Quote Originally Posted by The Errant
Typical Steppe tactics. Very effective against infantry heavy factions.

Say what you will about the Sabaeans. Playing them in 0.81 with all their limitations helped me become a better tactician. I was literally forced to develop new tactics using, what was esentially a weaker unit roster than my enemies had.

And I have always been a Hammer and Anvil general. Playing factions with access to decent pike units. Playing the Sabaeans was illuminating.

The steppe factions are totally different. Apart from Hayasdan they have very crappy starting economies that don't improve for quite a while. Pahlava expanding in the wrong direction dosen't help either.
Still they are the only factions for whom withdrawal dosen't mean defeat. It's just a break to get more ammo and come back again.

A full HA stack can take on most armies and win. If not during the first round then definately in round two or three. Their weakness lies in their inability to take settlements by storm. Hayasdan is better off than most, by having decent infantry at it's disposal from the beginning.
Thats certainly a more positive way of looking at it! Playing with an essentially inferior army can definitely be a rewarding experience. Playing Numidia in RTR was like that, and I think that having to use a limited number of low quality troops was where I really learned how to win tactical battles.
I'm a big fan of steppe cultures. The differences between them are very subtle and interesting, and it seems more plausible if things go ahistorically. Tactics-wise, it is also nice to have quick, flexible armies. But taking cities is definitely a real headache, although the sooseramartik are definitely a boon for the Armenians.
I think we might just be SOL Sarkiss.