Printable View
Hayasdan is rated as one of the hardest factions in the game. As I've never played them (but I'm thinking about it), I would like to ask what makes them so hard compared to let's say Pahlava (which I've played as, and unlike the EB creators, I think they're probably easier than the Sab'yn)? The mere virtue of being a horse archer faction ought to help a lot, or am I wrong?
No money, one province, the Seleukids knocking at your door and often having the Sauromatae coming over the Caucasus. You'll be fighting a retreating battle for most of the time, and whilst you do get horsearchers, don't think you'll be getting the money for them.
Foot
No trade, no population to tax, no money from farming, no big cities to loot; you'll have to live of the mines for which you'll don't have the money to build. Your army is first of all composed of unarmoured spearmen (only a little better than Pantodapoi) and foot archers. Both will suffer heavy casualties in each battle, but you neither have the money nor the population to replace them each time.
Once you are out of the worst poblems, AS will throw the first wave of heavy pikemen at you....
and just when you think you're all set its time to rebuild your government structure from scratch:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
horse archers aint all that powerful imo. maybe giving them some extra arrows will help? also fixing their status as was proposed might make some difference in autoresolve and help not just Armenia, but to a much bigger extend Parthia and nomads to progress.
Foot, while you're here, the Hayastan's conquest map (faction scroll) doesnt correspond with new conquest requirements anymore. not sure if you're aware...
Oh well, I might stay out of that faction, the descriptions kinda scares me away.
Though are the Sauromatae a huge problems for Hayasdan? I remember back in 8.1 playing as the Sauromatae, and when I attacked Hayasdan, their general's bodyguards were almost immune to my horse archers, and when they had run out of arrows and I attacked the general with them in melee, I suffered huge causalties.
No they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calypze
They usually accept peace early in the game and only seldom cross the mountains in the first 25 years (have not played any Hay campaign longer, thanks to the Grey Death). So, as long as you keep out of the steppe there should be no problem. Only Aghvan is somewhat threatened by them because the settlement is north of the Caucasus.
As Hayasdan, you'll be commanding armies more suited towards highland combat, and for this task there is cavalry and infantry of high quality, including skirmishers to get the job done in carrying the battle to your favour. Taking advantage of the uneven terrain, and recognizing the weaknesses of the Seleucids, who often spam phalanxes, by bringing forth your heaviest nobles, and your archers to pelt them down as they attempt to march uphill, or upscale even. You will have to count on high casualty rates, but as long as you are able to replenish your troops (Hayasdan has the luxurious advantage of lavish natural defences, so the ways for the enemy to enter your territories are limited). The Suaromatae should not really be considered of any greater danger; The Caucasus shields you from them by large, and their siege capability is generally lacking.
Perhaps diplomacy will be one of the key factors to your survival; Ptolemaioi and AS struggle all the time, and further to the west there is Pontos. However your survival will not be easy; The AS, unless you take the initiative, will likely only be "replaced" as a threat, ranging between Baktria and Ptolemaioi (Who are not exactly that much softer than the AS, they are respectively Blue and Yellow Deaths), as Pahlava AI behaves somewhat strangely. However the defensive qualities of Hayasdan cannot be denied or overlooked. A skilled player will hold the enemy at bay, with honours. Their unit spectrum is equally diverse and provides a flexible selection of unit types, both in infantry and cavalry ranges.
My best successes with the Hayasdan involved taking the offense... immediately making a direct, head-on assault against the Seleukids, striking straight into the heart of the empire, taking Seleukia at the end. At the beginning, the Seleukids have their hands really, really full with all of their enemies, and are very, very vulnerable. If you wait to attack, they'll eventually often ally with those enemies (who would rather be attacking you), and then it'll get really bad.
Translation: don't play Hayasdan on VH!! :beam: RTW doesn't really have a diplomacy system, but at least the other factions won't be quite so single-mindedly devoted to destroying the player this way. I still got attacked by AS (and Pontus, oddly) for no apparent reason, but at least I got almost 20 years to gradually capture the pan-Caucasus region and build up my economy first.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Contrary to Foot, Hayasdan easily has the money for horse archers, they're dirt cheap and very easy to get. These would be the Scythian ones, that is... As I've suggested elsewhere, I think the Hayasdan campaign would be improved if the Scythian units were adjusted a bit, such that it took a level 2 regional MIC to get the horse archers and a level 3 to get the Riders (who I normally don't bother with, but a real melee attack can be nice sometimes). Hayasdan's factional horse archers are a bit pricey - the basic kind are identical to Scythians but cost significantly more, and of course the Zrahakir Netadzik (sp?) have a cost proportional to their power.
