Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Greetings all Eb fans!
Two interresting threads which were started not too long ago inspired me to create this one. Thoose two discussed the "Barbarian" and the "civilized" peoples in terms of coolnes, greatness and I felt that something was missing.
So I would like to hear your opinions on the following (as the tittle suggests):
Fellow Horsemen! Which of the three Nomad factions in EB do you think is worthy enugh to unite all Nomadic tribes of the endless plains and conquer all who stand before there mighty steeds...
Would you support the Sauromatae, lords of the European steppe who will never become like the "settled ones" to there south and west and there name alone strikes fear into the hearts of all enemies of nomads?
Or would you ride with the Pahlava, a great tribe who have already begun to take on the life of the settled peoples but retain there Equistrian tradtitions and will soon chalange all the heirs of Megas Alexandros?
Or would you side with the Saka Rauka, who have arrived from the eastmost end of the known world and might start taking over some of the figthing technics of there subjects while staying nomads in almost all aspects?
Please also let us also know the reasons for your decision:yes:. (I have my own opinion but I wish to hear other Ideas first..)
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
I've recently played a custom all-cavalry battle between Saka and Pahlavi. My Sakae cavalry got massacred on medium difficulty. :oops: It seems to me the Sakae have less and less decent heavy shock/cataphract cavalry than the Pahlavi. The Sauromatae have hardly any heavy charge cavalry at all. Don't get me wrong, compared to other factions the Sauromatae and Sakae have some outstanding cavalry-units... To nomad-standards however, they don't do the job, since nothing can beat a built-out Pahlavi army.
Take into account the economic strength of the Pahlavi, and the fact they have Dahae Noble cavalry (one of the coolest looking early game units), and this guy is sold.
Although the little nomad in me does like the Sakae dragon banners and standards. :yes:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
I do not evaluate the worth but I can assure you Pahlava is the strongest nomadic faction plus it is a new-born dragon in the land of dying lion (AS). Grivpandars are immortals of Pahlava they even can annihilate a unit of Argyraspides from frontal charge!
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Pahlava, if only because their buildings are Eastern style rather than Nomad/Barbarian style. I hate huge empires of barbarian cities--I wept when in my current Sauromatae game the two Crimean cities went up in population and had to be converted to barbarian-looking cities.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
I quite like the sauro's because it is quite easy for them to ride west and destroy European civilisation. :laugh4:
In my last sauro campaign I grabbed most of the starting cavalry and 4 or 5 FM's and went on a rampage to the west.
Every city that I took in the west, I tore down EVERY building and then left it to revolt back to who I took it from.
First I took on the getai since their lack of armour made them ideal targets for my HA's, I wasn't intending to, but I accidentally wiped them out within 2 years of starting the campaign :oops:
I then continued westwards and attacked one of the more northerly epirote cities. I then moved on to the gallic towns in northern italy, and after that I went down the western side of italy, sacking everything in my path. I then went and destroyed everything in sicily and went back up through italy, this time along the eastern half. :smash:
After devastating early rome I went and destroyed everything in greece. Sacking first Dalminion, then Epidamnos, Ambrakia, Thermon, Korinthos, Athenai, Chalikis, Athenai, Demetrias, and then Pella. After all this I was obscenely rich and there was no monument left untouched in greece. The reason I left out sparte was because it was just a town and hardly worth taking, and because I felt like making KH into a small superpower. They had already become much stronger since I had sacked italy as the greek towns there had rebelled back to KH, and now, all the city I took in greece were rebelling back to KH. By the time I left, I had basically wiped out centuries of greek civilisation and left the KH a fresh slate to start with.:grin2:
With the spoils of war I recruited a huge horde of nomad archers and went on a rampage, crushing hayasdan, pontos, and causing terrible damage to the AS, who in a strange twist were becoming the first gray tide tide I had ever seen, following my attacks however the yellow death quickly made it's return. After this however I gave up on the campaign as the fun of crushing those infantry armies in the west had been lost.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Atraphoenix
they even can annihilate a unit of Argyraspides from frontal charge!
That's just plain hubris! I'm going to prove your blasphemy wrong this evening!
Maion
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Yess.... Gripanvar is quite strong.....
