Dynasties of Persia - The Next Great AoE2 DLC

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

DLC Proposal - Dynasties of Persia

Greetings AoE2 community!

I’d like to share a concept for a potential DLC that explores the rich and complex history of Persia, similar to how the game has expanded India (Dynasties of India) and the Slavic world (Lords of the West, Dawn of the Dukes) into distinct playable civilizations.

Persia has spanned many centuries and dynasties, each with unique military systems, beliefs, and strategies. This proposal breaks down the Persian world into three fully distinct civilizations, covering the Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern periods.

Included Civilizations

  1. Sassanids - an ancient pre-Islamic Persian empire that stood as a formidable rival to Rome and Byzantium for centuries, known for its heavily armored cavalry, centralized administration, and strong economic foundation.
  2. Seljuks - a powerful medieval Turco-Persian dynasty that rose from the steppes, expanding across Anatolia and Persia through tactical mobility, mounted archery, and military discipline rooted in nomadic traditions.
  3. Safavids - an early modern Turco-Persian Shia empire, founded by a dynasty of Azeri-Turkic origin and driven by religious zeal and elite cavalry. They established Twelver Shiism as a state religion and built a centralized, charismatic military around the Qizilbash warriors.

Each civilization brings a unique military identity, a specialized unique unit, and a distinctive strategic playstyle.

  1. Sassanids
    Era: 3rd to 7th century
    Type: Defensive and economic powerhouse
    Unique Unit: Asvārān – elite heavy cavalry

The Sassanids were a powerful and disciplined empire that stood toe-to-toe with Rome and Byzantium for centuries. Their elite cavalry, the Asvārān, formed the backbone of their military might — heavily armored, patient, and built for endurance.

Strengths:

  • Beats Paladins in 1v1 due to superior armor and durability
  • Counters infantry and foot archers effectively
  • Great for defensive play and holding territory
  • Excellent synergy with siege weapons as frontline tanks

Weaknesses:

  • Vulnerable to pikemen and monks
  • Struggles against hit-and-run tactics (e.g. cavalry archers)
  • Lacks mobility for chasing or raiding
  • Limited anti-building power without siege support

Building Damage:

  • Moderate (similar to knights)
  • Not a siege replacement, excels at protecting push units

Special Trait:

  • Imperial Logistics : Villagers work slightly faster within a Town Center’s influence, reflecting the Sassanid focus on centralized economy and defensive infrastructure.
  1. Seljuks
    Era: 11th to 13th century
    Type: Mobile, harassment and map control
    Unique Unit: Nöker – elite cavalry archer specialized against melee units

The Seljuks were masters of the steppes, using superior maneuverability and tactical raids to wear down slower enemies. Their Nökers were elite mounted archers, loyal to their sultan and skilled at anti-cavalry warfare.

Strengths:

  • Counters Paladins, Hussars, and Elephants
  • Excellent for raiding villagers and chasing siege units
  • Effective against generic cavalry archers
  • Good at picking off unprotected eco buildings (houses, workshops)

Weaknesses:

  • Weak against Mangudai and Tatar cavalry archers
  • Vulnerable to mass skirmishers or tight formations
  • No real power against fortified buildings
  • Mediocre in direct confrontations if outnumbered

Building Damage:

  • Low, except against eco buildings and siege workshops
  • Not made for base destruction, better suited to hit-and-run harassment

Special Trait:

  • Steppe Coordination : Mounted units (including Nökers) gain a slight movement speed bonus when not adjacent to buildings or walls, encouraging open-field engagements and hit-and-run tactics.
  1. Safavids
    Era: 16th to 18th century
    Type: Offensive, elite and religious
    Unique Unit: Qizilbash – elite cavalry fueled by zeal and morale

image
image252×304 83.2 KB

The Safavids forged a religious empire with the Qizilbash at its core fanatical heavy cavalry, feared for their determination and battlefield shock tactics. While fewer in number, they were fast, brutal, and terrifying to face.

Strengths:

  • Defeats Paladins, infantry, and elephants in direct melee
  • Effective against exposed archers
  • Capable of destroying siege units and workshops quickly
  • Excellent at disrupting formations and breaking lines

Weaknesses:

  • Weak to pikemen and mass halberdiers
  • Vulnerable to gunpowder units (Janissaries, Conquistadors)
  • Struggles against Mangudai-style kiting
  • Inefficient against castles, walls, and entrenched defenses

Building Damage:

  • Good, especially vs non-fortified buildings
  • Bonus damage vs siege units and workshops (reflecting rapid strikes behind enemy lines)

Special Trait:

  • Morale bonus: Gains extra damage or attack speed when near a monk or relic, reflecting their religious zeal.

Why this DLC?

