A third economic bonus for Persians?

As of right now (25/03/2023) the Persians don’t seem to be getting any balance changes, which is a shame.

The Persian units/tech is fairly balanced. Instead of buffing their army, what about adding another economic bonus?

I’ll throw down some ideas. Farmers (while working) slowly generate food. Basically the same as Vineyards, but with food instead. This will help them pump out their heavy food costing units a little better and spam villagers a little better.

Every new town center, you get 50 wood and food.

Trade cards and trade cogs receive 10% of wood per trip.

I guess we can give them Lithuanians treatment. 50f/50w per TC.
This will also nerf them in Nomad as you can’t immediately build both TC and Dock. You need to wait till your TC is up to build a Dock.

Isn’t that just regular farming with a bit of extra free food?

1 Like

Yes it is. Basically the Khmer bonus where you don’t need to drop off food but also a twist where you need to drop off food.

1 Like

Of course, it would be far weaker than the Khmer one. But it’s a slight food buff for the Persians, since most of their best units cost lots of food. Plus town centers working faster is a drain on food.

Well if this happens (losing the statring resources), I will have to agree about Persians eco being tight.

I think ersians are in a fine spot, given that they have FU paladins and they have xbows and are strong on hybrid maps.

Can you first tell us what setting/part of the game you want to buff them on ? Land map mid game ? You seem to believe they are fine late game, and must believe that they are goid on non land maps. Since they have starting resources, a random buff may be “dangerous”…

We shoudnt give them a buff just to give them a buff or just so that they become S tier on every setting, right ?

They are not losing starting resources. It is 50f/50w per TC. And since you have a TC at start outside of Nomad, you are getting the extra resource.

And that’s it. They are literally the most boring civ outside of it.

Okay then. I dont know how strong of a buff it is. Since they get a big buff on land, they might need to lose for instance the faster docks production or have the faster TCs scaling less (10% from feudal for instance). Besides that, it sounds fine.

Well, sorry to like and play “the most boring civ” then. Anyways, from what people say, I feel thst there are 10 “most boring” civs or so… And I probably play 2 or 3 of them (out of my 5 main civs). I must just like them…

I want Persians to have access to Bracer to improve on water maps and give them the opportunity for cavalry archers. The Kamandaran XBow would have to get a nerf for that, I think they should still cost gold, so 45 wood and 25 gold.
5% faster TC in the Dark Age would be very good for Persians, but on hybrid maps they would be too strong, especially if the ports would also work faster.Hope there are suggestions to make Persians better on Arabian but not overpower on hybrid maps( Nomade).
Maybe you could take the start resource from them on Nomade and you get 5% on TC and port in dark age.

at 20 POP 5% bring a Vill, so 21 pop and you get into feudal times faster. That would mean a very good eco bonus. you could possibly delete the start resource for it.

The devs should have at least changed Mahouts (maybe include it in the Elite upgrade like with other ‘useless’ UT changes so far) and add something new.

Elephants are too niche of a unit, maybe Mahouts could make them more conversion resistant or something at least. 11


I would be fully on board with trading the starting resources for a 5% dark age TC and dock speed.
But I dont think thst devs want to go this way, as they seem to tweak the Chinese start to help low ELO players. So they probably do not want civs with tight dark age anymore. And the starting resources make the persian start less tight.

I personnaly do not need that because I feel missing bracer is a fine compromise for what they get and do not care about whatever historical accuracy people who say Persians need top tier HCA. Any because I do not need it for this civ, I do not want it.

Of all your ideas, I like this one the most.

Either way though, I think this would be really minor. Either their economy has be helped a bit (more) early on, or their Imperial Age UT could be included in the Elite upgrade, and Kamandaran transferred to Imp for a new Castle Age UT to renew them a tad, Historically, I suppose helping Cavalry Archers might make sense?

Town centers qork 15%/20%/25% faster in feudal/castle/imperial age

The main problem about Persians is they dont have power unit. Paladin and elephant too expensive and other units are generic. Mongols have mangudai, turks have janissary, mayans have cheap archers and el dorado etc but persians have no such unit and therefore no win condition.

What is the problem with generic units ? More often tha nit, they are good enough.

It is easy to pick on Persians by comparing their strongest with civs with obvious power units… What are your win conditions as Franks ? Teutons ? Aztecs ? Incas ? Burmese ? Celts ? Japanese ?

Persians have a fine late game.

The only problem for Persians is their power hole weaker in late Feudal and early castle age on 1v1 open maps (and team game as flank)

Half of the civs you mentioned have worst winrate then persians.

Franks: Knights with extra hp (they dont have to spend res for bloodlines so saves some res), 2 eco bonus.
Teutons: Have very low win rate and need buff, extra armor on their knights (so their knights are not generic)
Aztecs: Monks with extra hp (monks are very popular units nowdays,makes their monks unique not generic), 2 eco bonus, creation speed bonus for all military units.
Incas: Have average win rate, slinger, 2 eco bonus.
Burmese : After arambai buff they have average win rate(before it they were bottom tier) ,1 eco bonus, extra ap for infatries which makes them good drush civ (makes their infatries unique not generic), arambai (a power unit).
Celts: Eco bonus, team bonus, faster infantries, faster attacking sieges.
Japanese: 2 eco bonus (makes them top tier hybrid map civ), faster attacking infantries( makes them good drush civ).

“Paladins are too expensive”

Okay, make Monks then You will meet Persian Hussars…

Wait, slinger is a power unit ? I think you mea arbalesters…

Are we talking about having power or rush potential ?

So paladins are too expensive but SO and Hscorps arent ?

Are we talking about power units or rush and overall performance ?

I am not contesting that Persians are below average on Arabia, I am contesting that they have no power unit and no win condition in 1v1 late game…

Btw, Persians in 1v1 are top tier on Nomad and on hybrid maps…

1 Like

Persians are the only civi with 2 bonuses lets make it three and make it generic just like the chinese.

Well this last update confirms: The devs H@T3 Persians

… also unveleivable that the combination of the words hate and Persians is censored