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
im 12 turns off grivpavnars in my pahlavan campaign! hahahaha
but are you sure that they can frontal charge argyraspid? if they can then obviously we need to balance the game a little.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Repeat..... 4 units of gripanvar against 1 Argyraspids.... Their high morale can made them a good tank (although frontal charging an Argyraspids is waste off 50% of them)...... I do this often in bridge battle against grey death..... (When Gripanvar are the only hope (although losing 2 units of them against argyraspids are not an efficient tactics.... call this sacrifice:idea2:) They didn't rebalancing.. look at the cost!!!:laugh4:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Just simple order loose formation, after frontal charge order them to use their swords.
They starts to envelop Argyraspides then Argyraspides abandons Phalanx. but nearly %70- 80 casulty.
In first assault you may lose 15- 18 men. I tested on Alex, medium difficulty on grassy flatland. Of course against AI.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Can't use loose order, because this was bridge battle.... :laugh4:
BTW... all nomads need at least one extremely tough HC for bridge breaching... Only Phalavans and Saka (Ysainu Ajiramsya) did... The Sauro didn't
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Yeah, Sauromatae are more about light and heavy horse archers than cataphracts. It's making my current Sauromatae campaign against the Saka rather difficult.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Interresting thoughts so far. As I suspected there aren't too many nomad fans around.
Alright now that I have enough time I will add my thoughts:
Sauromatae: as said before they don't have super end Cataphracts among their units (although there FM bodyguards are probeably the most dangerous horsemen out there! :skull:). They are true nomads in and out. Almost all of them fight on horseback and almost all there units use bows. For Infantry they prefer to use there subject peoples and as a consiquence they have the lowest infantry choice of all. What also woukd make them deserve the tittle is that there warriors are true nomads in the aspect that they can resettle anywhere in the large world. The biggest problem they face is in case of settlements - they could have trouble keeping a large empire together...
Saka Rauka: they arrived a while ago on the eastern end of our maps, but already have a calling as dangerous warriors. They similary to all nomads use a variety of horse archers, however influenced by their contact with Persian and Eastern Hellenic cultures and warfare, they have started to field more warriors fighting as "lancers" - some more amroured than others. The foreign influences have also brought upon other chages in the Saka military: they still rely on their subject peoples (Hellens, Persians and Indians alike) to provide the Infantry support for there armies. These warriors however are mostly trained and equiped by local leaders (placed in power by the Sakae) and therefore fight in their traditional ways which often makes them very effective sodiers. The Sakae themselfs are still able to settle anywhere where they wish and this always provides them with relieable warriors once they secure there new lands. Still there goverment and city organising skill is lacking compared to the settled peoples.
Pahlava: They are nomads aswell although not for long. Many of them have already started to settle in there lands, but despite this they have kept most of their cavalry traditions and tactics over time. There nobility will surely become richer then there couisins on the setppes after they take on the feudal ways of there subjects/enemies. This in turn enables them to field heavier cavalry (the famous and feared Grivpanvar) in large numbers against there enemies, but also reduces the number of horse archers as there commom warriors can't support the necessary large number of horses away from the steppes. To recruit there infantry they also turn to levies from the local population and even use there former enemies just to obtain capeable infantry soldiers for there garrisons. They can build great cities that rival thoose of the old Persian empire and thoose buil by the Hellenes in recent times. Settling however has also tied there nobility to their lands and made them suspiceous for other nomads, so they will have dificuelties to recruit capeable warriors far from there new homelands....
So if asked which of these could be considered worthy to over all nomads I would say:
Any thoughts for or against it?:smash:
(sorry fo the long post people...:sweatdrop:)
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
im a proud sweboz and Kh fan, however when i played with sauromatae i liked them a lot, its good to see a lot of horse archers making a massacre out of those little footmen. however i stoped when i reached those gawjam...citys, i couldnt attack em, i just cant kill my dear swebozz :viking:
Back to the topic, as stated before i find that sauromatae are the best nomads maybe im crazy but thats all. Cheers:medievalcheers:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J.R.M
i stoped when i reached those gawjam...citys, i couldnt attack em, i just cant kill my dear swebozz :viking:
Why not? Without armour, they should be one of the easiest to kill. :laugh4:
Something about playing as the sauro's and wiping out all those dirty cities to be replaced by world-wide nomadism appeals to the small town boy inside me. :2thumbsup:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J.R.M
im a proud sweboz and Kh fan, however when i played with sauromatae i liked them a lot, its good to see a lot of horse archers making a massacre out of those little footmen. however i stoped when i reached those gawjam...citys, i couldnt attack em, i just cant kill my dear swebozz :viking:
Hmm. You know if you wish you could roleplay that after conqeuering the first gawjam xy city a great and famous Germaic warlord has offered you his services if you provide him with the means to unite the Germanic tribes... (just recruit a germanic mercenary general, give him an army of germanic aor units and do what you always wanted to do...). Thats what I did in my recent Saka camapign in India - figuring the terain (in my case jungle, in yours forest of north Europe) is not ideal for Nomadic warfare I support a local warlord who is willing to conquer these lands with his men if he may rule over it as King (and my eterlnal ally - he might even allow some of your tribesmen to settle in some areas).
