Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

  1. #1

    Default The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    Here's my deal. I'm playing as Samraatya Maurya because hot damn this is a rad faction. So exotic.

    Anyway, my basic strategy was a miltech rush to T3 units while I tawdled about waiting for the Seleucid satrapies to rebel. They eventually did, but not before I'd amassed a nest egg of some 80,000 spare gold and a Mauryan doomstack of 2nd-class citizens, an elite contingent of 1st-class citizen longbows, and an armored elephant, which was then supported by a stack of 3rd-class levies. Mauryan upper-tier soldiers are pretty formidable (those macemen seriously BONK the majority of Persian units they face) - but they are at an extreme disadvantage in offensive warfare because the population system absolutely cripples their ability to replenish when your forces get depleted, which makes the capture-then-hold conquest unusually costly. Nobody's got Hindu culture where we're going, baby. We gotta bring the Kshatriyas with us.

    It's been fairly slow going, but I've conquered Asagarta's four regions to my west. A hard fought-victory indeed, coming after some six years of absolutely brutal desert warfare, complete with heavy attrition, plagues, and unseasonally oppressive heat. One particularly tense summer featured a cat-and-mouse game of night attacks, baiting, and ambushes to repel their several invading armies with heavily depleted forces that couldn't replenish in my own damn territory. My low-tier units made me proud that summer. Even the Kshatriya warriors had to bow and thank their Dravidian rescuers after that final battle.

    It's been fun as hell, but I'm now around turn 70 and things have stabilized somewhat. Income is holding steady - my nest egg is down to about 60,000 but that's still pretty great as far as I'm concerned and I've developed my holdings as far as I'd like them to go. We're only at war with the Atropatkans at the moment, but literally everybody hates them and I'm as content as any to let the Parthians smoosh their final region so I don't have to worry about converting a new province in the middle of the desert to Hinduism.

    I'm growing bored of war with Persians. The position of the Mauryan empire isn't particularly conducive to campaign variety; nomadic and Persian factions lie in every direction and the harsh nature of desert warfare makes expansion a real pain in my royal Mauryan butt, on top of our added population woes. To make matters worse, we're all extremely fond of each other at the moment so war with one of my neighbors very likely means war with all of them. I'm reasonably confident that I'd get obliterated within five years.

    No, what I'd really like to see is an Indian empire clashing in Greece, Italy, or even Gaul.

    What if I just closed up shop down here and sent my armies literally across the world? I could embed them in a little supply fleet, dump them somewhere in Greece, maybe liberate somebody to buffer my borders, and hey presto - rather than fighting my way across the desert I'm getting some truly wild historical what-if gameplay. An Indian empire sprouting up near Italy, funded by my holdings in the southeast. Perhaps, one day, I could even sack Rome. Relocate my capital to Athens. Subdue the barbarians. Who knows?

    Yea or nay, commanders? Anybody ever tried something like this?

  2. #2

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    I was playing as Bactria, so not the exact same thing, but my situation and location was similar to yours. Backs up against the edge of the map, getting bored with fighting the persians, etc. I decided to do exactly what you were thinking. I had captured Pura from the Mauryans, so I now had port access to the sea. I built a fleet (with a supply ship) and two full sacks and set sail around the Persian block. I was still at war with the Seleucids, so my first target was their port at Charax. This gave me the beachead to conquer first Mesopotamia, then Syria. Once that was was won, I moved my capital to the former Seleucid Capital of Antioch to trade with Europe via the Mediterranean.

    While I was still consolidating my gains, I realized that I neglected to keep an eye on my politics. The faction owning Maka, where my port of Pura was, seceded, so my former home province of Bactria was now completely cut off from my new territories in Syria and Mesopotamia. Worse, the Parthians declared war soon after, and between themselves and the rebel faction conquered my former homelands on the eastern edge of the map. So basically, I had replaced the Seleucids on the map, and was warring on two fronts. I was fighting the Parthians to regain my former homelands in the East, and the Galatians in the west, who had conquered/subjugated most of Anatolia. Since I hadn't yet built barracks in my new territories, I was forced to rely mostly on AOR units to do my fighting. What was once a Indo-Hellenic army was now heavily supplemented with Mesopotamian Spearmen, Syrian Archers and War elephants, so I was forced to adapt and use new strategies to use them.

