Persians: The Mountain Royals . The update features the Savar, a unique paladin replacement that is adept at taking down enemy ranged units.
The “smolnastery” and the “feudal steppe lancer” ended up being scenario-only units 
In the scenario editor they’re called “Chapel” and Qizilbash (there’s an elite version too).
Source of the Qizilbash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJOz9UUyMgM
Source of the Chapel: Ornlu showcased the building in the scenario editor earlier today.
7 Likes
Qizilbash is a foundation of Safavid dynasty. Would be so good to have them as the Persians.
1 Like
No it shouldn’t be an official change. Like I said, use the scenario editor if you want to see the Persians with the Central Asian set without the use of a mod.
I play Multiplayer mostly and you are telling me to play scenarios only?
7 Likes
Can you give a reason why? Everyone’s been asking for it.
7 Likes
Too bad its small and not the size of a regular monastery by the looks of it.
True, but I thought the Fortified Church was bigger and it wasn’t. So looks can be deceiving.
It was a sarcastic joke.
Whaaaaat??? U mean they went as far as actually making a Qizilbash unit but didn’t bother to give it to the Persians?
No significant eco bonus until early castle. You may save 200 wood at best until then. Also without TR, CA is basically a dead strategy. Also already mentioned, the start is difficult. They will be a Chinese 2.0
What about the Svan Towers? also scenario editor?
Idk, with the recent HCA buff they aren’t bad, and plus they’ll heal, and on top of that they can potentially take up 15% less pop space. This paired with hussar and towers makes a great lategame compositon
WRT architecture for the Persians, my honest conspiracy-theory is that they probably changed it, but they’re withholding confirmation to create suspense/so you’ll be happier about it when it’s suddenly revealed that the devs are not in fact historically and forum-illiterate Dummkopfs.
Considering the two new civs get mildly OP fortified monasteries and Persians get the Savar, why is that a bad thing? IMO it would be more disappointing if the only things that were added were trainable civ units, with nothing special for the Editor. Leave some unique stuff for creators and campaigns instead of giving every civ 3 UUs just because they exist in the Editor.
Or not, because it’s a joke concept and doesn’t have to keep pace with the new balance. Or with anything, really.
1 Like
He does not have one. I have been down this rabbit-hole with them before.
All I want is to boot up a game with Persians and have them with the correct buildings. Not jumping through hoops and praying that a mod works (top tip, it won’t for long).
1 Like
Isn’t the plural dummköpfe?
Because this will further shrink the amount of civs that uses the Middle Eastern building set. It’s ok if the African and Central Asian sets each only has 2 civs. And I get that the Central Asian set would fit well on the Persians and I don’t disagree with that but can we not further reduce the amount of civs that uses the ME set?
This is a very dumb reason for not changing a civ’s arch set to something more fitting.
Byzantines have already been removed from that set, the game won’t be negatively impacted by Persians being removed as well.
10 Likes
@Blast9867 In fact it will be balanced by having 3 civs each for central asian set and middle eastern set, equal for each.
2 Likes
Meso and SeA also three.