Eastern factions. Help me pick

[jabarto]

May I suggest the Pahlavân?...

Wow, your post makes it seem kinda hard not to love those guys. I've never tried them, but I think I'll give them a shot in my next campaign.

[Andronikos]

My language is Slovak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia

[qoute]Wow, your post makes it seem kinda hard not to love those guys. I've never tried them, but I think I'll give them a shot in my next campaign.[/qoute]
Completely agree, it was really a good post, I would say it was a short argumentative essay.

[kambiz]

Hehe TPC is scientist/Scholar And he usually post his opinion in scientific way ... I like that

[palmtree]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

[LusitanianWolf]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

Agreed.
I've started my invasion to the steppes to hunt them and its killing my economy.

[beatoangelico]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

always better than "destroy or outlast the Arche Seleukia" doesn't it?

[kambiz]

I'm getting slightly annoyed with the Baktria victory conditions. Specifically, destroy or outlast the Pahlava and the Saka.

Both have seen fit to expand west, and to win I'll have to hunt them across half the map. Not fun. Also, it doesn't make any damn sense. I know they're my natural enemies but the Baktrians have zero reason to hunt down nomads in the middle of the steppes. It makes no sense to challenge horse archers in the open and the territory as such is useless to me.

Agree. Pahlava has the same problem with its victory condition ! Generally ,Any expansion into steppe as a victory condition does not sound reasonable

[icydawgfish]

You'll get the late bodyguards with the vanilla marian reforms - there must be a huge city in Italy (not Rome I think). There are no further reforms for Baktria.

Is it possible for the Vanilla reforms to occur with MMA's city mod?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Is it possible for the Vanilla reforms to occur with MMA's city mod?

If you have v3.1...

[MiniMe]

always better than "destroy or outlast the Arche Seleukia" doesn't it?

BTW, does any faction has such a terrible victory condition?

[Elminster12]

BTW, does any faction has such a terrible victory condition?

I'm guessing the Ptolemies...

[MiniMe]

So that must be the true reason nobody likes and plays poor Ptolyes...
Not that I ever considered to play as them, and ever will.

[artavazd]

So that must be the true reason nobody likes and plays poor Ptolyes...
Not that I ever considered to play as them, and ever will.

Also Armenia

[mrtwisties]

As is evident from a lot of my posts, I've recently started playing with the Saka and am really enjoying it. It's a very different experience from almost any of the other civilisations that I've played, and I highly recommend it if you'd like to try something new.

For me, the biggest advantage is the Saka generals. Of course, they're great (virtually free) armoured cataphracts, and therefore very useful on the battlefield. But it's the traits and ancillaries that the Ksaya Saka Rauka get that are the real kicker for me. They get innate movement bonuses (like "lives on the move" and "horde chief"), they get even more movement bonuses when you move them around fighting a lot (like "rider" and "brutal"), and you start off with one drillmaster and two quartermasters that you can pass from general to general.

I have an all cavalry army led by a general that is a horde chief (+80%), good attacker (+10%), famous rider (+20%) and ruthless disciplinarian (+10%) with an understanding of logistics (+10%). He is also brutal (+10%) and enthusiastic (+5%), and is accompanied by a drillmaster (+25%) and quartermaster (+10%). To see this guy blitz his way from Seleukeia to Pella in just a few turns was truly a thing of beauty. Incidentally, his son looks like he might wind up being even faster.

When you have generals like these, it's possible to take a different, dare-I-say-it buccaneering attitude towards the game. No more methodical, Roman-like imperial expansion. You travel the world winning glory and looting the cities of sedentary agriculturalists. Feel like seeing the Pyramids? Then let's blaze our way through the Levant. Where next? The Caucasus? I've heard that England can be quite beautiful in summer...

You won't get much of a sense that you're recreating the Persian empire with these guys. Bringing the civilised world to its knees is more like it. But if you're after an exciting, bloody game where personalities loom large and every battle counts, look no further than the Saka.

[MerlinusCDXX]

As is evident from a lot of my posts, I've recently started playing with the Saka and am really enjoying it. It's a very different experience from almost any of the other civilisations that I've played, and I highly recommend it if you'd like to try something new.

For me, the biggest advantage is the Saka generals. Of course, they're great (virtually free) armoured cataphracts, and therefore very useful on the battlefield. But it's the traits and ancillaries that the Ksaya Saka Rauka get that are the real kicker for me. They get innate movement bonuses (like "lives on the move" and "horde chief"), they get even more movement bonuses when you move them around fighting a lot (like "rider" and "brutal"), and you start off with one drillmaster and two quartermasters that you can pass from general to general.

I have an all cavalry army led by a general that is a horde chief (+80%), good attacker (+10%), famous rider (+20%) and ruthless disciplinarian (+10%) with an understanding of logistics (+10%). He is also brutal (+10%) and enthusiastic (+5%), and is accompanied by a drillmaster (+25%) and quartermaster (+10%). To see this guy blitz his way from Seleukeia to Pella in just a few turns was truly a thing of beauty. Incidentally, his son looks like he might wind up being even faster.

When you have generals like these, it's possible to take a different, dare-I-say-it buccaneering attitude towards the game. No more methodical, Roman-like imperial expansion. You travel the world winning glory and looting the cities of sedentary agriculturalists. Feel like seeing the Pyramids? Then let's blaze our way through the Levant. Where next? The Caucasus? I've heard that England can be quite beautiful in summer...

You won't get much of a sense that you're recreating the Persian empire with these guys. Bringing the civilised world to its knees is more like it. But if you're after an exciting, bloody game where personalities loom large and every battle counts, look no further than the Saka.

yeah, with Saka it's more like kicking off the Mongol invasion 1500 years early.

[mrtwisties]

yeah, with Saka it's more like kicking off the Mongol invasion 1500 years early.

Absolutely. And until Genghis: Total War comes out, it'll do nicely.

[kambiz]

Mongols

[mrtwisties]

You're only saying that because they did awful things.

...

Which is a pretty good reason, I guess.