Aseria weakness[weakest faction]

[bigbalzzz]

1-long peace period
-2 long travel distance(armies lose cohesion and starve on the way)
-3 Aseria are so big so mercenaries are less likely to join them they end fighting the 3 best mercenaries factions from the start+who ever attacks them(Aseria mercenaries are the aseria enemies.....)
4- armies armies spread very thin so they get bullied easily and there is no bonus in desert likes sturgia in snow speed or khuzait on horse speed (other big factions all ve speed buffs)
5-Aseria with no longer being able to recruit tier 2+units(as now they can recruit tier 1) made them now the worse faction in desert battles


suggestions
bonus speed in deserts(in battles and map)
lords raise army cohesion (in general helps with influence hoarding also armies breaking too soon)


its really a shame considering the aseria locations have the best and most flashed out/unique maps



edit:
people explained why getting only tier 2+ recruits was bad

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Sturgia have it worse.
Don't understand what you mean with number 5. They can recruit tier 2+, just like other factions.

 

[drallim33]

A lot of talk about Sturgia but I think Aserai has it just as bad if not worse than Sturgia. Just look at the walking distance from Quyaz to Husn Falq, it's impossible for the AI to defend both.

 

[bigbalzzz]

Sturgia have it worse.
Don't understand what you mean with number 5. They can recruit tier 2+, just like other factions.

i meant no longer being able to start with tier 2+ recruits with no tier 1

 

[bigbalzzz]

Sturgia have it worse.
Don't understand what you mean with number 5. They can recruit tier 2+, just like other factions.

i dont think sturgia has it worse strugia is just attacked earlier

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Tyal to Revyl is a lot further. The Aserai territory is only just a bit longer than Northern Empire's.
Sturgia stretches from one end of the map to the other.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

i meant no longer being able to start with tier 2+ recruits with no tier 1

That was a bug. Which was a downside for them as it prevented them from getting mamlukes.

 

[bigbalzzz]

Tyal to Revyl is a lot further. The Aserai territory is only just a bit longer than Northern Empire's.
Sturgia stretches from one end of the map to the other.

sturgia and aseria and khuzait so i dont know what your talking about
are the same size but the Aseria has longer distance and longer paths at the edges and paths between areas are are not a straight line=longer distance

 

[bigbalzzz]

That was a bug. Which was a downside for them as it prevented them from getting mamlukes.

oh i didnt know that

 

[Bannerman Man]

Aserai has positives too. They have a core of 4 or 5 towns that are densely packed in the middle of their kingdom, giving them a large recruiting pool. I believe Aserai has the most total villages (40) of any faction if I'm not mistaken.

Just look at all these settlements. Sturgia doesn't have an equivalent to this:


I don't often see Aserai lose any of these fiefs in my games. There's also a lot of food and horses packed in this region, which is exactly what you need in wartime.

Husn Fulq, Quyaz, and Razih are usually lost causes though. Once Aserai gets reduced to the region in the screenshot they often stop losing ground unless defections get to be too much. They aren't anywhere near as bad off as Sturgia IMO.

Also, Sanala is the best town in the game and it's not even close.

 

[bigbalzzz]

Aserai has positives too. They have a core of 4 or 5 towns that are densely packed in the middle of their kingdoms, giving them a large recruiting pool. I believe Aserai has the most total villages (40) of any faction if I'm not mistaken.

Just look at all these settlements. Sturgia doesn't have an equivalent to this:


I don't often see Aserai lose any of these fiefs in my games. There's also a lot of food and horses packed in this region, which is exactly what you need in wartime.

Husn Fulq, Quyaz, and Razih are usually lost causes though. Once Aserai gets reduced to this region they often stop losing ground unless defection get to be too much. They aren't anywhere near as bad off as Sturgia IMO.

they 100% lose one pushed on by other factions
lords need to raise cohesion thats thier biggest issue
they lose the cities u siad early without a fight
and they keep losing cities to the side without a fight
the only reason they keep fiefs is long peace period witch is bad for them
any faction attacks the aseria always 95% loses

 

[kweassa]

they 100% lose one pushed on by other factions

false

lords need to raise cohesion thats thier biggest issue

false

they lose the cities u siad early without a fight

false

and they keep losing cities to the side without a fight

false

the only reason they keep fiefs is long peace period witch is bad for them
any faction attacks the aseria always 95% loses

false


Have you backed any of your claims above, that's not just from your own experience of a few playthroughs?

