Problems I have been having with the Baktria Campaign

I started another Baktria campaign, and I have had some problems with the missions and I found a mistake in the 2^nd Mission Description.

Baktria 2nd Mission Problem:
The first problem comes from Baktria’s second mission to capture AE. If the Saka capture the settlement before the mission starts or during the mission then the mission will be canceled. Even if they conquer it and you retake it before the 2^nd mission starts then it will still be canceled.
The problem is that the Saka always attack AE on the first turn (from what I have seen) 100% of the time. The Saka normally are unable to take it on the first try but are normally successful on the second try.
This will normally happen before the first Baktrian mission is finished. So, unless you capture it before the second mission starts or guard the city before Saka return, then you will fail the mission before it even starts.

I think this is unfair to the player, because their is no warning that you will fail the 2nd mission if the Saka take AE. If the player is busy with the 1st mission they wont have time to block the Saka from taking AE.

Solution:
I think the best and easiest solution to fix this issue is to adjust the script allowing the Saka take the settlement (with no repercussions), then you would just have to take it back from them. You wouldn’t have to change the mission description text (unless you said that you were rescuing the settlement from the barbarians).

Also, allowing Saka to take AE would also help enable the Saka to move into the Tarim Basin (without them owning AE they can’t expand in that direction.

Baktria Colonist Problem:
That problem was just annoying, but the main problem is that after the second mission was canceled, I never received the colonists from the first mission. Actually, I completed 3 of the 4 missions for Baktria and I only received 1 group of Colonists
I completed the 1^st mission and then before I got the colonists the 2^nd mission was canceled. I think it canceled my colonists too. I took AE from the Saka and completed the 3^rd and 4^th mission around the same time and I only got 1 group of colonists.

I found a mistake in the Baktrian 2^nd Mission Description:
Under Strategy it says “, but in return wants you to bring Areia back to him”. Isn’t Areia a province to the south-west of Baktria? Shouldn’t it say “, but in return wants you to bring (Ferghana or Scythia) back to him”, because that’s the province AE is in?

Thanks

Bump, Anybody have thoughts on this?

OK, this is indeed a knotty problem. I've also adjusted the script since 2.3 to remove all the mission-cancelling interdependence between them to make it a little more forgiving.

The specific issue you're encountering, with the Saka's conquest messing it up is here:

Code: [View]

                    if not I_SettlementOwner sett_142 = slave
                        set_event_counter Bak_mission2_counter 0
                        set_event_counter Bak_mission2_success 1
                        historic_event HE_FERG_CANCEL			; info regarding pressing mission button for repeat
                        terminate_monitor
                    end_if
                    if I_SettlementOwner sett_142 = slave
                        set_event_counter Bak_mission2_counter 1
                        inc_counter BaktriaColonyPoints 3			; allocate colony points
                        disable_save				; start of tour
                        disable_entire_ui
                        disable_movie_view
                        select_ui_element faction_button			;hide other scrolls by showing our own
                        simulate_mouse_click lclick_up
                        hide_ui
                        disable_cursor
                        disable_shortcuts true
                        snap_strat_camera 441, 218
                        zoom_strat_camera 0.4
                        reveal_tile 440, 217						; Alexandreia-Eschate
                        settlement_flash_start sett_142
                        campaign_wait 1
                        ui_indicator 0 arrow_down_left track_ground_3d 442 219 10 colour 255 0 0 period 3.0
                        campaign_wait 4
                        ui_indicator_remove 0
                        settlement_flash_stop sett_142
                        campaign_wait 2
                        enable_entire_ui
                        enable_save
                        show_ui
                        enable_cursor
                        disable_shortcuts false						; end of tour
                        historic_event HE_MISSION_REPEAT			; info regarding pressing mission button for repeat
                        terminate_monitor
                    end_if

If the Saka have taken it, the blue loop is triggered, which counts it as a "success" but doesn't give you anything. Whereas the juicy one is the second loop, that gives lots of colony points. I think the real check here should be whether or not the player has blitzed it - so it should be checking their ownership. If they've already taken it, the script moves on without giving them any additional reward. If they've waited for the mission, then it opens the prospect of getting all those colonists.

Note the first mission doesn't give you any colonists, only the latter three do.

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

If the Saka have taken it, the blue loop is triggered, which counts it as a "success" but doesn't give you anything. Whereas the juicy one is the second loop, that gives lots of colony points. I think the real check here should be whether or not the player has blitzed it - so it should be checking their ownership. If they've already taken it, the script moves on without giving them any additional reward. If they've waited for the mission, then it opens the prospect of getting all those colonists.

