It strikes me how aggressive you guys are towards the Arche Seleukia. After 10 years of gameplay as the Arche, I've only recently besieged Tarsos and I might take it because I really need extra funds for my wars against Pahlava and the Ptolemeans. Until that point, I've lived with the fact that the Ptolemeans would send rather impressive armies towards Antioch and cripple all trade in the Western part of my empire. It costed me a family member, a failed sally from Antioch (after year 8 or so despite having Syrian archers, chariots and phalanxes), furious defenses at Damascos,... I could easily send an army towards the south and take every city they have, but I don't. Why? I like the constant infighting of us, diadochi.
I haven't played too many campaigns as the Ptolemeans, but I can hardly imagine they have a more difficult starting position than the AS. I don't think I ever felt the need to take Antioch early, let alone to attack Babylon. And when I did take the city, the campaign felt like it was already over. As Titus Marcellus Scato, I too believe taking Antioch will cripple the AS that much you'll be facing an impressive Pahlava in the middle or later game. If that's what you want to do: go ahead. I wouldn't advise it, as it may be rather boring with your poorly armoured units. :) If you dislike fighting the Pahlava, you might consider building up a naval empire in the eastern mediterrean: taking Krete, Rhodos, Sparta,... and become fabulously whealthy with your sea-trade.
Bookmarks