Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Baktrian problem

  1. #1
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Baktrian problem

    Ok so I am now playing like my tenth Baktrian campaign, but this time decided to do something different.
    I started to make my first conquests in India, Gandhara first, this meant that I left the Saka to go about willy nilly. At first they were kept in check by some starnge Seleukid conquests north of Baktria. But now in 256 B.C, the Seleukids have crumbled with the Parthians marching ever further south and the Saka claiming all north of Baktria. Due to my conquests I had pretty much no armies near Baktra and in 258 B.C the city was taken by the Saka. To haul my only army over the mountains and into Baktria would take a considerable amount of time and supplies would run low, not to mention that once there I do not know whether my outdated army could tackle hordes of heavily armoured horse archers.

    So what do I do? Baktra was my best city and I was stupid in losing it, but is it worth the risk of taking it back? Or should I now consolidate in India and create a new Indo-Bakrian kingdom?

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  2. #2
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: Baktrian problem

    India certainly isn't as rich as Baktra and the regions of Karmana etc, but it has some very good units. Try and hold on to Kophen, it has a mine. Leave Baktra for now, until you can field a decent army. I suggest you try and take the cities of Pura and Alexandropolis, which are richer than the Indian lands. If everything else fails, retreat to the city in India near the sea, build a fleet and sail towards new lands!
    This space intentionally left blank.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Baktrian problem

    No matter what faction I am playing, I play a certain way, with the only differences being on the battlefield in terms of units and tactics. Overall strategy remains the same.

    Consolidate first. Always make sure you can hold what you have before you try taking more. Then I focus on economy. I want to be making a profit every turn. It doesn't have to be big, but it can't be negative. If it IS negative, then I have to try and look for a settlement to conquer whether I'm ready or not. When choosing targets I scout first with a spy, and try to take any settlement with mines in it first. Once I am making a profit, I will simply hold what I have, and set about saving a nice chunk of gold. Once I have a little financial leeway, I will set about building a large asskicking army, capable of defeating anything thrown at it. This can be a full stack army but doesn't necessarily have to be.At this point income doesn't have to be positive, that's what the saved gold is for. With this large asskicking army I send out my youngest most promising family member (unless family members compose a large portion of my army) and have that army wander around kicking ass and taking names until it is either: A) defeated or B) spread too thin from leaving garrison units at captured settlements. At that point I will return to the consolidation part and rinse and repeat.


    Hope that is in some way helpful.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO