Hi,
what is in your opinion the most difficult land or region to conquer?
That can be for all kind of reasons: long distances, fortified cities, unruly natives, no revenue after the conquest...
Post what you hate the most and your reasons!
Printable View
Hi,
what is in your opinion the most difficult land or region to conquer?
That can be for all kind of reasons: long distances, fortified cities, unruly natives, no revenue after the conquest...
Post what you hate the most and your reasons!
gah! nothing is too difficult to conquer with a true makedonian king! :book:
But in seriousness, Seleukid lands are easy to conquer, seleukid armies are annoying... Then supply problems such as phalanx troops and true greeks are harder as to build up the cities to employ locals, you need an army to defend them.....
Germania is a close second but nothing some solid makedonian phalanx and hoplites with theurophia cant defeat.
i think, if talking in terms solely based on troop stats, probably carthage or iberia are the hardest.
based on terrain, difficulty of arriving, and amount of turns before you can arrive, i say probably sabaya(southern arabia), and britain. i onl say those because:
even with a sabaean general, it still takes 8 turns to get from the capital to the mediterranean. add in the amount of time it takes anyone to get to them and the mountains they own, you have yourself huge city walls and legions of archer-spearmen shooting downhill at you.
This should've been a poll with multiple options..
The most annoying place is Mikra Asia for me. I usually end up fighting against everyone there!! Even if I have been at peace/allied to a faction for a long time. But when I enter Mikra Asia then suddenly they all have to attack me!!
What about the Sahara?
Iberia as I get CTD every 2.2- 2.5 battles there...
Steppe by far.. not only are the distances between cities great but facing HA armies can be ridiculous.
Everything else is pretty much a cakewalk provided you have decent units and or numbers.
Of course the south of Arabia can be pretty annoying with it being pretty isolated.
Steppes, if you are aren't a nomad faction, the levant, if you are.
It's easily the steppes. Great distances between settlements, pesky HA armies to contend with and the income from the settlements is very poor. Add it all up and the cost-benefit ratio of conquering that area is just horrendous.
Oh my!!Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
AVSM; you sumed up perfectly my feelings. The Levant is a bore when you're Pahlavi. And that's what i am.
Well, any area that starts out well-developed is a pain. But Italy and North Africa are far,far away....
Germania and Central Europe is a pain as well. The Sweboz always end up being the Maroon Death, or rather, Maroon Slogging match through giant forests. I don't think Central Europe needs to be explained.
The steppe... chasing horse archers across the prairie with heavy infantry is a nightmare. It will take you 2-3 years to get there, and every other turn you have to fight fresh HA armies that attack you. If you have a FM with the army the campaign shuts down for the winter and summer, and after you conquer the god forsaken barbarian village at the end of the campaign, you have to leave 1/2 of your army (shot to pieces by now) to garrison the craphole since there is no local recruitment anyway. Of course the town will rebel back to the barbarians anyway, and even if it doesn't, two more HA armies will melt out of the steppe to lay siege to your new town and massacre your army...
Seriously, the steppe is ridiculously difficult to conquer if you are a civilized faction. I would rather face any other part of the map. Everything is spread out too far, and unless you have multiple armies attacking simultaneously in different areas of the steppe, you will be unable to conquer one of the HA factions. The worst part is that recruitment is virtually impossible out there, so once you conquer a town, you have to leave your army out there for six or seven years until the locals come to appreciate the benefits of civilization. The distance to the capital penalty is absurd as well... If you don't cheat (toggle_fow) then you will never find the most obscure settlements on the prairie using only a spy. Really, if you have ever faced this nightmare, then you probably voted "steppe" in the poll. I would face the armies of central Europe over what the steppe produces any day. Even if you lose a battle there, you can at least retrain your troops and try again within a year.
Oh Yeah, the steppe it´s a serious challenge for me (i like a hell lot those infantry based factions).
Huge distances between settlements and those anoying HA´s, seriously a great challenge, sorry for my english.
Wow, I wouldn't even consider messing around in the steppe as a "civilised" faction!
To me, conquering Iran seems to be the greatest horror (although I haven't tried on Germania or Britannia yet).
