Most Difficult to Conquer

[Xurr]

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.

No wonder you don't don't like fighting in the steppe, you are doing it wrong. Never ever go to the steppe with infantry other than archers and the occasional spearmen . Personally I capture Kallatis or Olbia first, set up a type IV and recruit horse archers to send out into the steppe. Fight nomads with nomads and you'll never worry about the steppe again.

[kekailoa]

Conquering Iberia is a complete nightmare. Not only does the game CTD every couple of turns, but the Luso's pump out stack after stack of cheap, plentiful, powerful, AP weapon-wielding troops that attack you in the mountains, forests, river crossings and cities. The terrain is tough, reinforcing your troops is next to impossible if you're the Romani (which I am right now) and even the militia troops take a bite out of the best of your men. It wouldn't be so bad if the Luso's didn't resist so fiercely, but I guess I asked for it when I became the Romani...

[ARCHIPPOS]

playing as Baktra it could be possible to eliminate the Pahlava early on (sth i have been tempted to do) but taking out the Saka is a race of patience methinks... i don't even dream of invading them before conquering India (=$$$) ... that way you can raise an extra cavalry fullstack (lots of HA+ kataphraktoi that can take out the Saka FM tanks) and fight fire with fire

[Irishmafia2020]

No wonder you don't don't like fighting in the steppe, you are doing it wrong. Never ever go to the steppe with infantry other than archers and the occasional spearmen . Personally I capture Kallatis or Olbia first, set up a type IV and recruit horse archers to send out into the steppe. Fight nomads with nomads and you'll never worry about the steppe again.

Yes, that is fine for the western part of the map, but as Baktria you start out in a position that requires you to fight the Saka and AS simultaneously from a position of weakness. You need heavy infantry against the AS, and you cannot afford multiple armies in the first part of the game. If you send cavalry against the Saka, theirs is simply better. They have armoured horse archers, and you do not. If you are playing out west, by the time you get to the steppe you can afford to hire HA's of your own, because you have an empire by that point. As Baktria, you must attack the Saka with the same army you use against the AS. You also have to hold your possessions against constant attacks, which requires maintaining garrison forces in the north. It is in that role that archer spearmen prove their true value. I may face the steppe in the wrong manner, but the Baktrian campaign requires the player to face that territory early in order for the player to survive. If I was playing in the western part of the map, I wouldn't even bother with the steppe, and i would not recognize its inherent difficulty. To be fair, as the Baktrian campaign progresses (60 years or so), it becomes possible to field sufficient heavy cavalry to finish the nomads off, although i have not done that.

[ARCHIPPOS]

one thing i have observed with Baktra is you can go outrageously rich without much conquering ... all the cities around Baktra (except Margiane and Ariana if i remember correctly) have mines (or you can build them) ...that means that if you capture say 5-6 of your surrounding regions ,go into infrastructure building and play defensive in 40 years you can finance multiple fullstacks...

[Constantius III]

The steppe, because you have to fight dirty, like they do, flooding the place with HAs, and I hate fighting with HAs. I don't like Iberia either, and I especially don't like fighting the AS or Ptolemaioi, because they will hit you with several bazillion fullstacks constantly. (I've been fighting the Ptolies in Mesopotamia in my Baktria campaign for less than a decade and the place is already littered with heroic victory markers...) But at least in those places you fight conventional engagements - no chance of that against the Saka, Pahlavan, or Saurometai...

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...

You don't really even need to wait until the MoT, because the starting Somatophylaktes Strategou will hold up all right to the Saka, assuming you don't suck at using them. I just saturated them with Daha Baexdzhyntae when I finally pushed past Alexandreia-Eschate.

