Question for Extended Realism mod players

[Darviathar]

Who wins the war in the east if you are playing Rome or another western faction? Does the Seleucid empire collapse almost immediately in your games? Ever seen the Parthians accomplish anything? How about Pontus? they are always THE major eastern superpower in my games.

I ask this because I read a lot of players complaining about Macedon and the Seleucids being overpowered and dominating the map. I just don't get this in my games. A few times Macedon has been the power in Greece, but never established much of a presence in Asia Minor. The far east always seems to shake out the same in my games: The Seleucids collapse immediately. The Ptolemies advance through Syria and generally stop after taking Antioch. Pontus will eventually put the Galatians out and control all of Asia Minor, then advance through Armenia and Parthia to take the remote northern areas of the maps. The Bactrians will lurk around for awhile, sometimes pushing west as far as Seleucia, but once Pontus and the Ptolemies start attacking them, they'll be pushed back to the far eastern edge into those Indian rebel cities.

[hellas1]

Hi Darviathar,

In my experience when playing campaign, the Seleucids do seem to be underpowered and Macedon overpowered, with Baktria being not up to snuff strength wise and with the steppe faction being weak, which I believe should be made stronger, as I believe that the historical info does point to the steppe faction in RTR: PE actually having power to it. (I don't play it anymore due to balancing issues and also forgotten the faction name).
Consult: Rene Grousset's " Empire of the Steppes"

I hope with Marcus Camillus releasing RTR: PE 1.9 that these issues will be ironed out in that version and his 4 TPY mod & also of course the XR mod as well turn out as beautiful additions to a great conversion mod.

I have faith in this XR mod team that they will not let us down, especially if we have a bug post as well. I know I'll post!

hellas1

[Darviathar]

Hi Darviathar,

In my experience when playing campaign, the Seleucids do seem to be underpowered and Macedon overpowered, with Baktria being not up to snuff strength wise and with the steppe faction being weak, which I believe should be made stronger, as I believe that the historical info does point to the steppe faction in RTR: PE actually having power to it. (I don't play it anymore due to balancing issues and also forgotten the faction name).
Consult: Rene Grousset's " Empire of the Steppes"

I hope with Marcus Camillus releasing RTR: PE 1.9 that these issues will be ironed out in that version and his 4 TPY mod & also of course the XR mod as well turn out as beautiful additions to a great conversion mod.

I have faith in this XR mod team that they will not let us down, especially if we have a bug post as well. I know I'll post!

hellas1

"Steppe faction" brings the Sarmatians to mind, but they were hardly a power in the time frame of this game. Are you thinking of the Parthians? Its long been my complaint that they are one of the weakest factions in the game, despite the fact that they bloodied Rome's nose as many times as any faction but Carthage.

[Wien1938]

Yes, when they took over the whole of Media and Persia.
The Seleucid province of Parthyaea (which supplied horse archers to the Achaemenids, Alexander and his Successors) was occupied by a nomad tribe named the Parni about 250 BC and were a confederate tribe of the Saka. The Saka were the horse tribes that lived east of the Caspian sea and were most formidable in battle.
We actually know little of their organisation prior to the 1st century BC but from 250 they steadily expanded to overrun most the eastern provinces of the Seleucids. In 135 BC they were invaded by the Saka tribes who overran Greek Bactria, eastern Parthia and some invaded India. They were not defeated in Parthia until about 130. It is also possible that the all cavalry organisation of the Parthians in the 1st century was established in response to the Saka.
Certainly the later Sassanids used a lot of foot but the Parthians may not have before 135 and certainly were reluctant to afterwards, mainly used for ambushes and secondary duties.

Gamewise, the problem with the Steppe cultures is that they did not use cities, so you could not conquer a place and the people, you had to pin down and kill or capture the tribe, which explains why steppe warfare is so brutal and ruthless.
The cities are why the Parthians and Sarmatians are not powerful. That and the woeful AI...
Richard

[Darviathar]

Yes, when they took over the whole of Media and Persia.
The Seleucid province of Parthyaea (which supplied horse archers to the Achaemenids, Alexander and his Successors) was occupied by a nomad tribe named the Parni about 250 BC and were a confederate tribe of the Saka. The Saka were the horse tribes that lived east of the Caspian sea and were most formidable in battle.
We actually know little of their organisation prior to the 1st century BC but from 250 they steadily expanded to overrun most the eastern provinces of the Seleucids. In 135 BC they were invaded by the Saka tribes who overran Greek Bactria, eastern Parthia and some invaded India. They were not defeated in Parthia until about 130. It is also possible that the all cavalry organisation of the Parthians in the 1st century was established in response to the Saka.
Certainly the later Sassanids used a lot of foot but the Parthians may not have before 135 and certainly were reluctant to afterwards, mainly used for ambushes and secondary duties.

Gamewise, the problem with the Steppe cultures is that they did not use cities, so you could not conquer a place and the people, you had to pin down and kill or capture the tribe, which explains why steppe warfare is so brutal and ruthless.
The cities are why the Parthians and Sarmatians are not powerful. That and the woeful AI...
Richard

I'd love to see these two as a horde faction, using the BI engine....Just ANYTHING to make Parthia a force to be reckoned with!

[Quinn Inuit]

Anyone have any suggestions for making the Parthians and Sarmatians more interesting, then? I like my idea for giving the Sarmatians occasional spawn armies to represent things like the Saka invasion, but I don't know how to make the Parthians more effective.

[hellas1]

Hi Q.I. ,

In regards to your question, I have Rene Grousset's book (mentioned in this thread) and another book by Erik Hildinger called "Warriors of the steppe."

What I will do is look through that material and other scholarly material and give you what info I got. Cool? I only ask for some time.

@Darviathar: The Parthians are actually a steppe people who moved in and conquered the previous empire!
They became somewhat less sedentary than other empires of the area, IMO.

hellas1- Steppe warriors NOT Steppe wussies!

[Darviathar]

Anyone have any suggestions for making the Parthians and Sarmatians more interesting, then? I like my idea for giving the Sarmatians occasional spawn armies to represent things like the Saka invasion, but I don't know how to make the Parthians more effective.

If Parthia was a horde faction, they would not be drummed out of the game so quickly. Think about playing Barbarian Invasion...which factions are the biggest threat? Its not the two Roman ones or the Sassanid Empire! Its those damn horde factions that you simply can't nail down and bury. I have no skill at modding, but I've often wondered why we don't have horde factions, now that we've switched to the BI engine. I assume there is some reason for this!

Assuming that it isn't possible to make Parthia a horde faction anytime soon, I do have a few suggestions.

Their problem is money. Chakadara and Sarmana don't make a lot of it. A port on the Caspian sea isn't the same as on on the Mediterranean. Starting with two cities on the border of the Seleucid Empire is a sure recipe for early disaster. The computer Parthians quite simply aren't aggressive enough to really carve out enough of a niche to survive. I've started playing a sideshow game as Parthia (as my "main" Roman game lumbers towards 200 BC, every turn is 8 or 10 minutes long, and it can get overwhelming). Initially I planned to sort of lurk around until I knew the Seleucids were under attack on all sides, as they are when I play them (in a similar sideshow effort). I sent spies to watch Coele-Syria and Asia Minor, and decided that I'd only set out for Alexandria (not the Egyptian one, of course) and Hecatompylos when I was sure they were hard-pressed by Ptolemy and virtually the entire cast of Asia Minor. This simply didn't work. To survive as Parthia, I deleted my starting cataphract (650 $ a turn makes no sense to pay while you sit around) and garrisoned my cities with only 4 units each. I had no intention of violating my alliance with the Seleucids. But naturally, they came lumbering down the road and attacked me without provocation. In my next attempt, I decided to expand aggressively against the Bactrians, while trying to maintain peace with Big Blue. This didn't work either. Bypassing Hecatompylos and pushing towards the Bactrian cities is very difficult; they are a long way away. You have the starting army and the finances to take one of their cities, but not put them out. That city itself is so isolated that it makes very little money. With my quality forces stuck garrisoning this city, the Seleucids decided to attack my two "home cities" and their scant garrison. The third time, I decided to go for broke and attack the Seleucids immediately. This worked. I conquered Alexandria almost immediately (it has no walls). It is a basis to build the persian phalangite unit, which can hold the line against the Seleucid phalanx armies long enough for you to circle horse archers behind them and shoot them into oblivion. I pushed towards Seleucia and Babylon in this game. The Seleucids are in their typical dire straits, at war with everyone, and I see no chance of them holding me out off the Tigris river. It wasn't hard.....but its probably too hard for the computer to pull off. I don't see the computer attacking the weak Seleucid territories aggressively enough to build up enough of an economic basis to survive as Parthia. I've watched this area closely, and I've never seen them take Seleucia and Babylon, as the Bactrians have. This may be a reflection of not only their poor starting financial position, but the fact that Parthian armies fare horribly in autocalculated battles every single time. Try it sometime. It is as if the computer doesn't even count horse archers in the equation. If you autocalculate a battle with your Parthians early on, you are going to suffer. You have to fight every single battle. I think it is likely that the computer Parthians lose every cpu vs cpu battle that is fought. They are so destitute at first they won't have the cataphract, which would certainly help their chances. Once I had enough money to start fielding these two units, my stacks were really fun to play. I believe you guys are going to have to give the Parthians more cities and/or start Samarna and Chakadara as more advanced, and thus able to make more money. Or perhaps make the Parthian horse archer a little stronger. A "cretan archer on hooves" would certainly be a force. I realize this might be a bit ahistorical, but so is having THE major eastern power of the Roman era represented by the weakest faction in the game! The only chance you have to fight Parthia in Rome Total War is to play the 77 BC mod. I've never fought them in a game that started in 280 BC; they are always long-dead. I remember Parthia starting with Susa in vanilla. This meant that they were right next door to Seleucia, and a sure bet to attack the beleaguered Seleucids immediately. It also meant that they had a chance. I think one problem we have with RTR is accepting the fact that this game simply isn't a very historical simulation. We'd all like to see a map that is 100% accurate in 280 bc to start our game with. But the problem (for Parthia) is that they wouldn't even be ON IT until 250 bc. 30 years doesn't seem like a long time, but it meant 30 more years removed from the height of Seleucid power, which was 280 BC. I would much rather see the starting map fudged a bit at the beginning of the game if it will give us a better chance to see a more realistic outcome. I suggest you try starting the Parthians in much better position. Give them Alexandria and Hecatompylos perhaps. If that still doesn't work, them maybe more of the nothern rebel cities. They wouldn't really matter in a strategic sense, but the income would certainly help. Take a look at how Bactria starts off; they always do well in my games. They have 3 cities to start, and immediately take the neutral cities on the Indian border. Parthia doesn't have the luxury of taking a few additional cities. They have to fight the Seleucids for them, and I just don't think starting with two mediocre cities gives the computer enough of a chance to do this.

And as for the Saka, I'd like to see them as a faction eventually, as in the EB mod. They would have more of a bearing on the game than the Britons or Numidians ( a faction that shouldn't be on the map until 200 BC) and would prevent the Bactrians from gobbling up the eastern Seleucid Empire (and the Parthians) so quickly.