If Persians have the bracer

Persian in the game can represent the Parthians however they doesn’t have the full-upgraded heavy cavalry archer. I wonder why the development team doesn’t add the bracer for it?

For the balance, the crossbowmen could be removed. The archers with the bracer are trained for 8 sec more and 5 HP less than the crossbowmen without the bracer. It is equal to nerf Kamandaran.


1 Like


The Persians in AoE2 already span possibly the widest historical age range in AoE2, with their UU and UTs being based on the Sassanid Empire starting in 224 AD. They don’t need to also represent the Parthians who predated them and who would be more appropriate as a civ in AoE1.
Of course with the options available in the scenario editor, you can feel free to make the changes you suggested, and you can even rename the civ to create your Parthians. I’m doing something similar with a Goth origins campaign I’m making that includes the Sarmatians (similar to Parthians).


Even if Persians are not Parthians, I think the former’s cavalry archers should have the same quality as the later’s. The situation that Persians has no good cavalry archers is such like that Yamato has the ships bonus but Japanese has the bad navy.

1 Like

Persians have heavy cavalry archers with Parthian Tactics, which automatically puts them in the top 10 cavalry archer civs.
Only 6 civs (Japanese, Turks, Saracens, Magyars, Indians and Tatars) can fully upgrade their CA. You also have Mongols and Huns with strong bonuses despite lacking Ring Archer Armor. After these, then it’s it starts to be a competition between Chinese, Lithuanians or Vietnamese who lack Parthian Tactics, and Persians/Cumans who lack Bracer. Each have their pros and cons. Generally it’s preferred to have Bracer for the better dps, but having Parthian Tactics granting 5/6 armor instead 4/4 is no joke.

Point is, Persians don’t have bad CA by any stretch. If you say they have bad CA, then what would you say about Celts ones who lack thumb ring, Parthian Tactic, Bloodlines, Bracer and Ring Archer Armor ?

Japanese bad navy ? I mean they are only top 5 water civ in the game, they really bad. They only have the best fishing ships in the game, a galley bonus and a strong eco for water maps. They are really bad.


I think he meant that it would be like giving bad navy to the Japanese, not that their navy is actually bad. However the problem with this comparison is that while the Yamato have FU navy + bonus in AoE1, the AoE1 Persian lacked like 2 range upgrades ( before DE, now they still lack one) AND have NO ballistics. Which makes their horse archers horrendous to use, and only the fact that the HHA is a busted unit allows the Persian to use it. So AoE2 Persian HCA are actually quite an improvement.


The Persians in AoE2 are supposedly based on the Sasanids, but their playstyle actually covers a wider historical range. I agree that they should’ve received Bracer but now that they have Kamandaran it will be hard to balance them without making big changes to their tech tree.

Of all the empires who used horse archery Persians were among the best 3 in history (The other 2 being the Mongols and Seljuk Turks).

If you like, you could try my Persian civ mod which aims to represent the Sassanid Persians more accurately without being op.

But you’ll need this text mod as well to see the changes noted in game.

And that’s the problem. AoE2’s history section indicates that the game’s version of the Persians is based on the Sassanid Empire, but their gameplay actually covers a wider range of dynasties (Too wide imo) and because of that none of them are done justice in their representation.

They don’t have to represent the Parthians to have good CAs in the game. The Sassanids incorporated the tactics and skill used by their forerunners into their main armies, but that is not showcased in this iteration of the Persians in AoE2.

Yeah, the Persians are a lost cause in terms of historical accuracy in AoE1, considering they miss out on Scythe Chariots, Ballistics and some range upgrades in favour of their deployment of the Immortals (Hence access to Legion) and War Elephants (Which I have no complaint about), even giving them a nice movement speed bonus (Which I miss now because the nerf down to 20% in AoE1DE makes it useless). Missing out on the range upgrades wouldn’t have been too bad if they didn’t miss out on Ballistics too (imo the more important upgrade), so they not only lack range but they also shoot like Stormtroopers.
Sure Persian CAs lack one upgrade in AoE2 but it’s a pretty important one if they are to be viable in Imperial Age. That makes them overshadowed by Hand Cannoneers (Or even XBows now) as the preferred range unit.

Actually, viets CA have +20%hp, so I guess they arw the best od that list. Go viet! :smiley:


yup, used to lack husbandry, now are perfectly viable

1 Like

I’m very sure Sassanid Empire used Cataphracts though. Mostly. Not that there were 0 elephants but…

1 Like

The HP boost doesn’t make up for lacking Parthian tactics, but they are still on par with Mongol cav archers

Yeah, I guess having FU cav archers is better, but still, prettt decent ones. Specially in castle age. It’s not CA is going to be the Viet first option, anyway

1 Like

Persians still employed foot units during the Sasanid dynasty but they weren’t a core part of their armies. And as you said greater emphasis was indeed placed on their cavalry, especially cataphracts and cavalry archers.

Sorry, English is not my mother tongue. What Cactus said was my mean.

Yes, so I suggest to removing crossbowmen for Kamandaran.
I’m not asking for changing or updating for that since I know it’s hard, I just wondered the reason. For balance, historical fact or both?

I think Persians worth full-upgraded cavalry archers. Even they have Parthian Tactics, people still seldom use their cavalry archers since there are neither cavalry archer UU nor full-upgraded cavalry archers.