Should ruling Steppe Provinces be Far More Difficult

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Consider a scenario where a player with a "sedentary" faction like Baktria conquers a steppe province... Shouldn't there be limitations as to how much this should be possible and how easily it can be done? Consider the logistics of controlling thousands of square kilometers of empty steppe and roving nomad bands who recognise no authority other than of his own petty chief or tribal head, and you will get the figures - It was always traditionally hard for sedentary powers to achieve a lasting foothold on the Steppes, and it was rare for them to take any interest on conquering such land except as a much needed consequence of raids, war and the like. Even then I don't know of any power that has maintained a Steppe foothold for long, not even greater Empires like Rome did.

...Which also brings forth the question as to whether Baktria and the likes need to have any VC provinces on Steppe lands. I think they should be removed for the above reasons, and replaced with ones giving a better interest. Baktria never held these lands for any amount of time historically.

But back on the issue, what I have in mind is more or like the "Empty Steppes" event for the EUIII mod Magna Mundi Platinum. If the player wants to hold provinces with the "Steppe" marker, it should be possible, but very hard and require a constant large scale military presence as well as the building of fortifications and permanent garrisons across regular intervals to prevent nomad raids. In sum, it should be costly enough to prevent long term control of the Steppe by non-nomadic factions unless the presence of trade routes, mines and the likes firmly warrants it at first. "Steppe Wars" would then be forcibly confined to sending punitive expeditions, and not to the actual conquest of these lands for any relevant amount of time.

[antisocialmunky]

You don't conquer the steppe. There is no economic or practical reason to do so. Most of the time, city dwellers bribed them away or go the steppe tribes to fight each other.

[The General]

Aren't they already doing this with the 'People' buildings?

[Moros]

Aren't they already doing this with the 'People' buildings?

That and much more. Remember the nomad camps from the Numidians preview?

[antisocialmunky]

... Are steppe regions actually profitable now?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Well, sometimes you're forced to hold them, as with Baktria, sometimes it's just too easy to keep them in EB1. Therefore, the source of my concern - I think the special conditions in the Steppe warrant more than just the strife from conquering provinces with different ethnicities. Most precisely, it should take into account the inherent problems in holding vast amounts of empty land and quelling off resilient nomadic rebels for a meaningful amount of time without getting provincial infrastructure and government disrupted.

This also might be useful to ward off AI Hayasdan and the likes from venturing into the Sarmatian steppe somehow.

[The General]

That and much more. Remember the nomad camps from the Numidians preview?

Aye, somehow managed not to mention those in my post, 'tseems... It was half past one (AM), though, so I'll just blame that.

[Cute Wolf]

Nah.... at least if you done that (making life more difficult in the steppe for civilized factions), you can't have Bosophoran kingdoms at your playable EB II factions......... as life will be HELL for them...