Thanks for looking into this, what you have said sounds like a good idea

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Note the first mission doesn't give you any colonists, only the latter three do.

Good to Know!

I wanted to give some more feedback about the Baktria Missions.
Most of the time I feel rushed to complete the missions on time. Its not that the missions durations are too short (minus the 4^th mission), but it’s that the missions come up too quickly.
Would it be possible to delay the 2nd,3rd, 4th missions by 1 or 2 years? Last time I played I couldn’t really afford to do the 4th mission. I had to use skeleton garrisons to afford to capture the other 2 settlements.
I don’t think that this is what you guys are trying to achieve with these missions
In hindsight, it was kind of fun because it was difficult to hold Chach as it was attacked by a giant rebel stack and I lost it. Then Bukhara was revolting often.
I don’t think increasing the waiting period between missions would have any negative effects.

Related back to my first post, I looked up Areia again and I think maybe it refers to the Seleucid holdings in Central Asia? So never mind about that I guess.

Another thing that I would like to ask about the Baktria Campaign is Why do they start to 2 largish armies?

One of the biggest complications playing as Baktria is paying 3000 gold to Seleucia every year. Most of the time you are dealing with a debt situation (Playing on Hard Campaign AI). When you start the game, you have a negative income of -1075 Gold if you don’t disband any units. I heard that in 2.3a the building malus system is working correctly. If that is the case then I would assume that Baktria would start with a bigger negative income.

The easy answer is “just disband half of your units and it won’t be negative.” Which is what I do in the first place, but it would be nice to start a game without choosing which units to disband while it still being historically accurate.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the current cost/balance system, paying tribute to Seleucia, and looking forward to the new building malus system, but what if you decreased Baktria’s starting armies to one army that would fit into the kingdoms budget?

This question could really be applied to any faction that starts with a negative income (except for ones who really started with a large army, like Epirus or Macedonia.)

That's a classic question people ask about EB campaigns. Aside from a small handful of factions who start as robust states with positive incomes, most factions in EB II face the same dilemma of a negative starting income with a half-finished armed force at their disposal. I have to say that personally it wouldn't bother me if they improved the start conditions in this game. But I also have to give what I suspect is probably the official line on this issue, and the typical approach to playing the game: you frankly need to take a limited armed force under your command and win some heroic victories to turn the tide. To be honest, a successful start in EB II often requires you to beat the odds, often by defeating superior forces with superior leadership and tactics. In fact, I personally have felt that the choice apparent at the start of the game is misleading. You may think that you can downsize early and come back, but actually the better strategy is usually to RP an ambitious king and buy as many mercenaries and soldiers as you can afford on the first turn. Having swollen your army with professional soldiers in this manner, you usually have to complete a successful campaign and conquer a lucrative region on your borders; for Baktria, this would probably be either Hyrcania/Dahae or Taksashila, for example.

Originally Posted by Beckitz

That's a classic question people ask about EB campaigns. Aside from a small handful of factions who start as robust states with positive incomes, most factions in EB II face the same dilemma of a negative starting income with a half-finished armed force at their disposal. I have to say that personally it wouldn't bother me if they improved the start conditions in this game. But I also have to give what I suspect is probably the official line on this issue, and the typical approach to playing the game: you frankly need to take a limited armed force under your command and win some heroic victories to turn the tide. To be honest, a successful start in EB II often requires you to beat the odds, often by defeating superior forces with superior leadership and tactics. In fact, I personally have felt that the choice apparent at the start of the game is misleading. You may think that you can downsize early and come back, but actually the better strategy is usually to RP an ambitious king and buy as many mercenaries and soldiers as you can afford on the first turn. Having swollen your army with professional soldiers in this manner, you usually have to complete a successful campaign and conquer a lucrative region on your borders; for Baktria, this would probably be either Hyrcania/Dahae or Taksashila, for example.

I guess it just depends on how you want to play.
I have often heard of people getting criticized for expanding to fast.
But when you start as a small faction and are given a large army to support you can either expand or disband.
So, if expanding too early is a problem, why not just decrease factions’ starting forces.
Then you can just build up your army naturally and expand at your own pace.

I think you can certainly use that approach to good effect. It's ultimate effectiveness will depend on your choice of faction. The biggest issue with it, however, is that other factions do not have to go through your same 'hoops' at the start of the game. They too raise armies and conquer settlements, and they can do so without worrying about debt. If you build slowly, they may outgrow you and put you in an impossible position