Eager to see it.

 

[drallim33]

Tyal to Revyl is a lot further. The Aserai territory is only just a bit longer than Northern Empire's.
Sturgia stretches from one end of the map to the other.

Nonsense

Start at Tubilis Castle, midday

Arrive at Husn Falq mid-morning on 6th day. So trip took 4.75 days taking shortest route through Aserai lands. Going through Empire territory is actually shorter.

Ustokol Castle, midday day 1.

Arrive at Tyal right before midnight day 5. Trip took 4.5 days.

But, the enemy never attacks Ustokol Castle first. They attack Varcheg, which is one day travel from Ustokol Castle. So a better comparison end to end is Sturgia 3.5 days, Aserai 4.75 days. Aserai is worse off.

 

[bigbalzzz]

Nonsense

Start at Tubilis Castle, midday

Arrive at Husn Falq mid-morning on 6th day. So trip took 4.75 days taking shortest route through Aserai lands. Going through Empire territory is actually shorter.

Ustokol Castle, midday day 1.

Arrive at Tyal right before midnight day 5. Trip took 4.5 days.

But, the enemy never attacks Ustokol Castle first. They attack Varcheg, which is one day travel from Ustokol Castle. So a better comparison end to end is Sturgia 3.5 days, Aserai 4.75 days. Aserai is worse off.

nice proof and evidence well done and ya thats what i mean exactly

 

[bigbalzzz]

false



false



false



false



false


Have you backed any of your claims above, that's not just from your own experience of a few playthroughs?

Eager to see it.

@dralim just posted the evidence ......
(all lords need to raise cohesion)

 

[kweassa]

@dralim just posted the evidence ......
(all lords need to raise cohesion)

Let's just forget I demanded evidence from you, and not him.

What is this evidence of, again?

 

[drallim33]

Let's just forget I demanded evidence from you, and not him.

What is this evidence of, again?

Armies frequently disband when they run out of cohesion. This can happen halfway through a siege, or when they are just walking around. If you watch them you will see it. The longer the distance they have to travel, the greater the likelihood they will run out of cohesion before they reach the destination, or before the siege is finished.

Food is an even bigger problem and has the same effect. Stupid armies only buy enough food for a few days and are always disbanding because of starvation. Again longer distances mean they are more likely to run out of food before they get anything done.

It is easiest to see after a few years at a town with 1000+ defenders. AI has great difficulty taking it because they always run out of food or cohesion before they finish the siege, because instead of just assaulting right away like they do in the early game, they play catapults for a week or two first.

Some of these problems will go away if they fix the AI. But as of right now they are definitely a factor.

 

[kweassa]

Armies frequently disband when they run out of cohesion. This can happen halfway through a siege, or when they are just walking around. If you watch them you will see it. The longer the distance they have to travel, the greater the likelihood they will run out of cohesion before they reach the destination, or before the siege is finished.

Food is an even bigger problem and has the same effect. Stupid armies only buy enough food for a few days and are always disbanding because of starvation. Again longer distances mean they are more likely to run out of food before they get anything done.

Without taking into consideration where armies are formed, and the likelihood of the army fulfilling its purpose long before the long-term problem of cohesion depletion and food depletion, I see little value in such conjecture.

For such analysis to be valid, you need to assume every Aserai lord forms the army smack in the middle of their territory at the longest possible distance for cohesion depletion and food depletion to be a factor, when in reality I observe armies being formed anywhere, from smack in the middle of the desert, to just south of the "Calradian gibraltar" southwest of Ortysia.

Not to mention, plenty of instances where Kingdoms form armies and drive deep into enemy territory to take lowly defended castles/towns -- which plenty of people complained about -- often in distances much further than the above example in case, proves otherwise that the theory does not hold, does it not?

Instances like Vlandians taking town smack in the middle of Northern Empire, or Battanians taking Sturgian town across the straight of Omor, isn't exactly uncommon. Kingdoms frequently take town/castles far away from the initial border and deep into enemy territories. If your conjecture is to be correct, this should not be happening at all since all kingdoms would be suffering similar problems when faced with their urge to engage in particularly long-distance assault.