In the early game you have to rely heavily on bodyguards. The basic foot archers are pretty good, but the infantry are weak. Using the faction leader as general (large bodyguard) should get you a couple of cities. At that point you should see a modest profit each turn to gradually invest in mines. Once the mines come online money won't be a huge problem for quite a while, so go ahead and pick up some of the Sarmatian mercenary horse archers to fill out your army without depleting population. Much later you'll be able to retrain Georgian infantry (MIC 3, I forget which type, in the northern provinces) so those mercs can be handy for army growth too. In hindsight, expending or disbanding the starting Aspet Hetselazor would probably be wise - FM provide all the shock cav you need at first, and later you'll have vastly better options.
Don't worry too much about AS - the AI is helpless once the player has horse archers and cataphracts (bodyguards) together. Fight defensive battles until the enemy armies are destroyed, then grab a poorly defended city or two. Karkathiokerta in particular has awesome terrain for defense.
Another subtle difficulty of Hayasdan is that they cannot naturally reach 24000 population in their cities. The sewer series ends at the +1.5% health, +5% law building (two choices), and AFAIK there's no level 2 healer or level 3 farm, no health temple, and no equivalent of latifundia. A good farmer-philosopher governor with low-ish taxes can probably do it, but I didn't realize this would be a problem until the early governors had died off. This isn't a complaint, it seems quite right for the region (not exactly full of huge cities even today), just be aware that population will always be a concern in the core cities unlike most other factions.
Also be aware of how the various reforms work. You can't build more than a level 1 factional MIC with a level 3 govt. That threw me for a while... :embarassed:
Anyway, apologies for being so long-winded! I think Hayasdan is freakin' awesome, quite likely the most fun I've had playing RTW. You've got powerful cav (melee and missile), pretty decent infantry in a variety of regional flavors (Srakir Martikner, Pantodapoi Phalangitai, Georgians, Persian Hoplites, and I believe Shipri Tukul once Western Expansion Region 1 goes active), and a set of reforms and victory conditions that keep life interesting long after, say, a Roman campaign would get too boring to continue.
You're basically poor as a nomad faction but without HA.
If you play as Hayasdan, you are in "ATTACKING" mod.
(Assume you are playing as H/H)
Hayasdan has extremely no economy at the begining. You really have to conquer more settlement to make your economy at least rise from the bottom.
So, my point is to attack AS immediately since they are busy with other enemies. And make at least neutral with other enemies to your west, east and north.:skull:
Problem with trying to kill the AS at the first possibly opportunity is that you start at war with Sauramatae and the the AI will likely dog pile you since everyone in Asia minor is allied with the AS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
I found that the special geographic situation of Armenia becomes problematic as soon as you hold Phraaspa and Ahni?-whatisit or even Trapezont: You have now to defend several entries to your kingdom that are separated by mountains in East-West direction. So you have either to leave back very strong garrisons in all towns or field three armies, one for the West, one for the center and one for East, because you won't be on the other side of your empire in time to even repulse moderate enemy invasions.
AS loves to play this funny game with me: they send an army through the valley against Amavir and as soon as my army is up there to encounter them, the next grey force sneaks out of Ekbatana and starts sieging Phraaspa. Once I got down there the next AS stack comes across the Western mountains, and so forth.
Even invading their territory doesn't really help because AS immediatly counters with a diversion against Armenia.
Yep, they seem to think its so hilarious :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
I find the AS attack on Hayasdan even more inevitable and swift than the AS attack on Pontos (and thats scripted in, pretty much, once they attack Nikaia).
Why can't we just all get along?
Right about the starting poverty, completely wrong about the HA.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
In my experience Hayasdan needs to keep separate "armies" on each front. Quotation marks because they're really just large town garrisons until the local AS armies have died off in siege battles - as I see it your either/or statements are equivalent. Then, hopefully with a newly arrived young FM and a few reinforcements from Armavir, Kotais, and Mt-whatsit, push forward another city (from Phraaspa to Ekbatana, say) and start the process over again. It's slow, but EB lasts 1000+ turns so there's no need to hurry... And eventually AS will militarily collapse and you'll snap up half a dozen cities in quick succession.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
I agree with jhhowell. It seemed like I faced endless and endless stacks of Grey Death. After around 10-15 enemy FM's slain their military seemed to decline and I was able to push south and East.