Conquering Iran is like traversing a valley, towards the end it gets harder and harder IMHO.
- reinforcements need awfully long, since the Mediterranean Sea ends at Antiocheia
- by the time you get there, cities are often already very big and unruly
- you won't have any opportunity to replenish your ranks with troops fitting your style, while the enemy keeps decimating you
- by the time you finally reach the other end of Iran, Baktria, you will be already decimated while resistance will be stronger
no worries, when u reach baktra, it all goes well....
Yeah, it is steppes for me as well. Only I come prepared. French, Teutons, Poles, and Germans all tried to conquer Russia but failed. I do not. Ten spies an army; almost full cavalry, HA, and heavy archer (Bosphorans, Cretans, and less often the lighter Scythians) fullstacks on my side, and more fullstacks of garrison troops to follow.
I was torn between the steppes and Arabia (both of which were hell on the seleukids I had), but chose Arabia. when I played my AS campaign, they cost me more in lives and money than all the other steppe factions put together-and even then I failed to coaquer saba.:wall:
so I started playing saba instead:clown:
Brittania just because it always has a giant pile of pirates in the English Channel that I have to build a North Seas Fleet solely to destory in order to finally get my units onto the damn thing. Especially given that most of the factions that need to conquer it for VC, or who are nearby, have boats rather than ships and you have to build the 15000 dollar versions in massive numbers just to destroy partial stacks of the pirates (who by the way almost have to come from similar stock, yet have ships that can eat mine for breakfast :wall:)
Usually I end up just putting a full stack on a single boat and making a suicide run to the island and just hoping the Casse haven't built themselves a serious army in the mean-time.
I agree, but i find Germany tough too because of heavy forests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
Fighting in forests is a true nightmare for everyone.
Eastern europa, and by this I mean the ridiculous full stacks, not the Skythian part...
~Fluvius
I would like to hear from people that have actualy invaded the Sakas or the Sauros... how did the AI behave??? Playing as Baktria against the Sakas my current strategy is a never ending war of attrition on the borderline with my troops occasionaly raiding Chach (which is back into stone age after 20 years of war)...
I'm very hesitant of actually invading the Saka mainland though...not only are the distances HUGE making logistics a friggin' nightmare ,you're also exposed to highly mobile horse archer troops that can take the time to reduce your army to shrieds through successive raids turn after turn as you push into their land ... (at least in theory)
i have this plan of waiting till the reforms kick in and then raising a mighty cavalry army of Baktrioi hippotoxotai ,dahae riders and kataphraktoi FM and blitz my way into the Saka capital capturing their cities one by one on the road... i only hope that the Sauromatae will manage to contain them to the north East until then...
i see a lot of people here keep repeating "the Saba,the Saba!!!" ... Undoubtedly the desert waistlands add a lot of frustration on conquering them but at least their armies are not cavalry oriented or made of horse archers, right??? Also their homeland is exposed to sea... capturing any port of the Persian gulf or the Suez area and building a fleet would enable by-passing all the Saba deserts, right???
Germania for me. I hate, hate, hate forest battles. Not to mention the Germanoi have those frickin' fanatics and ambushers that make me time a living hell.
Maion
the steppe(as mentioned before) and Gotland as it's only reachable on boat, there are a lot of pirates up there and It's very far of for most factions. the only faction that is even remotely near to it (sweboz) are not quite masters of the boat and thus it takes some time until you can afford sending a ship there.
I hate them too. Not only does it disrupt all my nice and neat formations, those damn trees make it near impossible to actually see what's happening on the battlefield. And what's your reward for conquering them? A bunch of worthless, coffer-draining, resourceless swamps and forests. No wonder the Romans never bothered with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
i wish that the forests would have realistic-sized trees. then it would be easier to see. plus maybe some variation? sapplings and variations in size would be nice.............
anyway:
@archippos: you cannot move ships in unless you build them south-east of alexandria. there is land on the nile preventing any ships landind farther south than the meditteranean coastline.
Hopefully you have installed the tree fix?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
Besides, at least in the open the Germanoi are absolutely no match for the Makedones.
