Saka Difficulty

[desert]

Ok, I've been mulling over this one for a few months: Why does everyone think the Saka campaign is difficult?

I was in debt for 1 turn, then I took a settlement and everything was fine. Over the next 10 years I took a bunch of other steppe settlements up to edge of Mazakata and finally Baktria in 260 BC.

With the death of Baktria, all I had to deal with were periodic armies from the Seleukids. The only trouble I ever had was when an army with some 80 TAB (first time I saw them, their stats made me soil myself) appeared in Ariana, and some of my reinforcements during a battle were commandeered by the AI against my will, leading to utter defeat and the loss of A. Ariana for a couple of years.

I have to say, those TAB and hetairoi crushed quite a few of my armies - nothing leaves a nauseous feeling in your stomach like watching Persian A-S firing all their arrows point blank into the rear of those spearmen while they fight Hyrkanians and not killing a single man.

[gamegeek2]

It's not THAT hard. I assume you play on VH/M, right?

My AAR isn't done as well as a normal campaign, and it focuses more on the Seleukids than the steppes.

[General Appo]

Play it on VH/VH, then get back to us.

Also, I think Saka were more difficult in 1.0, what with Baktria having more regions and greater ability to defend them.

[desert]

Oh sure. Playing on VH/VH will make ANY campaign difficult. I'd rather not watch my FMs get slaughtered by Akontistai, thank you very much.

[Cbvani]

Oh sure. Playing on VH/VH will make ANY campaign difficult. I'd rather not watch my FMs get slaughtered by Akontistai, thank you very much.

True. VH/H, MAYBE, at most for me. And only then if I feel like a nasty, nasty challenge.