As far as sauromate is concerned, you can go neutral and ally them in the first few turns. I have not experienced them break the alliance, even on VH/M.
Use the terraine to your advantage.
Well my experience with Hayasdan on H/H difficulty with BI.exe was somewhat different. Playing as them was really a great fun - now I am around year 200 BC and still enjoy it very much - especially thanks to the reforms feature. The difficulty though was not that extreme as campaign description suggests. As Hayasdan you have quite a lot rebel cities around where you can expand at the beginning of the game without starting a war with other faction and setting your economy on a sound footing. On the other hand Pahlava has no such obvious opportunity for expansion and economical growth. Moreover, Armenian basic units are extremely cost effective and combination of Kavkaza Sparabara + Caucasian Archers + general bodyguard can deal with anything your enemies could throw on you early on.:smash:
IF you manage to capture them BEFORE Arche attacks you, you are basically over the hill. Taking Karkathiokerta (Sophene) completes the requirements for Caucasus Kingdom reforms - very nice gameplaywise - and you should have a decent economy by then. Therefore I would recommend a blitz through Caucasian rebel provinces at the very start (except Karkathiokerta), than wait for Arche´s treacherous attack, punish them by taking Karkathiokerta and after that a measured - "historical" - push against Mesopotamia and Persia after is taken... Hard campaign difficulty is probably advisable and can be somewhat compensated by hard battle difficulty as well.
In my campaign Archie even accepted cease-fire after I conquered all Mesopotamia (Edessa, Arbela, Seleukeia, Babylon, Charax, Ekbatana, Perseopolis, Apameia, Gabai) and we live in peace since that time for more than 30 years or 120 turns, which is amazing for RTW and I guess that the hard campaign difficulty AND bi.exe are doing the trick!!! :dizzy2:
The difficulty for me with Hayasdan in the two campaigns I tried was that though you can own the AS easily as long as you are using many of your family members (I only had them to worry about as I was allied with Pontos and Sauromatae), you have the classic problem of the Salient. The deeper you expand into AS territory the more bloated your salient becomes, and the longer the front on which the enemy can attack you. Not to mention there aren't any more mountains or valleys to protect you.
That, and you have the two giants ingame to worry you. After taking Antiocheia and Damaskos to remove one of the three fronts the AS could counterattack me on, the Ptolemaioi did the unthinkable and signed alliance with the AS, attacked me, and got me embroiled in an escalating struggle in Antiocheia. Meanwhile the AS attacked from the east towards Arbela, with nothing to even stop them. It was very nasty work, and I quit after I spied another 2 Ptolemaioi fullstacks headed for me. This was in the first 30 years.
I just started a new VH/M campaign as Hayastan. I thought a migration would be fun towards the Crimea. I didn't realize just how long marching there on foot would take (no roads, rough terraine). Finally arrived with my entire army starving and very low morale. Took both towns in the Crimea with heavy losses (Thanks to low morale from starving and quick unit routs)
Year 267bc and strangely the AS have still not attacked my completely undefended capital aside from my FM. I pillaged everything I could in it by the way, although I am seeing some AS diplomats coming up, meaning a war soon.
This migration seems fun, I'll let y'all know how that works out..or doesn't haha
Great and Minor Armenia and surrounding provinces make an excellent base for future exansion. leaving it as you did, moving to the place with no mines and quite far from major trade routes, isnt something i would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
it be easier in a long run if you built mines and proper infrastructure in your place of origin and then moved else where, imo.
good luck
I have already a campaign as Hayastan where I am doing fairly well and pushing into the heart of AS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkiss
I thought it would be fun to put a new spin on things, not because defending the valley paths of Hayastan are difficult. Fun campaign tho =]
Well, thanks for all the replies. Seems like a hell of a faction if you actually got the patience to turn it all right.
They are a fun faction to play as alright.
I left a disastrous Pontos campaign to try out the Hayasdan instead. I thought their starting position and terrain looked much stronger. I wasn't prepared for their extreme poverty though. After taking three cities I was still very short on cash and was barely breaking even with a stack one third strong being my only real offensive force. That's when the AS started attacking my territory.
I decided to go on the offensive and bet it all on one strong hand. I allied with the Ptolemies, then got myself some Scythian riders, and cut deep into the heart of the Seleukid kingdom. I took Karthakiokerta, Mazaka and then swept south and seized Anthioceia and Edessa with a little assistance from the Ptolemies who distracted the main AS stack. I moved fast and took Babylon, Seleukeia and then Charax. Now the AS are barely sending anything at me. They almost seem frightened of my four units of Scythian riders with two or three silver chevrons guarding the eastern border along with my faction leader.
Since these horsemen was accompanied by my only mobile infantry force, Pontos decided to attack from the north in 251 BC where my cities were garrisoned weakly. I had zero to spare since I directed every penny to the southern campaign. Now it's just a question of redirecting the war effort to the north...
Which one has worse economy, Hayasdan or Pontos?
And which one has a better defensive postion? A better position for expansion?
I´d say Pontos has a better economy, with easy access to relatively rich regions. Hayasdan always starts very poor, as all nearby regions are basically mountain ones with at most a port or some mines.
Otherwise, I´ve found Hayasdan has a easier defensive position, though by no means easy. With both factions the Ptolies will often take Antiocheia, Damaskos, Palmyra and Edessa within the first 20 years, and if that happens then you are really in a positoin to strike at the Sele´s.
In my Hayasdan campaign the Ptolies had even taken Sardis, Ipsos and Babylon after 20 years, so I could just steam-roll over undergarrisoned Seleukid city´s.
Then when you´ve taken out as much of the Sele´s you like, send a big army by ship to take Alexandria and Memphis, and then hold them against counter-attacks while expending against weak city´s. If you time this with a attack in Syria or where ever your border against the Ptolies is, you´ll almost certainly win.
Hayasdan may be poor, but it is not that bad.
The trick is to safe money --> build army. It does not have to be big, it just needs to be good enough for one mission. Pick FM and conquer a city. Then disband 90% of that army (you can keep highly depleted units, as retraining may be less expensive in the long run). Rinse and repeat.
Caucasian Spearmen and Caucasian Archers are extremely useful, despite their low costs. The Caucasus can be conquered without too much cavalry.
This works extremely well for the Eleutheroi Caucasian cities. My preferred order is Ani-Kamah, Trapezous / Kotais, Mtshketa, Kabalaka, Phraaspa.
Despite your economy being poor, in the first few years you simply don't need much garrisons. Building a port in Kotais and getting some traderights with Pontus, and the Western Hellenic factions also improves the situation a lot. Build roads. Build markets, and build basic farms. Armavir is a bit special as it needs population boosts as well.
By the time you have taken Phraaspa, you are guaranteed to run into some Seleukid aggression. By that time your economy should be on track. Use your spy network to get an early warning when they are invading. Build up defences in that city (90% of the time it will Armavir anyway), and move the second army from Phraaspa to Ekbatana. Once you conquer and enslave Ekbatana, your cities with FMs will get nice population boosts.
And another big defensive bonus for the Hai is that cities are further apart than in Asia Minor. Use your spies and watchtowers. I think Hayasdan are overall the easier faction.
Spies are essential, even more so when playing as a weaker faction with cities spread wide apart as the Hayasdan. For instance, I didn't have time to respond to the new threat posed by Pontos in the north until they had taken Ani-Kamah from me. By that time I had diverted an army intended to swing east-south into AS territory to instead retake Ani-Kamah and lay siege to the heavily guarded pontic capital.
I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of serious cash flow from settlements along the Tigris river such as Babylon, Seleukeia, Chartax and one other I can't remember the name of. I was counting on being able to field two, or at least one and a half stacks worth of forces after taking those cities along with Anthioceia, Edessa, Mazaka and Karkathiokerta. As it is, I am barely able to maintain my southern stack containing four Scythian riders and two Babylonian spearmen (south), plus my northern force which has four horse archers, two foot archers and four light infantry. I need mines, but man they are expensive!
Can anyone advise me on how to make my economy prosper?
How is your infrastructure? Especially economical, and to a more limited extent population growth-wise. Ports wherever you can build them are essential. Also make certain you get as many trade rights' agreements as possible. I think the value of an agreement doubles if you are allies with the trading city, but I could be wrong there.
Use cities like Seleukeia and Ekbatana to give management courses to your younger family members. Better management equals more money in the treasury. Retinue can seriously knock a dent in construction costs. In case you spot a FM with -40% to building costs, you may want to move them to Karkathiokherta and into the Caucasus. Because building mines becomes a lot cheaper then.