It is easiest to see after a few years at a town with 1000+ defenders. AI has great difficulty taking it because they always run out of food or cohesion before they finish the siege, because instead of just assaulting right away like they do in the early game, they play catapults for a week or two first.

Which should work in the opposite as well, when Aserai is being invaded. Hence, if your theory is correct that Aserai can't take enemy lands due to logistics problems, so should be the case in other Kingdoms trying to invade Aserai.

That effectively debunks the premise made in the thread that the Aserai are somehow especially weak.

Some of these problems will go away if they fix the AI. But as of right now they are definitely a factor.

Perhaps. But a fix probably won't be necessary at this point, because the problem some people perceive maybe just that -- a perception without basis.

 

[drallim33]

Without taking into consideration where armies are formed, and the likelihood of the army fulfilling its purpose long before the long-term problem of cohesion depletion and food depletion, I see little value in such conjecture.

It's not a long-term problem, it does not take that long. It gets worse the longer the game goes because bigger armies lose coherence faster and also take longer to go anywhere because of slower movement speed.

For such analysis to be valid, you need to assume every Aserai lord forms the army smack in the middle of their territory at the longest possible distance for cohesion depletion and food depletion to be a factor, when in reality I observe armies being formed anywhere, from smack in the middle of the desert, to just south of the "Calradian gibraltar" southwest of Ortysia.

No you do not need such an assumption, you can assume a random distribution of army formation spots, the average distance will still be higher. They are not very smart about where they form relative to where they are going, and tend to decide where to go after forming. An army might form near Omar and decide to go and siege Amprela, when they could have formed near Tyal instead, or gone to siege Epicrotea. This sort of thing happens a lot, sometimes they don't even reach the destination.

Not to mention, plenty of instances where Kingdoms form armies and drive deep into enemy territory to take lowly defended castles/towns -- which plenty of people complained about -- often in distances much further than the above example in case, proves otherwise that the theory does not hold, does it not?

No it does not. I never said they always fail to siege a castle, I said they are more likely to run out of food/coherence before they get anything done.

Instances like Vlandians taking town smack in the middle of Northern Empire, or Battanians taking Sturgian town across the straight of Omor, isn't exactly uncommon. Kingdoms frequently take town/castles far away from the initial border and deep into enemy territories.

Yes this is correct

If your conjecture is to be correct, this should not be happening at all since all kingdoms would be suffering similar problems when faced with their urge to engage in particularly long-distance assault.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Sometimes armies form and immediately go to a distant castle, and immediately begin the assault. But this is not always the case. There a lots of variables:

• A large army moves slower than a small one, so it will take longer, run out of food/cohesion after less distance traveled
• A large garrison will cause the attackers to siege longer before assaulting, if they run out of food before assaulting they will usually leave
• They might spend time chasing down enemies, going to villages for recruits etc., before deciding to go on a long trip

So yes they can do long range sieges but in general the longer the distances the less likely they are to get anything done.

Which should work in the opposite as well, when Aserai is being invaded.

Yes this works against invaders as well. But consider this: if army formation location is mostly random (I don't know that it is but for the sake of argument), on average it will take longer for an Aserai army to arrive to defend it's city than it will for southern or western empire to attack or to defend it's own cities. Because the average distance will be longer. Even if the army forms close to the objective, the individual lords may be spread out and coming from all over.

A southern empire lord will have to travel less distance on average to reach Husn Fulq, than an Aserai Lord.

Hence, if your theory is correct that Aserai can't take enemy lands due to logistics problems, so should be the case in other Kingdoms trying to invade Aserai.

That is not my theory. My theory is that it is almost impossible for Aserai to defend it's starting lands. And that they will have more food/coherence problems because of longer distances. Other factions still have those problems.

That effectively debunks the premise made in the thread that the Aserai are somehow especially weak.

If you say so.

 

[bigbalzzz]

even if aseria ever capture any castle they lose it easily as they can not hold anything above the south
while invaders will ve easier time to defend fiefs they take in the south
aseria has more problems than sturgia
its harder to get into and out
and thats the only reason they are not the 1st to die
aseria feel left out of caladria or just fooder