Baktria is my favorite faction, so i have several campaigns worth of experience fighting Saka. The key is to capture Chach, and use it as a true base to repel nomad invasions. Combined with Marakanda and Antiochea (is that right?) you have three cities that can maintain a self sufficient group of soldiers, about four units apiece, which can be combined when spies in the north see an invasion coming. Additionaly you should have a QRF (quick reaction force) of cavalry that can speed to wherever they are needed in the North. I use Dahae riders myself because of their wide recruitment area. If you want to get serious about eliminating rather than merely containing the Saka, you have to mount two separate campaigns. First send a force to the North East to capture the two cities in the Tarim Basin area and near the Saka mountains. Second send a force north from Chach to capture the town way up on the steppes there. If you can keep these areas in the face of revolts AS backstabbing to the South, and counterattack, you have a decent chance, assuming you ship troops to the region, of continuing your campaign to the 2-3 towns that the Saka control to the west of your position. The downside is that the campaign will require at least 10 years (40 turns) and any minor setback will be in such a remote location, that you will not be able to reinforce your position without mercenaries. I have never succeeded in destroying the Saka as Baktria - only containing them...

I timed the Saka attack in my current Baktria campaign as well as I could. Held them off at Alexandreia-Eschate for decades, constantly relieving their armies, and beefed up the garrison of that one city tremendously - they just went for it, and none of my other cities. Worked well enough until the mid-220s, when I finally had enough cash and disposable manpower to recruit multiple stacks of Daha Baexdzhyntae and ride north. At the same time, I flooded their western cities with spies, so they had to expend most of their manpower holding them down from revolts instead of chasing me away from Chighu, Sulek, and Chach. Spreading out your army piecemeal is a grand way to invite defeat in detail...

one thing i have observed with Baktra is you can go outrageously rich without much conquering ... all the cities around Baktra (except Margiane and Ariana if i remember correctly) have mines (or you can build them) ...that means that if you capture say 5-6 of your surrounding regions ,go into infrastructure building and play defensive in 40 years you can finance multiple fullstacks...

That's assuming that you have the cash to build the second level of mines. It took me forever in the Baktria campaign I'm doing right now, made worse of course by my unwillingness to debouch into India early on (for RPing reasons). It does help a lot, though, as soon as you do get them built. Not as much of a cash cow as the Eastern Med, Greece, or Italy, but still more than plenty.

[Xurr]

Yes, that is fine for the western part of the map, but as Baktria you start out in a position that requires you to fight the Saka and AS simultaneously from a position of weakness. You need heavy infantry against the AS, and you cannot afford multiple armies in the first part of the game. If you send cavalry against the Saka, theirs is simply better. They have armoured horse archers, and you do not. If you are playing out west, by the time you get to the steppe you can afford to hire HA's of your own, because you have an empire by that point. As Baktria, you must attack the Saka with the same army you use against the AS. You also have to hold your possessions against constant attacks, which requires maintaining garrison forces in the north. It is in that role that archer spearmen prove their true value. I may face the steppe in the wrong manner, but the Baktrian campaign requires the player to face that territory early in order for the player to survive. If I was playing in the western part of the map, I wouldn't even bother with the steppe, and i would not recognize its inherent difficulty. To be fair, as the Baktrian campaign progresses (60 years or so), it becomes possible to field sufficient heavy cavalry to finish the nomads off, although i have not done that.

I've done the Baktrian campaign. I used diplomacy to deal with the saka, and bribed them to attack Pahlava and vice versa. They are all too eager to attack each other so it didn't cost all that much. They pretty much kept each other busy trading Marakanda and Alexandreia-Eschate back and forth. I didn't even have to deal much with them at all until I had taken Seleukia.

[HunGeneral]

I can't choose. If it would be possible I would suggest several ones:

Iberia - rough tropps to be found (pluss there equipped with AP weapons!)

The Steppe - like I always said never face Nomads there.

AS/Ptolie lands - if either of the two managed to overrun the other then that means an endless tream of Stack-Spam...

Germania - deep forests, fanatic almost mad half (or completealy-) naked warriors with heavy cudgels and sharp spears and theres more of them, then the Russians....any questions?

I voted GAAH in the end - any land can be conquered. Some areas just need more effort then others