    All in all, a bloody entertaining campaign. Much better than the one I would have had if I just stayed where I was and fought Persians the whole time. By all means, pack up and "migrate" to someplace else. Go sail to the Seleucid lands and take the fight to them, or go someplace else. I think it would be really interesting if you went down to Egypt/Kush instead, take over those lands and use Alexandria as a springboard for expansion into Europe/Africa.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    I've done this exact thing many times and it adds a fun new flavor. Go for it!

  4. #4
    Jake Armitage's Avatar Artifex
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    apartment 6
    Posts
    4,694

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    I haven't played with Maurya yet but if I'll do I'll try it your way

  5. #5
    valerius karamanus's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Constantinopolis
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    Yup, been there, done that, in my first ever dei campaign.

    Decided a mauryan kingdom in kyrenaika would offer a more exciting campaign, sent two expeditions to egypt. First expedition caught plague on the way and basically wiped out by attrition thanks to my inexperience with supply mechanics back then. Second expedition made little progress around nile but got annihilated by ptolemaic armies. A couple setbacks in mainland was added to that and I abandoned the campaign. This discussion is inspring me to try once again though.

  6. #6

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    I created a save before launching this expedition because it has the potential to trash a campaign I've really enjoyed. If the expedition doesn't work out I will return to thee pre-expedition save and invade the Seleucids instead, working my way to the Mediterranean through Mesopotamia, as Devodians suggested. In the meantime, though, the plan is to invade Egypt and use Alexandria as my staging point to hit Greece. I'm bringing two armies, though the income hit from putting the second army out to sea will put my income into the negative, forcing me to live off my war chest for quite awhile. Hey, what's a rainy day fund for after all?

    One problem that has immediately become apparent is that I have seriously underestimated the piss-poor movement range of troop transports. I might just be able to reach Eudaemon in the southwest corner of Arabia and, if so, conquer it as a resupply waystation for expeditionary forces and fleets. This will put me at war with the Mamlakatin Saba (of whom the Mamlakat Himyar are a satrapy) but they're occupied with the Seleucids and I will probably be able to buy them off after a couple years, maybe before any armies even reach my borders. It will be harder to hold Eudaemon but if I can just secure it for long enough to resupply my fleets it might be worth letting go. The diplomatic bonus with the Seleucids will probably be more worthwhile than avoiding war with the Saba, and anyway I don't see a better option.

    The bigger problem is that the Himyar appear to have a full stack just sitting in Eudaemon for no obvious reason. I have no doubt I can beat them but any losses taken before we make landfall in Egypt will be quite painful. Maybe I can draw them into a fort battle by encamping within reinforcement range? Cross that bridge when we get to it.

  7. #7

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    I think something like this would be incredibly difficult because of supply and army replenishment challenges. DeI does a phenomenal job at modeling the difficulty ancient peoples had in projecting power over vast, non-contiguous, areas. Unlike Europe in the mid-1500s, the technology (mostly naval) didn't exist for the establishment of colonies in the manner, and at the distance, you're attempting. When colonies were formed, over far lesser distances than you're trying, the colony was, or quickly became, self-governing -- Tyre:Carthage, Corinth:Syracuse, Phocaea:Massalia -- because of challenges such as these.

    Let us know how it goes though!

  8. #8
    ~Seleukos.I.Nikator~'s Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The United Europe, currently residing in Norway
    Posts
    1,642

    Default Re: The Imperial Mauryan Expeditionary Colony - yea or nay

    Yeah, the greatest challenge you face at this stage is how to solve your supply problems that will undoubtedly occur on the way. Moving your armies by sea doesn't make sense at all due to poor movement range. It will be easier for you to march them along the coast with the fleet carrying supplies. Just make sure your army doesn't loose the sight of the fleet as that will cost you dearly as Alexander the Great found by himself... A fleet with the supply ship can provide supplies for up to 8 turns so you may need 2 fleets for that working interchangeably.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •