Who to play as with BGR?

[Irishpsycho]

I've never really played a game that I intended to stick with with BGR on but now I think I understand the mechanics enough to try one in earnest. My question is, what faction does everyone (who playes BGR) think it is most suited to. It seems very feaudalistic which makes me think france but the estates make me think of byzantium and to a lesser extent the Italians. Makes me wonder what factions BGR is most fun (scarey) for.

P.S. I already decided I'm gonna play late campaign, VH/VH, Savage AI incase any of those effect your opinion.

[meese]

I don't think it's most suited to any particular faction unless you want to find out which one is easiest.

I've been playing as Genoa in the early campaign and around 50 turns in, it's been a fun campaign and money's starting to pour in instead of out. In fact, I always have quite a bit extra after building in every city, so if you're looking at which one it makes most difficult, I wouldn't list down any of the italians because they can get so much money.

I've also tried it with Scotland, England for a bit, Sicily and Novgorod. They were similar in that it didn't make it particularly difficult, but definitely more difficult than without BGR. The Turks were a bit more of a challenge and that was the only campaign where I went into a debt that I couldn't quite get out of within a couple of turns.

[Byg]

For late campaigns I found:

Byzantium fun and difficult, constantly having to shift armies to meet attacks on all sides (a logistical nightmare), but then you miss out on the crusade /jihad features.

Kwarezmians (facing the Mongol fury & losing ground from turn 2 or 3 really gets your attention),

Hungarians (lots of choices of enemies and thus variety, nicely surrounded, inland for tougher economy),

Teutons (less archers = harder + good gritty battles)

Crusader states (potentially surrounded by enemies and lots of converting needing to be done before being able to extract supplies from the population + Mongol threat),

HRE (would give you lots of nobles to manage & aren't too popular) all gave a fairly good game for me in 6.2+RRRC, though I used a different ai.

Cumans (tough distances to cover = supply consumption concerns and problems maintaining discipline without generals + Mongol threat)

Apart from the ai I'm assuming it wont be too different for 6.3, though I have heard movement rates are v high in 6.3 so that would halve the difficulty if true (I used extra short movement rates - I set "starting_action_points 100" in descr_character file). This is actually the vanilla default and works much better IMO.

[philipjd]

For a really scarey choice, try one of the steppe nations - Kiev, Novgorod or Cuman, as the distances to be travelled make quite a challenge...

[Ichon]

Inland with large distances to cover generally increases the difficulty of BGR since all of the coastal areas can build up enough trade over time to not quite offset BGR but at least remove worries about money.

What era the campaign is in makes a huge difference as well. Early Era Cumans for example are quite easy... rebels nearby for long period and decent roster for the enemies they fight until Mongols show up but by that time they should have a large empire. Late era with Mongol on the doorstep and the Russians fielding better roster Cumans are very difficult.

Other factions it is not always as obvious... some people think late era CS is more difficult than early but personally I disagree since late era CS is more built up especially concerning religion and roster access where a good human player can do much more with that than what CS gets in early era.

Generally the more difficult campaigns in regular 6.3 are the same in BGR but some are more difficult than others. Early and late era Byzantines have a powerful roster especially early era- and the chance to have huge trade income but if you can't manage the logistics well the late campaign might be considered much more difficult though for me only the first few turns are much different and in some ways easier to manage with a smaller nobility draining funds in BGR. HRE to me seems quite easy in regular SS but with BGR suddenly half the nobles are disloyal and even with a large empire its difficult to raise the money to defend from all the attacks that will come so BGR raises the difficulty there noticeably.

I'd have to say that I've had the overall most fun with BGR playing an Iberian faction or north around the Baltic. Portugal, Aragon, Castile, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Teutons...

[Irishpsycho]

So essentially the biggest differences are for landlocked factions and thse with far apart territories. This leaves me torn because I want to get the full BGR experience but I also like winning. I think I might just have to start two campaigns (I'm expecting arelatvely relaxed first semester this year). I've already decided on the byzantines for game one(I've played them before so I'll have an idea of what I'm doing) but Im not sure which landlocked faction to try. Debating between Kiev, Novgorod, Hungary, and HRE. Thoughts anyone?

[meese]

I found Novgorod not too difficult because you've got some major trading cities namely Novgorod and even Riga. True, there are long distances to travel in the East but most of the action will be on the West with Lithuania and Denmark. I was able to hold onto the alliance with Kiev and keep an uneasy peace with the Cumans, and Denmark only entered the fray late so it made for a campaign which was a bit harder than the Italians but I didn't have to worry much about money.

I'd probably suggest the Hungarians because you get access to many good troops in the early and later eras to help you out, unlike the HRE who get stuck with pretty standard troops early on, but are relatively difficult.

[Kye]

I'm at turn 70 as the Byzantine.

You really need an alliance with Hungary and Sicily if you want to survive 50 turns. Sicily will invade most of your Greek cities and take them while you deal with the turks and Venice.

I'm in a position now where I can invade east and hold up in the west by holding Venice with a massive garrison. My income is huge so I think Jim at the winning phase, although I do new cities often from unrest and logistics is a real concern the more I move away from my main recruiting cities and fortresses.

The difference BGR makes after you get to the position where you feel like your winning is you have the potential to still lose. Venice was a massive investment for me but its at risk of Genoa armies, and the HRE have started moving stacks towards Regusa. Its a fantastic mod and worth learning and getting used to.

Anyway, I think the Byzantine Empire is the most rewarding to play as. I have tried three Lithuanian campaigns but lose after 35+ turns.