I think this could be a great way of roleplay (and a little different from all thoose HA battles), I am doing it with India and will try it with Thrakians and Gemans... maybe even with Britons one day....
Hope this will be usefull to you:yes:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Thx for the idea. however i already finished that campaign a long time ago (i must admit, i made a massacre out of my poor sweboz, first time and last that i will kill them i swear!)
Anaway thx again for the idea, maybe for next time i need to forgive some sweboz lifes.. Cheers:medievalcheers:
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
I've tried all 3 nomad campaigns (can't say that I liked them more than infantry based campaigns, guess I'm infantry man). I didn't finish any of them, but the only one that I plan finishing is the Saka campaign.
Sauros - were too dull. No reforms, no new units - just the same old HA's till the end.
Pahlava - probably too hard for me. I know they have great potential, but their starting position is horrible. From turn one you are fighting to death with AS. Sometimes AS will be occupied elsewhere, but sometimes they will send pretty impressive stacks at you. Your economy is awful, you can't support more than tiny garrisons and the only army you have are your FM's. At the same time there's a risk of being attacked by Saka or Bactria which will effectively put an end to your campaign.
Saka - I enjoyed (and still enjoying) them the most. They have much better position. Their reform reqs are much simpler than Pahlva has. They can not be attacked on 2 fronts if you play it smart. I blitzed Bactria out of existence (poor Bactria - I really like that faction). Pahlava can attack me only in one place which is very well defended. I swept through Eastern AS making my way to Indian Ocean and Persepolis. AS seem unable to cope with my HA and in Bactra and Kophen I already train heavy hoplits, while Pahlava will soon meet my Cata's. Economy is weak, but at least I can train new units and support some garrisons.
One downside to all nomad factions - you MUST blitz. Your economy is too weak to support anything and you must expand as fast as possible to be able to train any units.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Don't forget though that Pahlava, unlike the other two, can build up a very strong economy in Persian territory. You just need to be patient...
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Ulpius
I've tried all 3 nomad campaigns (can't say that I liked them more than infantry based campaigns, guess I'm infantry man). I didn't finish any of them, but the only one that I plan finishing is the Saka campaign.
Sauros - were too dull. No reforms, no new units - just the same old HA's till the end.
Pahlava - probably too hard for me. I know they have great potential, but their starting position is horrible. From turn one you are fighting to death with AS. Sometimes AS will be occupied elsewhere, but sometimes they will send pretty impressive stacks at you. Your economy is awful, you can't support more than tiny garrisons and the only army you have are your FM's. At the same time there's a risk of being attacked by Saka or Bactria which will effectively put an end to your campaign.
Saka - I enjoyed (and still enjoying) them the most. They have much better position. Their reform reqs are much simpler than Pahlva has. They can not be attacked on 2 fronts if you play it smart. I blitzed Bactria out of existence (poor Bactria - I really like that faction). Pahlava can attack me only in one place which is very well defended. I swept through Eastern AS making my way to Indian Ocean and Persepolis. AS seem unable to cope with my HA and in Bactra and Kophen I already train heavy hoplits, while Pahlava will soon meet my Cata's. Economy is weak, but at least I can train new units and support some garrisons.
One downside to all nomad factions - you MUST blitz. Your economy is too weak to support anything and you must expand as fast as possible to be able to train any units.
I mostly do not stop blitzing until I captured Antiocheia.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
Another advice when playing Pahlava (that at least worked for me) is to use your spies to check which settlements already have mines. Capturing two or three of them really makes a difference.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
That's what helped me in my Saka campaign. One town had upgraded mines and capturing it allowed me to have something resembling working economy. My Pahlava campaign was brought to and end by full stack of phalanxes from the west and Saka invasion from the east. I still couldn't train any units and my FMs were the only army I had.
Re: Which Nomads are worthy to rule?
After you activate normal EB script, press F1 then press ? , activate the generic script which really helps you it activates toggle_perfect_spy that you cannot activate with the command shell.
