Should ruling Steppe Provinces be Far More Difficult

Consider a scenario where a player with a "sedentary" faction like Baktria conquers a steppe province... Shouldn't there be limitations as to how much this should be possible and how easily it can be done? Consider the logistics of controlling thousands of square kilometers of empty steppe and roving nomad bands who recognise no authority other than of his own petty chief or tribal head, and you will get the figures - It was always traditionally hard for sedentary powers to achieve a lasting foothold on the Steppes, and it was rare for them to take any interest on conquering such land except as a much needed consequence of raids, war and the like. Even then I don't know of any power that has maintained a Steppe foothold for long, not even greater Empires like Rome did.

...Which also brings forth the question as to whether Baktria and the likes need to have any VC provinces on Steppe lands. I think they should be removed for the above reasons, and replaced with ones giving a better interest. Baktria never held these lands for any amount of time historically.

But back on the issue, what I have in mind is more or like the "Empty Steppes" event for the EUIII mod Magna Mundi Platinum. If the player wants to hold provinces with the "Steppe" marker, it should be possible, but very hard and require a constant large scale military presence as well as the building of fortifications and permanent garrisons across regular intervals to prevent nomad raids. In sum, it should be costly enough to prevent long term control of the Steppe by non-nomadic factions unless the presence of trade routes, mines and the likes firmly warrants it at first. "Steppe Wars" would then be forcibly confined to sending punitive expeditions, and not to the actual conquest of these lands for any relevant amount of time.

You don't conquer the steppe. There is no economic or practical reason to do so. Most of the time, city dwellers bribed them away or go the steppe tribes to fight each other.

Aren't they already doing this with the 'People' buildings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

Aren't they already doing this with the 'People' buildings?

---

That and much more. Remember the nomad camps from the Numidians preview?

... Are steppe regions actually profitable now?

Well, sometimes you're forced to hold them, as with Baktria, sometimes it's just too easy to keep them in EB1. Therefore, the source of my concern - I think the special conditions in the Steppe warrant more than just the strife from conquering provinces with different ethnicities. Most precisely, it should take into account the inherent problems in holding vast amounts of empty land and quelling off resilient nomadic rebels for a meaningful amount of time without getting provincial infrastructure and government disrupted.

This also might be useful to ward off AI Hayasdan and the likes from venturing into the Sarmatian steppe somehow.

Or cause them to attack continuously and eventually take it through pure attrition like Rome does even with those massive AI stacks in the Po Valley.

Well, even if Bononia falls in the 260's, it's better than having it fall it straight ahead in 272. Even if the AI is stupid, it will prevent them from having unrealistic vast Steppe Empires for a good time or judging by their erratic behaviour not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

That and much more. Remember the nomad camps from the Numidians preview?

---

Aye, somehow managed not to mention those in my post, 'tseems... It was half past one (AM), though, so I'll just blame that.

Nah.... at least if you done that (making life more difficult in the steppe for civilized factions), you can't have Bosophoran kingdoms at your playable EB II factions......... as life will be HELL for them...

the rus of novgorod conquered the steps and it only took them around 6-8 centuries to do so :laugh4:

anyway a civilized faction would always end up building a network of fortified setlements to colonize the steps on it´s agricultural good lands (normally around rivers)

so it should be possible for a civilized faction to build things in the steps to stop the nomads invasions

the persians builded a long line of fortifications (the hyrkinian wall) and there´s also the wall of china but the russians where the smartest one´s they colonized it and forçed the nomads to have less room to run around pushing them until they where so confined they had to fight hand to hand and either surrender or be obliterated

(check the current size of ossetia compared to the size of the lands of the ancient skytians they where pushed and cornered and since they where never many in numbers except for genghis khan army)

so altough i agree and i even proposed that the steps shouldn´t have setlements and that family members of nomadic factions in the great steps region shouldn´t have upkeep the idea of controlling the steps impossible in historically incorret you need setlers (expecially around rivers) not armies :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

Aren't they already doing this with the 'People' buildings?

---

...in combination with the existing culture and the revamped "religion as political organisation" features, I think we're going to see some fairly unmanageable provinces which should retard the AI's tendency toward ahistorical expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

the rus of novgorod conquered the steps and it only took them around 6-8 centuries to do so :laugh4:...

---

They took it one steppe at a time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

They took it one steppe at a time?

---

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moonburn

the rus of novgorod conquered the steps and it only took them around 6-8 centuries to do so :laugh4:

anyway a civilized faction would always end up building a network of fortified setlements to colonize the steps on it´s agricultural good lands (normally around rivers)

so it should be possible for a civilized faction to build things in the steps to stop the nomads invasions

the persians builded a long line of fortifications (the hyrkinian wall) and there´s also the wall of china but the russians where the smartest one´s they colonized it and forçed the nomads to have less room to run around pushing them until they where so confined they had to fight hand to hand and either surrender or be obliterated

(check the current size of ossetia compared to the size of the lands of the ancient skytians they where pushed and cornered and since they where never many in numbers except for genghis khan army)

so altough i agree and i even proposed that the steps shouldn´t have setlements and that family members of nomadic factions in the great steps region shouldn´t have upkeep the idea of controlling the steps impossible in historically incorret you need setlers (expecially around rivers) not armies :inquisitive:

---

They conquered it with gunpowder.

There is also the case that much of the steppe is not suitable for farmland. China had this problem where for example they conquered Mongolia several times but were unable to hold it.

In that environment the troops need to be practically living as nomads. That far from civilization for generations and their loyalties start to drift. As well as the sedentary civilization getting soft and forgetting the dangers

So they built a giant wall :-D

Should have built a giant river.