Because that’s historically been their thing since middle Antiquity. Even the main tech for CA is named after a Persian dynasty.
Is it really such a shock to ask for a civ that used a unit irl a lot to have a reason to use it ingame?
1 Like
It’s not “Zealotry”. It’s the Parthians.
CA was originally intended to be a good part of Persian identity, since back to the days of Sandy Petersen.
Let’s me explain why. Because their cavalry has no flavor, like they are all generic now. without any meaningful bonus. The +2 vs foot archer for knight means nothing in castle age and in Imp because they require the same number of hit to kill like any other generic knights. Their light cav has no bonus, their camel has no bonus. Compared to other civs wth interesting bonuses, the Persian is the definition of generic, boring. They only have some distinctions in mid to late imp but most games end in castle age or early imp, meaning you don’t get to experience the fun part.
YES, A BIG YES to make their CA worth using because they are historically great with cavalry archer, they are the one that invented Parthian tactic. Im not saying that their CA should be over the top, I’m just asking them to be worth using, a meaningful reason to use them. And that +5 gold per kill is that exact reason why their CA was worth using in the last patch. Parthian tactic being available in castle age is a joke because you still have to pay for it and it doesn’t carry you past castle age
1 Like
So Chinese created Gunpowder historically yet they don’t have bombard cannon or hand cannon right? 
I already explained that lacking Bracer is the reason why people don’t go for cav archers, and Persians are balanced around that, give racer and suddenly going CAs is a viable option yes, but also makes their goldless crossbows completely OP in Post Imperial. Besides they already got something to adress that with Parthian Tactics in Castle age.
Besides Persians were mostly know for their use of armored heavy cavalry and that’s already done with the Savar.
I mean this is such a lazy way to see the civ, by that logic we can say Franks have no flavour in castle age because the only thing they have is free bloodlines or Cumans and free Husbandry in castle age too, heck even if you don’t go for relics suddenly Lithuanians have generic knights too. or Bulgarians whose knights are generic till you get Stirrups.
A Cavalry civ with such strong eco don’t need powerful bonuses to be “interesting”, Magyars for instance have a strong Cavalry identity yet the only thing they have is free attack upgrades.
1 Like
To be fair, many people disagree with the meaning of “interesting civ”.
Maybe they would be happy if Persians would get the gold-on-kill bonus back, but lose the 5% dark age bonus. Then Persians would be bottom tier of early castle age eco instread of top tier, but maybe they wouldnt mind. I dont eitger way.
I think the root of the problem is that they are dissatisfied with the Persin rework, and wanted Persians to be a Magyars/Huns clone that can go HCA/Hussars/Paladin late game (that and having the civ as OP as possible).
So the gold-on kill was probably the most best change for them (over the Savar, Mahout, and dark age bonus), becayse it makes them hopeful for a late game HCA usage (as it increase viability).
1 Like
Ok, let me explain even further then.
Frank are indeed boring as they are one trick pony, but you forgot that they also have +2 LOS for free so they can decide when to fight, that alone makes their knights more interesting than the Persian.
The Lith are interesting because you have to work for the relic for greater effect, it’s an interesting mechanic (at least for me), plus they have Letis as an alternative that ignores armor and the relics work on them too, that’s interesting.
The Magyar has an alternative to the knights aka Magyar hussar. They used to be boring too but with the recent change to their UU, they can be interesting by going for Magyar hussar instead. Not to mention you can go for their CA knowing you can upgrade them further in imp unlike the Persian.
Cuman yeah, their knights are boring but they have Steppe lancer as alternatives which are effective and fun to use. 5% extra speed on knights may be nothing but 5% on faster cav like steppe lancer has more effect. Not to mention their UT makes steppe lancer trained 100% faster starting in castle age. That’s a nice flavor to the cuman cavalry. Not to mention they have a fun alternative to CA aka Kipchak.
As for Bulgarian, yes, their knights are generic from the start but at least you have the option to make them not generic starting from castle age, not until mid to late imp like Persian. Oh guess what, they themselves also have an interesting alternative to the knights aka Konicks.
I understand that the term “interesting” is not the same for everyone but looking at the persian right now, sure They are functional as a cav civ with nice win rate but why would I chose Persian when I can pick any civs that you mentioned above when they all have more “flavor” to their cav than the Perisan?
They need 1 less number of hit to kill both xbow and E.skirms in castle.
Persian knight is far more interesting than Franks, Lithuanians, Bulgarians, Khmer, Slavs, Cumans and obviously all other generic knight civs.
And Persians have Camel as knight alternative. Please don’t say Cumans also have that. No other knight civ have a viable camel except Persian and Malians. And if you can somehow make Tatars and Chinese a knight, then these 2. But last 2 are not possible in 95% of the game.
Point is if you find some interesting thing for Magyars, Franks, Lithuanians, Cumans, Bulgarians - none of them who have viable camel, you could find interesting thing for Persians as well.
Balance over history any day any time. That bonus was OP in trash battle. Suggest a reasonable change that will keep Persians interesting, historically accurate as well as balanced, and I will immediately jump for this. For example, the gold bonus can be returned for CA only with another Savar nerf.
Having the option for Camel.
1 Like
Well then they goofed pretty hard by missing the most important Imperial Age tech for them with 0 compensation anywhere else.
To be fair, people do complain a LOT about Chinese not having gunpowder units.
You can rebalance the civ around them having Bracer. Like for example, take Crossbowmen away, so instead they have trash archers. They end up with the same damage and range anyway, just 5 less HP (Not a bad idea, as it makes them more distinct from Elite Skirms). Then you can re-price Kamandaran around it.
Persians were known for their mounted archers AND their heavy cavalry. They were not a one-trick-pony.
I’m not asking for their CA to be incredible, just usable in Imperial Age.
Just on the subject of the Persian rework, I found it was way too “safe”. No changes to their tech tree outside of the Savar and Caravanserai was quite disappointing.
4 Likes
Camel is generic units, many civs have it, there is nothing special about having camels, it’s sure convenient to have them. Meanwhile, you only have 3 civs with steppe lancers and each civs has bonus for them.
ok, I admit that I was wrong about the calculation in castle age because they need the same number of hits to kill Arbalest in imp vs paladin.
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about knight alone but cavalry in general in castle age, so I do not think Persian cavalry as whole are more interesting than any of those civs you mentioned above in castle age.
You are entitled to your opinion that Persian knight/ cavalry is more interesting, it’s subjective. But not for me.
1 Like
Camel is a regional unit but fair point on SL having bonuses. But that’s just 1 civ. Persians is more interesting than rest.
And having the option of having camel make them even.