Most Difficult to Conquer

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Hi,

what is in your opinion the most difficult land or region to conquer?

That can be for all kind of reasons: long distances, fortified cities, unruly natives, no revenue after the conquest...

Post what you hate the most and your reasons!

[teh1337tim]

gah! nothing is too difficult to conquer with a true makedonian king!

But in seriousness, Seleukid lands are easy to conquer, seleukid armies are annoying... Then supply problems such as phalanx troops and true greeks are harder as to build up the cities to employ locals, you need an army to defend them.....


Germania is a close second but nothing some solid makedonian phalanx and hoplites with theurophia cant defeat.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i think, if talking in terms solely based on troop stats, probably carthage or iberia are the hardest.

based on terrain, difficulty of arriving, and amount of turns before you can arrive, i say probably sabaya(southern arabia), and britain. i onl say those because:

even with a sabaean general, it still takes 8 turns to get from the capital to the mediterranean. add in the amount of time it takes anyone to get to them and the mountains they own, you have yourself huge city walls and legions of archer-spearmen shooting downhill at you.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

This should've been a poll with multiple options..

The most annoying place is Mikra Asia for me. I usually end up fighting against everyone there!! Even if I have been at peace/allied to a faction for a long time. But when I enter Mikra Asia then suddenly they all have to attack me!!

[antisocialmunky]

What about the Sahara?

[Macilrille]

Iberia as I get CTD every 2.2- 2.5 battles there...

[Fierro]

Steppe by far.. not only are the distances between cities great but facing HA armies can be ridiculous.
Everything else is pretty much a cakewalk provided you have decent units and or numbers.
Of course the south of Arabia can be pretty annoying with it being pretty isolated.

[A Very Super Market]

Steppes, if you are aren't a nomad faction, the levant, if you are.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's easily the steppes. Great distances between settlements, pesky HA armies to contend with and the income from the settlements is very poor. Add it all up and the cost-benefit ratio of conquering that area is just horrendous.

[Tristuskhan]

Steppes, if you are aren't a nomad faction, the levant, if you are.

Oh my!!
AVSM; you sumed up perfectly my feelings. The Levant is a bore when you're Pahlavi. And that's what i am.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, any area that starts out well-developed is a pain. But Italy and North Africa are far,far away....

Germania and Central Europe is a pain as well. The Sweboz always end up being the Maroon Death, or rather, Maroon Slogging match through giant forests. I don't think Central Europe needs to be explained.

[Irishmafia2020]

The steppe... chasing horse archers across the prairie with heavy infantry is a nightmare. It will take you 2-3 years to get there, and every other turn you have to fight fresh HA armies that attack you. If you have a FM with the army the campaign shuts down for the winter and summer, and after you conquer the god forsaken barbarian village at the end of the campaign, you have to leave 1/2 of your army (shot to pieces by now) to garrison the craphole since there is no local recruitment anyway. Of course the town will rebel back to the barbarians anyway, and even if it doesn't, two more HA armies will melt out of the steppe to lay siege to your new town and massacre your army...

Seriously, the steppe is ridiculously difficult to conquer if you are a civilized faction. I would rather face any other part of the map. Everything is spread out too far, and unless you have multiple armies attacking simultaneously in different areas of the steppe, you will be unable to conquer one of the HA factions. The worst part is that recruitment is virtually impossible out there, so once you conquer a town, you have to leave your army out there for six or seven years until the locals come to appreciate the benefits of civilization. The distance to the capital penalty is absurd as well... If you don't cheat (toggle_fow) then you will never find the most obscure settlements on the prairie using only a spy. Really, if you have ever faced this nightmare, then you probably voted "steppe" in the poll. I would face the armies of central Europe over what the steppe produces any day. Even if you lose a battle there, you can at least retrain your troops and try again within a year.

[J.R.M]

Oh Yeah, the steppe it´s a serious challenge for me (i like a hell lot those infantry based factions).
Huge distances between settlements and those anoying HA´s, seriously a great challenge, sorry for my english.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Wow, I wouldn't even consider messing around in the steppe as a "civilised" faction!

To me, conquering Iran seems to be the greatest horror (although I haven't tried on Germania or Britannia yet).

• reinforcements need awfully long, since the Mediterranean Sea ends at Antiocheia
• by the time you get there, cities are often already very big and unruly
• you won't have any opportunity to replenish your ranks with troops fitting your style, while the enemy keeps decimating you
• by the time you finally reach the other end of Iran, Baktria, you will be already decimated while resistance will be stronger

Conquering Iran is like traversing a valley, towards the end it gets harder and harder IMHO.

[satalexton]

no worries, when u reach baktra, it all goes well....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yeah, it is steppes for me as well. Only I come prepared. French, Teutons, Poles, and Germans all tried to conquer Russia but failed. I do not. Ten spies an army; almost full cavalry, HA, and heavy archer (Bosphorans, Cretans, and less often the lighter Scythians) fullstacks on my side, and more fullstacks of garrison troops to follow.

[Ibrahim]

I was torn between the steppes and Arabia (both of which were hell on the seleukids I had), but chose Arabia. when I played my AS campaign, they cost me more in lives and money than all the other steppe factions put together-and even then I failed to coaquer saba.

so I started playing saba instead

[Exosus]

Brittania just because it always has a giant pile of pirates in the English Channel that I have to build a North Seas Fleet solely to destory in order to finally get my units onto the damn thing. Especially given that most of the factions that need to conquer it for VC, or who are nearby, have boats rather than ships and you have to build the 15000 dollar versions in massive numbers just to destroy partial stacks of the pirates (who by the way almost have to come from similar stock, yet have ships that can eat mine for breakfast )

Usually I end up just putting a full stack on a single boat and making a suicide run to the island and just hoping the Casse haven't built themselves a serious army in the mean-time.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

The steppe... chasing horse archers across the prairie with heavy infantry is a nightmare. It will take you 2-3 years to get there, and every other turn you have to fight fresh HA armies that attack you. If you have a FM with the army the campaign shuts down for the winter and summer, and after you conquer the god forsaken barbarian village at the end of the campaign, you have to leave 1/2 of your army (shot to pieces by now) to garrison the craphole since there is no local recruitment anyway. Of course the town will rebel back to the barbarians anyway, and even if it doesn't, two more HA armies will melt out of the steppe to lay siege to your new town and massacre your army...

