I have to resort to using skirmishers to hold the battle line instead of melee infantry)

---

Funny - in many of my early battles with Ptolies, I used Akontistas as pincushions for their phalanxes, not necessarily due to cost, but because they're cheap, have lots of casualties to give, and easily replaced. Better to let the Greek levies die under the phalanxes than lose the units I actually liked!

I suppose I could call myself a veteran of Saba, having played them twice, once in 0.8, when I was just lurking on these forums, and now in 1.1, and I would say that with a little practice, they can be reasonably easy. Just use one force to take all the settlements from Tamane to Gerrha, while building up a side force to take Carna, then ally with one of the superpowers (I chose Ptolemaioi) and attack the other. I'm now at 250 BC and own all of South Arabia, along with Petra, Charax and Palmyra and I haven't had many battle losses(1 or 2, to my memory) . Fighting the Greeks is hard due to their phalanxes, but you have to play to their weaknesses. You have no decent cavalry so that makes it hard. Engage them with one infantry while another circles round and stab them in the back. I might have been just lucky so far, but I definetly wouldn't say Saba is the hardest. I would say Hellenic factions are the hardest, but then I hate playing with phalanxes.

I always thought that Pontos was hard, its nearly impossible to stop the AS and they will betray u anyway.

Seems to me that the further you get from the center of the map, the harder it is.

Personally, I've had a devil of a time with Pontus. And my Saba campaign was enjoyable for its challenges, but in the end, fruitless.