Ahem... no. You can actually traverse the Nile-Red Sea-Channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
but hey that still leaves the ports of Memphis,Diospoli , Petra, Ptolemais and Axem from which you can launch a naval invasion, no???Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
THERE.IS.NO.LAND.ON.THE.NILE.PERIOD.
It would be so cool if the faction that owned the Canal was able to invest money in keeping it open. That way, it either wouldn't be functional, or you could spend thousands of mnai to maintain it and thus have the advantage of being able to move between the Arabian and Mediterranean Seas at will.Quote:
Ahem... no. You can actually traverse the Nile-Red Sea-Channel.
It could be done with a very expensive and time-consuming building, I guess. Too bad it wouldn't work with the TW engine.
ahem....no you cannot traverse it. at least not with any faction i have played (including saba). you cannot go through it unless you own alexandria, and at that point you are already in a war with the ptolemies and are too busy to bother with saba.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
petra? my memory is foggy but i dont think they have a port in the arabian sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS
and unless you are arche seleukia or the ptolemies, you have to conquer many large cities to get those ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS
Baktria is my favorite faction, so i have several campaigns worth of experience fighting Saka. The key is to capture Chach, and use it as a true base to repel nomad invasions. Combined with Marakanda and Alexandreia-Eschate (is that right?) you have three cities that can maintain a self sufficient group of soldiers, about four units apiece, which can be combined when spies in the north see an invasion coming. Additionaly you should have a QRF (quick reaction force) of cavalry that can speed to wherever they are needed in the North. I use Dahae riders myself because of their wide recruitment area. If you want to get serious about eliminating rather than merely containing the Saka, you have to mount two separate campaigns. First send a force to the North East to capture the two cities in the Tarim Basin area and near the Saka mountains. Second send a force north from Chach to capture the town way up on the steppes there. If you can keep these areas in the face of revolts AS backstabbing to the South, and counterattack, you have a decent chance, assuming you ship troops to the region, of continuing your campaign to the 2-3 towns that the Saka control to the west of your position. The downside is that the campaign will require at least 10 years (40 turns) and any minor setback will be in such a remote location, that you will not be able to reinforce your position without mercenaries. I have never succeeded in destroying the Saka as Baktria - only containing them...
For the Saba haters - I conquered Iran, India, Saba, and Egypt (skipped Syria) in my Baktria campaign, but i could never destroy Saka. If I made peace with them, they regained the steppes within five years like some sort of red algae bloom. Saba is comparatively easy to beat if you can get large forces into south Arabia to capture their four main cities. My campaign against them was bloody and epic, but not impossible. They control a region with a cluster of cities. No such clusters exist on the steppes...
Also, the only port on the red sea from which shipbuilding is possible is controlled by by the Saba. Other ports that allow ships to be built on that ocean are in India and Susa, so a player coming from the west would have to face a bottleneck along the Arabian coast without hope of naval resupply. Coming from the East however (as AS or Baktria can) is much easier. There are three cities on the coast that can be occupied to provide bases on the way to Saba's heartland and ships are available from both India and Susa which can be used to ferry your troops and provide reinforcements. No such backdoor exists on the steppes.
I was assuming that you own Memphis and Petra. You need these two to use the canal, since both have a port at the canal and when in charge of one, you can naturally block anyone else from traversing. The ports represent Kleopatris (Petra) and Arsinoe (Memphis).
Seconded for truth. Swamps and damn dark, unprofitable forests indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by option
I have, but there are still trees that annoy me. As for the Germanoi being no match for the Makedones in the open, I plead to disagree. The Germanoi are fierce fighters, I've experienced their wrath first-hand. It's their fighting system and lack of of military techology that makes them weak when it comes down to it, if you ask me. Naked screaming men can be a fearsome sight to behold, but a disciplined and harshly drilled soldier is not easily scared. Plus, the screaming in not going to do you any good when a Katapeltes fires a bolt in your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Of course, there are always those friggin' numbers of them. Like bacteria, they multiply like crazy. Good thing there are diseases and warfare that keep their numbers in check.
Maion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
No wonder you don't don't like fighting in the steppe, you are doing it wrong. :smash: Never ever go to the steppe with infantry other than archers and the occasional spearmen . Personally I capture Kallatis or Olbia first, set up a type IV and recruit horse archers to send out into the steppe. Fight nomads with nomads and you'll never worry about the steppe again.