Seriously, the steppe is ridiculously difficult to conquer if you are a civilized faction. I would rather face any other part of the map. Everything is spread out too far, and unless you have multiple armies attacking simultaneously in different areas of the steppe, you will be unable to conquer one of the HA factions. The worst part is that recruitment is virtually impossible out there, so once you conquer a town, you have to leave your army out there for six or seven years until the locals come to appreciate the benefits of civilization. The distance to the capital penalty is absurd as well... If you don't cheat (toggle_fow) then you will never find the most obscure settlements on the prairie using only a spy. Really, if you have ever faced this nightmare, then you probably voted "steppe" in the poll. I would face the armies of central Europe over what the steppe produces any day. Even if you lose a battle there, you can at least retrain your troops and try again within a year.

I agree, but i find Germany tough too because of heavy forests.

Fighting in forests is a true nightmare for everyone.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Eastern europa, and by this I mean the ridiculous full stacks, not the Skythian part...

~Fluvius

[ARCHIPPOS]

I would like to hear from people that have actualy invaded the Sakas or the Sauros... how did the AI behave??? Playing as Baktria against the Sakas my current strategy is a never ending war of attrition on the borderline with my troops occasionaly raiding Chach (which is back into stone age after 20 years of war)...

I'm very hesitant of actually invading the Saka mainland though...not only are the distances HUGE making logistics a friggin' nightmare ,you're also exposed to highly mobile horse archer troops that can take the time to reduce your army to shrieds through successive raids turn after turn as you push into their land ... (at least in theory)

i have this plan of waiting till the reforms kick in and then raising a mighty cavalry army of Baktrioi hippotoxotai ,dahae riders and kataphraktoi FM and blitz my way into the Saka capital capturing their cities one by one on the road... i only hope that the Sauromatae will manage to contain them to the north East until then...

i see a lot of people here keep repeating "the Saba,the Saba!!!" ... Undoubtedly the desert waistlands add a lot of frustration on conquering them but at least their armies are not cavalry oriented or made of horse archers, right??? Also their homeland is exposed to sea... capturing any port of the Persian gulf or the Suez area and building a fleet would enable by-passing all the Saba deserts, right???

[Maion Maroneios]

Germania for me. I hate, hate, hate forest battles. Not to mention the Germanoi have those frickin' fanatics and ambushers that make me time a living hell.

Maion

[Ca Putt]

the steppe(as mentioned before) and Gotland as it's only reachable on boat, there are a lot of pirates up there and It's very far of for most factions. the only faction that is even remotely near to it (sweboz) are not quite masters of the boat and thus it takes some time until you can afford sending a ship there.

[option]

Germania for me. I hate, hate, hate forest battles. Not to mention the Germanoi have those frickin' fanatics and ambushers that make me time a living hell.

Maion

I hate them too. Not only does it disrupt all my nice and neat formations, those damn trees make it near impossible to actually see what's happening on the battlefield. And what's your reward for conquering them? A bunch of worthless, coffer-draining, resourceless swamps and forests. No wonder the Romans never bothered with them.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i wish that the forests would have realistic-sized trees. then it would be easier to see. plus maybe some variation? sapplings and variations in size would be nice.............

anyway:

@archippos: you cannot move ships in unless you build them south-east of alexandria. there is land on the nile preventing any ships landind farther south than the meditteranean coastline.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Germania for me. I hate, hate, hate forest battles. Not to mention the Germanoi have those frickin' fanatics and ambushers that make me time a living hell.

Hopefully you have installed the tree fix?

Besides, at least in the open the Germanoi are absolutely no match for the Makedones.

you cannot move ships in unless you build them south-east of alexandria. there is land on the nile preventing any ships landind farther south than the meditteranean coastline.

Ahem... no. You can actually traverse the Nile-Red Sea-Channel.

[ARCHIPPOS]

@archippos: you cannot move ships in unless you build them south-east of alexandria. there is land on the nile preventing any ships landind farther south than the meditteranean coastline.

but hey that still leaves the ports of Memphis,Diospoli , Petra, Ptolemais and Axem from which you can launch a naval invasion, no???

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

THERE.IS.NO.LAND.ON.THE.NILE.PERIOD.

[Azathoth]

Ahem... no. You can actually traverse the Nile-Red Sea-Channel.

It would be so cool if the faction that owned the Canal was able to invest money in keeping it open. That way, it either wouldn't be functional, or you could spend thousands of mnai to maintain it and thus have the advantage of being able to move between the Arabian and Mediterranean Seas at will.

It could be done with a very expensive and time-consuming building, I guess. Too bad it wouldn't work with the TW engine.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Ahem... no. You can actually traverse the Nile-Red Sea-Channel.

ahem....no you cannot traverse it. at least not with any faction i have played (including saba). you cannot go through it unless you own alexandria, and at that point you are already in a war with the ptolemies and are too busy to bother with saba.

but hey that still leaves the ports of Memphis,Diospoli , Petra, Ptolemais and Axem from which you can launch a naval invasion, no???

petra? my memory is foggy but i dont think they have a port in the arabian sea.

and unless you are arche seleukia or the ptolemies, you have to conquer many large cities to get those ports.