Saka and Baktria

[Callicles]

Has anyone played a game where the AI controlled Saka did not become a protectorate of the AI controlled Baktria?

If you have, can you please briefly describe what happened over there. I'm trying to figure out how to give the Saka more of a chance to hang on longer and be a thorn in the side of Baktria and Parthia.

Thanks.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We're talking about trying to make the Sakae into more of a thorn in the side of Baktria and Parthia too. Having them in a corner (fewer trade partners), and in a place where there are fewer factions in general (the east) and with the engine bias against HA armies, plus in a place where cities are much much much more distant from each other than any other part of the map, it really makes it difficult to get them going. But we are still thinking about the problem, so I hope that gives some hope.

[Callicles]

Glad to hear it. If in my testing I figure anything out, I'll pass it along.

[CirdanDharix]

I had a game where they didn't become a protectorate of Baktria; they were shared between Baktria and the Pahlava, and eaten. Then the Seleukids made the Pahlava a protectorate and ate Baktria

[Geoffrey S]

We're talking about trying to make the Sakae into more of a thorn in the side of Baktria and Parthia too. Having them in a corner (fewer trade partners), and in a place where there are fewer factions in general (the east) and with the engine bias against HA armies, plus in a place where cities are much much much more distant from each other than any other part of the map, it really makes it difficult to get them going. But we are still thinking about the problem, so I hope that gives some hope.

Had any luck with this suggestion?

Whatever goes for the Saka also goes for the Parthians in my opinion; they are the faction I've most hoped to see expanding into Seleucid territory, but they tend to end up in a three way war with Baktria and Saka instead.

[Diamondj]

I have always thought that it would make much more sense to drop Saka in favour of the Maurya Empire. Besides the fact that they would be more powerful, EB already has several other nomadic factiosn with similar units, Maurya would have completely novel units.

[Geoffrey S]

I have always thought that it would make much more sense to drop Saka in favour of the Maurya Empire. Besides the fact that they would be more powerful, EB already has several other nomadic factiosn with similar units, Maurya would have completely novel units.

At the risk of sounding a bit curt, they're not in because the majority of their holdings lay outside the map of EB, with not enough extra provinces to spare for them, and their interests cannot be accurately simulated without expanding the map quite a way to the east. It's simply not possible to include them accurately, although I believe RTR has them as a faction if you're interested.

There are a number of topics on the subject (also one in the EB2 forum) to search for.