Perhaps it may be time to move the capital, to lower over all corruption. Have you gotten the Caucasian reforms, and have you built lv1 and lv2 governments where possible? These do unlock extra building options.
As you already have an extensive spy network, you should be able to disband some garrison units in the heart of your young empire. Once you retake Ani-Kamah, Armavir should be protected in its entirity by your own cities (assuming you have Phraaspa). Something similar may hold for Trapezous once you take Amaseia and Sinope.
Try to expand in such a way, that not every province you take shares a border with a hostile faction (or one that is likely to become hostile). That way you have to spend less money on garrisons.
If spies are mainly used in your own territory send one of your FMs to construct watch towers. They are quite cheap, and will save money in the long run.
Raise taxes as much as possible.
With regards to your northern stack what are you using it for? Sarmatian lands don't have much to offer, and instead you could limit yourself at smallish garrisons in Kotais, Mtshketa and Kabalaka. That way they also provide much needed public order bonuses. Thus allowing you to raise taxes a bit.
I assume you won't forget to tear down MICs of other factions. These can bring in a fair amount of money. Depending on the population numbers you need to make decisions about conquered settlements. If you can't absorb large numbers anymore, putting a large number of people to the sword may be quite effective. Else, enslavement will be more profitable.
That should allow you to make a smallish profit of about 5000 per turn. Which is not much, but if you spend the money wisely on economic infrastructure it will get your economy back on track slowly, but surely.
Thanks for the advice d'Arthez, although I've thought of all the things you mentioned, except for maybe the "schooling" family members bit. The micromanagement may be worth it, but I'm quite short on family members as it is, and the ones I do have are fighting Pontos or are already decent governors in their respective cities. I'll be sure to look into it though to see who may be suitable for schooling. My newly acquired settlements in the south are all governed by client rulers except for the ones closer to home.
Regarding my northern army, I used it to retake Ani-Kamah and right now it's in the process of wiping out Pontos off the map permanently. The Seleukids are very quiet so I've given myself this luxury while only maintaining a small horse archer force (Faction leader + 3 highly experienced Scythian riders) in the southeast guarding against any incursions into Mesopotamia or Karthiokerta.
I never got the chance to take Phraaspa or Kabalaka, the AS attacked so I had to go on the defensive whilst in the middle of expanding my territory. Those two settlements, with satrap governments completed, are the only ones I need to complete the Pan-caucasus reforms. I will go for them as soon as I've finished off Pontos. My capital is Karthiokerta, I switched as soon as I expanded southward along the Tigris river. I have a level 1 government in Karthiokerta and Armavir. The other Homeland provinces are level 2 for now. I generally have minimal garrisons were possible and my only real field army is fighting Pontos successfully.
And yes, I do tear down MICs that I can't use as well as granaries and sometimes healers to avoid population booms in newly acquired provinces.
Good tip on checking for FMs with -40% construction costs though, I'll be sure to look out for that one!
I think the drain on your treasury has been identified: the client rulers. These are relatively costly, certainly when you are not making loads of money. Only worth it in cities with lots of infrastructure in place (Seleukeia, and Alexandreia, once you get there).
Once you have gotten rid of Pontus, you should have a relatively easy to defend Western border. Cities like Trapezous, Sinope and Nikaia are quite important in terms of trade.
Antiocheia and Seleukeia can be magnificent defensive positions; especially if you use some Eastern Slingers and regular Persian Archers to help defend these cities (Seleukeia can practically share a garrison with Babylon).
I assume you do tear down the estates you probably have run into in Seleukeia, and possibly Antocheia.
Client rulers cost money? I never knew that, but I suppose that is where the "wages" part of my budget is going (3500 + mnai)... Silly me for not realising those pesky allies cost money. :wall: Thank you for clearing that up! I'll be sure to switch to lvl 3 governments except for a couple of big cities.
I'm not sure if I've torn down the estates you mention, but I'm sure I noticed one in Seleukeia which I couldn't decide what to do with. They do provide income as well as growth but I guess the growth part makes estates more negative than positive...
Thanks again. Can't wait to see what effects these changes will have on my economy!
Once I find/buy my RTW CD1(always manage to lose it) I'll tone down their costs, just because of how annoying it is to have an expensive unit that you can't get rid of :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian