Saka Rauka impossible

I found playing as Saka extremely challenging with difficulty set at H/VH, i managed to conquer Bin-Kath early on, however Pahlava sieged Bin-Kath with a sizeable army against a single foot archer unit. needless to say i lost, but they demanded i become their protectorate, i succumbed hoping to build an economy and army to revolt later against Pahlava. I conquered Gava-Alanna, Gava-Saka, and Sulek by 260-250BC. But Baktria assaulted Sulek, so Pahlava was no longer my ally, I "Heroicly" defended Sulek. But by 230BC Sulek was undersiege by a several Baktrian Phalanx, Gava-Alanna by Sarmatian, and Chighu was attacked by 1/2 a stack of nothing but Parthian Horse-Archers, there was nothing i could do...

So baciscally what i'm wondering is how do successfully play a Saka, are they supposed to be super challenging? Whats the deal?

Yes, they are a challenge. Between their weak economy and the giants they have to fight, they are one of the most difficult factions.

If you want, try them on an easier difficulty. (Suggested difficulty is M/VH.)

ah, they are loads of fun! and tough times too!
I'd say go on a slightly easier difficulty, no one's gonna make fun of ya for that... and my suggestions is attack Baktria ASAP... that big Pahlavan army is a pain but you'll have to get over it... that's what's gonna happen...

if all else fails gather an army and fight your way to India and besiege Taksashila and take it over, allow your dying country to be taken and get peace and/or become a protectorate and disband your army...
Taksashila is RICH, but the exodus, like all things Saka, is very hard :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Yes, they are a challenge. Between their weak economy and the giants they have to fight, they are one of the most difficult factions.

If you want, try them on an easier difficulty. (Suggested difficulty is M/VH.)

---

I think you mean VH/M, yes?:oops:

Otherwise, it would be M campaign and VH battle difficulty. :2thumbsup:

I'd suggest H/M. With very hard campaign difficulty the AI will focus all its power on the player's faction, not the actual threat, and will even unite against a "common enemy". Like with Saba, the Seleucids and Ptolemies might make an alliance against you, or with Saka a triumvirate of Parthia, Bactria and Sarmatia. I find it pretty ahistorical. Plus it screws up autoresolve, which would otherwise be handy in the later parts of the campaign.

Agreed with Thaatu, H/M is fine for the Saka. And also agreed with KuKulzA, smash Bactria as soon as you can, the Bin-Kath - Marakanda - Alexandria-Eschate perimeter is rich and easy to defend. Your starting forces may even be able to overcome Bactra and get you rid of a boring neighbour.

Dunno, I never found any horse archer faction, with some super heavy tank-generals thrown in, a challenge to play as; the AI just can't deal with it.

Currently, I'm in the middle of a very successful Saka campaign, and I think it all boils down to patience. As mentioned by other venerated members, Bactria should be your main target, but in my campaign I decided to wait before I went after them. Instead, I bided my time and focused my resources on strengthening my economy. Sure, it took many years and Bactria was a pain in the ass and kept on sending large armies of military detritus, but holding Bin-kath turned out to be surprisingly easy, even a tiny garrison is quite capable of fending off anything Bactria can throw at you in the early years. Just leave the central plaza unguarded and the enemy will try to rush in and seize control over it, lots of infantry carelessly running in one direction - the horse archer's paradise. Just make sure you have as many family members as possible in your army, they're simply invaluable once you run out of ammo.

Anyway, after several years I had a stable economy, albeit small, and Bactria's economy was obviously strained, so then I struck and after maybe seven-ten years they were more or less wiped out and I had given Pahlava a royal pounding. This because once Saka conquers their first Bactrian settlement their economy explodes and allows you to build proper armies.

The Pahlava are admitedly a great problem, but you just gotta stay patient and fight all those grueling battle that never seem to end. But once you get past those early years, the world is a mollusc of your choice.

So in this case patience truly is a virtue.

Interesting, I remember a similar experience playing as Baktria, way back when EB was still 0.7 or so... Difficult start, annoying Parthians, then steamrolling everything ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

I think you mean VH/M, yes?:oops:

Otherwise, it would be M campaign and VH battle difficulty. :2thumbsup:

---

You know, every time I write difficulty settings, I think about what order it should be in, and every time I write it in the wrong order. :wall:

Maybe you should stop thinking :clown:

There's a lot of good advice here, but you also should remember that the best way to fight is to use both the steppe and your cavalry archers to your greatest advantage.

Sending small armies into Baktria, fighting pitched field battles, and then retreating once all your arrows are gone will create some pretty depressed leaders but result in gradual victory. Just make sure that you fight these field battles with captains not family members/generals.

Baktria has lots of foot-soldiers compared to Parthia, so they should definitely be a high-priority target. Don't hesitate to harass their armies. They don't retrain their forces, ever, so a unit that is weakened stays weakened (unless it's a family member).

This strategy requires you to retreat from a lot of pitched field battles, but over a long period of time, it works out. And remember, raiding is your friend later on. Building big stacks of mostly horse archers and then sending them on long trips to sack major cities can pay dividends over long periods of time.

Once, playing the Sauromatae, I captured Seleukia. I razed it for the cash, and then destroyed every single building there. When I left, it was basically little more than a minor village that revolted against me when my army left, but I didn't want it anymore anyway. What I wanted was the cash I got from it. The Seleukids could never really destroy this army, anyway. It moved to fast and I surrounded it with spies and small stacks of scouting parties that slowed down and weakened most attempts at counterattack. That and they were heavily engaged against the Hayasdan and Ptolemaioi when I led my Great Raid into the heart of Mesopotamia.

Patience is key to peoples like the Saka Rauka and Sauromatae. But have a definite program and goals in mind. Don't worry about conquest and empire building. Think like a steppe nomad. Cities aren't where you want to live, they are where you want to get plunder. It is more cost-effective to capture a city and ravage it for everything it is worth before leaving then having to invest in it's defense.

Personally, I waited until 210 BCE before I started actually occupying Bactrian territory.

The problem with Saka and Sauromatae are not the armies themselfes wich are composed of powerfull units, but the distances and poverty... even with full cavalry armies, it takes many turns to journey from one settlement to another, debt is going to be very great. Also, starting provinces are very, very poor. Not to mention that making a siege is very hard when you have no infantry in the begining.

I guess that their starting armies should have lower upkeep, this would be historically accurate. It would be then almost like a hord in BI ~:)