Conquering Iberia is a complete nightmare. Not only does the game CTD every couple of turns, but the Luso's pump out stack after stack of cheap, plentiful, powerful, AP weapon-wielding troops that attack you in the mountains, forests, river crossings and cities. The terrain is tough, reinforcing your troops is next to impossible if you're the Romani (which I am right now) and even the militia troops take a bite out of the best of your men. It wouldn't be so bad if the Luso's didn't resist so fiercely, but I guess I asked for it when I became the Romani...
playing as Baktra it could be possible to eliminate the Pahlava early on (sth i have been tempted to do) but taking out the Saka is a race of patience methinks... i don't even dream of invading them before conquering India (=$$$) ... that way you can raise an extra cavalry fullstack (lots of HA+ kataphraktoi that can take out the Saka FM tanks) and fight fire with fire :smash:
Yes, that is fine for the western part of the map, but as Baktria you start out in a position that requires you to fight the Saka and AS simultaneously from a position of weakness. You need heavy infantry against the AS, and you cannot afford multiple armies in the first part of the game. If you send cavalry against the Saka, theirs is simply better. They have armoured horse archers, and you do not. If you are playing out west, by the time you get to the steppe you can afford to hire HA's of your own, because you have an empire by that point. As Baktria, you must attack the Saka with the same army you use against the AS. You also have to hold your possessions against constant attacks, which requires maintaining garrison forces in the north. It is in that role that archer spearmen prove their true value. I may face the steppe in the wrong manner, but the Baktrian campaign requires the player to face that territory early in order for the player to survive. If I was playing in the western part of the map, I wouldn't even bother with the steppe, and i would not recognize its inherent difficulty. To be fair, as the Baktrian campaign progresses (60 years or so), it becomes possible to field sufficient heavy cavalry to finish the nomads off, although i have not done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xurr
one thing i have observed with Baktra is you can go outrageously rich without much conquering ... all the cities around Baktra (except Margiane and Ariana if i remember correctly) have mines (or you can build them) ...that means that if you capture say 5-6 of your surrounding regions ,go into infrastructure building and play defensive in 40 years you can finance multiple fullstacks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
I've done the Baktrian campaign. I used diplomacy to deal with the saka, and bribed them to attack Pahlava and vice versa. They are all too eager to attack each other so it didn't cost all that much. They pretty much kept each other busy trading Marakanda and Alexandreia-Eschate back and forth. I didn't even have to deal much with them at all until I had taken Seleukia.
I can't choose. If it would be possible I would suggest several ones:
Iberia - rough tropps to be found (pluss there equipped with AP weapons!)
The Steppe - like I always said never face Nomads there.
AS/Ptolie lands - if either of the two managed to overrun the other then that means an endless tream of Stack-Spam...
Germania - deep forests, fanatic almost mad half (or completealy-) naked warriors with heavy cudgels and sharp spears and theres more of them, then the Russians....any questions?
I voted GAAH in the end - any land can be conquered. Some areas just need more effort then others:laugh4:
The steppe, because you have to fight dirty, like they do, flooding the place with HAs, and I hate fighting with HAs. I don't like Iberia either, and I especially don't like fighting the AS or Ptolemaioi, because they will hit you with several bazillion fullstacks constantly. (I've been fighting the Ptolies in Mesopotamia in my Baktria campaign for less than a decade and the place is already littered with heroic victory markers...:sweatdrop:) But at least in those places you fight conventional engagements - no chance of that against the Saka, Pahlavan, or Saurometai...