  • Persia is underrepresented in AoE2 despite its massive historical influence
  • This DLC follows the structure of other successful expansions: splitting a major historical region into multiple time-period civilizations
  • The three civs offer complementary but distinct playstyles, from defensive tanks to raiders to elite chargers
  • It would expand AoE2’s coverage of Islamic, Middle Eastern, and Asian military traditions, giving variety to campaigns and multiplayer

What do you think? Would you be interested in playing as the Sassanids, Seljuks, or Safavids in a future DLC?
Any thoughts on how these civs could be expanded further?

Let me know, I’d love your feedback!

Author : Mepho9

1 Like
2

I was going to bring up that aoe2 doesn’t have civs that are dynasties, but the devs don’t care anymore so I guess go ahead.

In regards to the safavids and sassanids, I think by virtue of adding safavids, anything you split off of persians to get safavids, basically makes the remainder of persians a good representation of sassanids.

You’d have to ask cysion tho if it’s a split. that seems to be the primary requirement if splitting a civ is a split.

But yeah, I was hoping TMR would be something a little more like this. Seems like there was some cut content that went in this direction. Would love to see something like this in the future.

10 Likes
3

The thing is, AoE2 was always about people, not kingdoms or dynasties at its core. That’s why we had Spanish, Turks, Persians not Castilians, Ottomans, or Sassanids.

I think no new civilization should be added if it was founded by the same people as an existing civ.

4 Likes
4

Aren’t these already covered by persians turks and tatars?

3 Likes
5

Then let’s split the Franks into Merovingians, Carolingiens, Capetians and Valois :upside_down_face:

2 Likes
6

Splitting the Persians into Sassanids, Seljuks, and Safavids reflects real historical shifts in culture, dominant language, religion, and even ethnic identity (from Iranian Zoroastrian to Turkic Sunni to Azeri-Turkic Shia). Each dynasty represents a true transformation in how the region was ruled and fought wars.

By contrast, splitting the Franks into Merovingians, Carolingians, Capetians, etc., is more about dynastic succession within a relatively stable ethnic and cultural context. The language, religion (Christianity), and population remained largely continuous.

  • So, the Persian split = civilizational, cultural and religious shifts.

  • The Frankish split = internal dynastic evolution remaining the same overall identity.

One important point to consider: the current Persians civ in AoE2 is essentially based on the Sassanid Empire, the last great pre-Islamic Persian-Farsi dynasty.

But Persian history didn’t stop there, far from it. After the 7th century, Persia entered entirely new eras, shaped by dynasties like the Seljuks, with their fast-moving steppe archers, and the Safavids, who brought a new Shia identity and powerful elite cavalry: the Qizilbash.

By keeping all of Persian history under one umbrella civ, we’re overlooking more than 1,500 years of unique evolution in warfare, religion, and identity.

Splitting Persia into Sassanids, Seljuks, and Safavids wouldn’t just add variety, it would finally let AoE2 reflect the full richness of Persian civilization.

And of course, this is just a friendly proposal.
I simply wanted to share the idea and see if others might be interested in it.

From what’s left in AoE2’s roster of major civilizations, Persia stands out as one of the few that could still be legitimately and meaningfully split into three distinct and historically rich dynasties.

Each of them brought their own identity, style of warfare, and impact on history which could be interesting to play in Age of Empire 2.

7

It’s true that some elements of those dynasties are partially represented by the Persians, Turks, or Tatars.

But those are broad umbrella civs that generalize very different cultures and time periods.

For example:

  • The current Persians mostly reflect the Sassanid Empire (pre-Islamic), but don’t capture the Turkic Seljuks or the Shia Safavid state at all.
  • The Turks represent the Ottomans, not the Seljuks, different era, different geography, different structure.
  • The Tatars reflect Mongol successor states like the Golden Horde, not Iranian-centered dynasties.

Each of the three (Sassanids, Seljuks, Safavids) had their own military identity, religion, political system, and even ethno-linguistic base.

So yes, there’s some overlap, but these dynasties are distinct enough to stand on their own, just like how India was split into Dravidians, Bengalis, and Hindustanis, even though they all came from one civ originally

The Tatars in AoE2 do notrepresent the Oghuz Turks who migrated westward into the Caucasus and Anatolia (like the Seljuks or later the Ottomans).

The Tatars were part of the Turco-Mongol world, descended from steppe confederations like the Golden Horde, and spoke Kipchak Turkic, not Oghuz Turkic. Their history is tied to Mongol conquest, Eastern Europe, and the steppes north of the Black Sea.

By contrast, the Seljuks were a distinct Oghuz Turkic dynasty, with roots in Central Asia, but who established a major empire in Persia, the Levant, and Anatolia.

So while both are Turkic-speaking groups, they come from very different branches of the Turkic family, and their histories, regions, and military traditions are not the same.

That’s why the Seljuks would still make sense as a unique civilization, especially since no current civ in AoE2 fully represents the Oghuz migration into Persia and Anatolia.

8

Meanwhile in Africa and America…

3 Likes
10

Even then, I doubt there’s enough room left for a new Hussar + Cav Archer civ. We already have Mongols, Turks, Huns, Tatars, Magyars even Saracens filling this niche.