You don't really even need to wait until the MoT, because the starting Somatophylaktes Strategou will hold up all right to the Saka, assuming you don't suck at using them. I just saturated them with Daha Baexdzhyntae when I finally pushed past Alexandreia-Eschate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS
I timed the Saka attack in my current Baktria campaign as well as I could. Held them off at Alexandreia-Eschate for decades, constantly relieving their armies, and beefed up the garrison of that one city tremendously - they just went for it, and none of my other cities. Worked well enough until the mid-220s, when I finally had enough cash and disposable manpower to recruit multiple stacks of Daha Baexdzhyntae and ride north. At the same time, I flooded their western cities with spies, so they had to expend most of their manpower holding them down from revolts instead of chasing me away from Chighu, Sulek, and Chach. Spreading out your army piecemeal is a grand way to invite defeat in detail...:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
That's assuming that you have the cash to build the second level of mines. It took me forever in the Baktria campaign I'm doing right now, made worse of course by my unwillingness to debouch into India early on (for RPing reasons). It does help a lot, though, as soon as you do get them built. Not as much of a cash cow as the Eastern Med, Greece, or Italy, but still more than plenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS
India: Facing 9 chevroned Elephant general with 60 soldiers (meaning more than 20 elephants) is suicide with my almighty HA army... or even with my puny 18 men elephants... and if I try swarming them with akontistai, gund-i palta or peltastai, they are slaughtered from that wall towers first... lost 400++ men for takin a general is really a pain...
starve them out man... let hunger work for you... 8 turns later when their army is reduced to half go in and finish them off :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Steppes are hell? just place some slingers (ol plain sphendonetai) or Thureophreantes toxotai (never use plain sux toxotai) (easily obtainable from Cherosonesos and pantikapaion) behind your line of Hoplitai... use 7 or 8 missile infantry and HA's will be easy... just don't forget to bring ya oldie hippeis and hippakontistai for dealing with heavier cav and cleaning up the mess...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
EDIT : I learn up how to smack steppe army with just infantry based army because my HA army once had an utter defeat against (believe it or not) AI Seleukid army that comprises mostly of slingers... trully utterly epic defeat... so I try to use that tactic myself afterwards...
EDIT AGAIN: HA's are cowards? you re cowards behind city walls! :whip: at least they are always fighting in open plains... :laugh:
I sense this has become slightly off topic....
:idea2:
For me the most difficult land to conquer is central europe
Militarily I voted for the steppe but psychologically I can't be arsed for the former
All those landlocked, heavily forested provinces strip my enthusiasm dry
No wonder I've never taken the Sweboz or the Getai anywhere :wall:
India, of course, have you ever met 2 units of indian elephants that have gold chevron?
:dizzy2:
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...n_longbows.gif + https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/u...n_elephant.gif
also their combination with scimatar archers (the assassins :yes:) is a real nightmare!:skull:
Note to myself: make sure you have sufficient artillery before you enter India.
Most difficult, less rewarding area? That must be the steppes for reasons mentioned above.
A good second would be Gaul. Pretty agressive, frightening soldiers (who are even pretty well armoured in the late game), paid by the full treasury of the Aedui. Worst of all: there are hardly any mines to be found there...
Steppe aren't rewarding? ? ?:inquisitive:
well, I spent many times as nomads, so the nomadic units are great for sticking their arrows and gigantic toothpicks into some tin canned men...
even with KH or Makedon, I still steppe areas are worth conquering, especially those Sauromatae lands... as they didn't had many peoples, and easily defendable against their previous owner, just by building filmsy stick walls, and put some local archers inside... well, usually I go out there to amass my HA army to be marched down against another civ faction... Have u seen a Makedonian / Epeiros army that was all Cav? think of Hetairoi fighting alongside many types of HA's to turn the Romans into arrow cushions! well, that's pretty beautiful!::idea:
My final vote goes to Germania. Too poor, too forests, tactics gone wild and useless in those deep forests...
No offense, but I was really enjoying the original discussion about the most difficult area to conquer in EB. I wrote several dedicated posts arguing that it was the steppes (especially the eastern part). Surely nobody is arguing that Sparta is the most difficult place to conquer in the game? Perhaps we should add Lakedaimonia to the poll...
In steppes you try some tactic to fight nomads. In German forests you'll be damn lucky just to know where the hell your troops ARE.
i vote for syria, in fact, the whole eastern part of the map when the map looks like this
https://img242.imageshack.us/img242/...madnessnt0.jpg
You'll be in for one hell of a war if you're going for your victory conditions. :)
As the Eleutheroi, the hardest to conquer are the Romans. Even with your numerous forces in Northern Italy, Central Europe, and eventually, Sicily, the Romans churn out those Hastati like no other, and I eventually lose by attrition. The only way to beat them is the just blitz first thing, from Rhegion, Bononia, and Segesta,.