11

First of all, Seljuks and Safavids not Turco-Persian, its just only Turks Empire (You can call it Dynasty). If you split Persians, you must add to Khazars.

1- Sasanids
2- Seljuks
3- Safavids or Afsarids
4- Khazars

1 Like
12

Adding Seljuks makes no sense when they’re already in the game.

  • Pick the Turks.
  • Never train Janissaries.
  • Don’t advance to Imperial Age.

Now you’re playing as the Seljuks.

3 Likes
13

There are some historical things to add. If you want to play as the Seljuks, instead of just advancing to the Imperial Age and recruiting Janissaries, you should add some of the bonuses you need to add.

1- Tatars’ sheep bonus
2- Turks’ free hussar bonus
3- Hindustani’s Gulam soldier

and one CA bonus and remove all gundowpert tech. It’s Seljuks :smiley:

1 Like
14

Saying “just pick the Turks and don’t train Janissaries” to simulate Seljuks really doesn’t work historically.

The Seljuks were a nomadic, mobile force centered around horse archers and cavalry tactics, while the Ottomans relied on gunpowder infantry, siege weapons, and a centralized military structure.

They might share ethnic roots, but their warfare, organization, and even goals were completely different.

Playing “Turks without Janissaries” doesn’t make them Seljuks, especially when the civ isn’t even strong in cavalry archers anymore.

15

Just to clarify historically:

The Tatars and the Seljuks come from very different backgrounds.

The Tatars were part of the Turco-Mongol world, descendants of the Golden Horde, mostly tied to the Mongol legacy in Eastern Europe and the steppes.

The Seljuks, on the other hand, were Oghuz Turks who migrated west into Persia and Anatolia in the 11th century. They had a completely different culture, religion, and military structure, rooted in cavalry archers and steppe tactics, but also heavily influenced by the Islamic Persianate world.

So adding Tatar bonuses to “create” the Seljuks doesn’t really make sense, that’s like giving Inca bonuses to the Aztecs and saying they’re the same, just because they’re both from South America

1 Like
16

The game explicitly states that “Turks” represent both the Seljuks and the Ottomans. Whether they represent them well or not is up for debate, but it’s obvious that they were never designed to represent the Ottomans only.

3 Likes
17

The Tatars are a Turkic people, not Mongols, and their language is Turkish. Even today, there is a Tatar city in Türkiye. (See Eskişehir.)

Sources indicate that when the Seljuks first emerged on the historical scene, they had nearly half a million sheep with them, which is quite normal for a semi-nomadic community. Therefore, this sheep bonus in the game belongs more to the Seljuks than to the Tatars.

Seljuk and Tatar history are not dissimilar, but their geography is different. Both Turkic societies were dispersed by Mongol-Turkish armies. The Seljuks ruled the Iran-Anatolia region, while the Tatars ruled the Ukraine-Poland-Moscow region, but their language is the same. The game appears to have given the sheep bonus because it restricts the Tatars primarily to Uzbekistan, but this is not entirely true. If they become Seljuks, this bonus should be theirs, and a new bonus should be given to the Tatars.

The Gulam soldier is normally a military unit of the Seljuks, just as the Janissaries were a military unit of the Ottomans. The Mughals, who appear in the game as Hindustanis, do not have such a military unit. Perhaps the Mansabdar could be a Mughal military unit.

18

The he OP might be trolling on their less than day old account. Might be best to treat thread as such

2 Likes
19

please don’t give the devs and MS any new ideas, even if it’s as a joke. As out of touch and creatively bankrupt as they are they just might consider doing it.

6 Likes
20

Having a discussion, giving propositions and talking about historicals facts is trolling for you ?

I don’t even know why I took time to answer to such a troll.

21

Since I’ve been working on a Seljuk scenario anyway, I can share my idea of this dynasty and how I portrayed it in the scenario:
Civilization: Turks
Architecture: Mix of Middle East and Central Asia (via Gaia Buildings)
Units: (Janissaries deactivated, the following heroes all adjusted)
Barracks: Oriental Swordsman (renamed Ghazi), Ghulam
Archery Range: Seljuk Archer (aka Bactrian Archer), Skirmisher, Light Steppe Archer (aka Subutai), Heavy Steppe Archer (aka Osman)
Stable: Seljuk Steppe Rider (aka Kushluk), Steppe Lancer, Turkmen Rider (aka Ismail), Turkmen Lancer (aka Elite Quizilbash), Tarkhan (aka Attila)
Castle: Savasan (aka Sogdian Cataphract), Nöker (Thanks to the thread) Creator :wink: … aka Girgen)
Madrasa (aka Minaret of Jam): Ghilman (aka Savar)

All in all, I don’t think a separate Seljuk civilization is absolutely necessary. That’s probably more of a thing for scenarios and/or campaigns. But perhaps, as part of a new/modified campaign, one could implement a few things (unit(s), buildings, tech) that could also be used in the editor.

2 Likes