The easiest would have to be the Sauromatae. There are a lot of steppe armies at your disposal, and you can easily take every one of their settlements before they can get back to you.
The Saba, Sweboz, and Casse are fairly easy as well. For each of them, you have a large amount settlements with large garrisons surrounding them. However, you will need to save the Central European full-stacks for the Romans, so the Sweboz must be dealt with a smaller force than most are comfortable with. The Saba already in range of your settlements in Arabia, but your forces need to mass up beforehand, leaving them a bit vulnerable. But the Casse have their only settlement, while you have a whopping 6 surrounding them. Very easy, if you wait them out.
The hardest thing about playing the Eleutheroi in general is the fact that auto-resolve completely destroys any of your armies led by a captain if you lose. You have to fight every single battle. Urgh.
my feelings exactly ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
I deleted many posts, off-topic and rather aggressive. MORE than half the posts here, actually. There may have been some collateral damage.
I put Egypt, although I dont really mean Egypt itself, more the whole endless, remorseless, repetitive battles against the ptolies, that usually start in Lydia or somewhere and go on for 50 years until youve killed every single remaining yellow army.
steppe is just a drawn out campaign , you need plenty of FM's and archers to chase them all down , and in the end the towns you collect on the way are not worth the costs of the army you had to raise.
Depends who you are playing and what your objectives are. As a confirmed Roman campaigner and trying to follow a historicalish timeline then it's Iberia, the Luso are tough troops and the terrain is tough especially given your forces when you face them.
By the time you go east you will often have had Marian reforms then most factions are fairly easy, and later in the game the AI fields pretty poor stacks, only the Saba seem to mix things up.
Carthage, is annoying in taking those damn North African provinces that I don't want.
As for horse archers by the time my Marians face them the Testudo is a very useful arrow magnet until they run out of ammo.
However, now it's the Arche Seleukia's turn and things look like being a whole lot different, especially as I don't really like fighting with phalanxes
iberia is a very hard place to conquer. the main reason is that it keeps rebelling even with high influence family members.
germania is awkward but not difficult. if you have a good army that can take the germans head on you will win.
egypt is a simple matter of sea invasion. using your ships to invade israel and alexandria will cripple their economy. their most powerful units come from alexandria and memphis, taking them will be a massive blow.
the steppes are just a massive pain. you need alot of horses and for factions like rome its just really annoying having to alter your army composition. although strictly speaking you can defeat HA armies with tetsudo legionnaires. also, the long treks from one weak town to another is a bore. conquering olbia is a nice way to start out a campaign on the sauromatae. there is no easy way to kill the saka. i hate them.
In Germany you can have the most powerful army you can afford: you won't see them under those damned trees...
At least in germany, you just need some solid spearmen in the frone, and pump out tons of archers and slingers, and never try to attack first... thy'll killed in drovs
Archers? Slingers? In deep forest?!? O.o
Right, use some chariots as well. Oh, and artillery works excellently in forests too.
Maion
What the....?!? O.o
I think what he means is that missiles work well against unarmoured opponents. I agree that they are less so in the deep German forests...
The steppes are a lot harder when the Samartians refuse to make peace. Urgh
You do realize you can negate these forests partly? I mean: stick to the roads, stay out the thick of the forests, build forts at the end of your turn,... and try not to fight in the winter (less hitpoints for your generals, higher morale for the opponent,...). It's still costly, but doable if you really want these smelly swamps to be civilized.
The easiest to conquer would be Makedon. The AI simply can't handle phalangites. One single charge in their back and argyraspidai or hysteroi pehzetaroi are dead or broken. (Just don't fight them on the town square, and outnumber them).
I never much bothered with the steppes if I'm not a nomad faction myself. HA armies are too hard to defeat and the settlements there are practically worthless. As for Arabia,their troops are so lightly armoured that you can just shoot them to pieces with archers. Also, the main Saba cities are clustered together so you can take them within a few turns, while their cities along the Persian Gulf are easily taken from Persia by a naval invasion. By the time you are bothered by them,you invariably control either Egypt or Babylonia.