they may exaggerate stuff a lot but there was no exaggerating how often Persians were played back then, even on non hybrid maps. 5% may be only 1 villager, but it was also 1 villager collecting earlier, and you going up to feudal 5% faster.
Persian really need an overhaul like Hindustani tbh.
I agree with that they should get 5% in dark age and remove 50w 50f at start. But i would add some extras:
Civs bonus:
- each time they age up, they get 100f 100w
- town center + fishing dock (the same but +5% in dark age)
- cavalry and cavalry archer +2 vs archer.
Castle upgrades:
- Mahout: Cavalry and Cavalry archer units -15% population space (maybe -20%, the number can be changed around)
- War elephantsā base movement speed increased to 0.85 (the number can be changed)
Team bonus:
- skirm and spear -15% (or 10%) training time
Other changes:
- Get battle elephants (optional)
7 Likes
Thatās a pretty substantial buff to a civ that isnāt bad.
so they get fully upgraded paladins that have +2 attack vs archers, and they take up 15% less population space?
do you realize that persians are already very strong as is and donāt need late game buffs?
youāre literally taking a civ that already has a great boom, making it even better, and then giving them an insane late game by making their core army units take up 15% less population space.
how can you even think this is balanced?
True but the thing is they also starts with 50 food and 50 wood so the 5% in dark age is notable. Here the OP added a catch to make it not overkill, which is no more 50 food and 50 wood at start,
2 Likes
which leaves them with 1 civ bonus. please show me a civ with 1 civ bonus.
furthermore thatās more nerf then anything, as they donāt have the resources to take advantage of the extra production. so they have to cut production early, and go up early, which leaves them behind.
thatās why I said previously that they needed to have more than just what the OP suggested.
Just because something is popular doesnāt mean itās good. The civ was super popular on arabia but nowadays people consider it trash. l mean the tc nerf in dark age wasnāt a huge thing. The civ was only a little bit better this way.
You have one vil essentially at the end of dark age that means on average it is half a vil or roughly 100 extra res minus 50 more investement. So in the long run 1 vil and 50 extra res compared to now. If that would be op bengalis would have been beyond broken.
2 Likes
and your idea completely busts them.
but pros were masterclass at taking advantage of small advantages, especially in the early game. Do they need a small buff? yes i think they do. but thatās it.
either way, they definitely donāt need the āreworkā that fearful is proposing which would absolutely bust the civ.
1 Like
look, Iām not here to argue with you how they should be buff or whether my ideas are balanced or not, and Iāve noticed that you 99% of the time would disagree with a lot of peopleā suggestions multiple times about underwhelming stuff that needs buff and thatās fine. I donāt really care about what you think anyway but this one.
And everyone elseās wondering why Persians are considered one of the worst civs in the game.
5 Likes
https://www.ageofstatistics.com/statistics/winrates?period=p03_v03&filter=rm_solo_all
Persians averaging right near 50% winrate. hardly what i would call āone of the worst civs in the gameā.
do they need a SMALL buff? yes. but come on, fully upgraded cavalry that take up 15% less pop space? for a civ with an insane late game? thatās over the top.
they have fully upgraded camels, hussars, and paladins, not to mention war elephants. and you want all of those taking 15% less space?
actually i am all for buffing underwhelming civs, the problem is most peoples suggestions are over the top if you ask me, or just not good. you donāt use a maul where a few deft strokes will do.
heck i even agree with one of your ideas (papermoney needs further love, iād cut the gold cost for a wood cost).
3 Likes
Give Persians the Dark Age bonus back.
4 Likes
If that nerf is too harsh, maybe Persians can begin with +25 or +35 of all resources
Persians are a nice civ. Their main problems are:
-
the early resources bonus doesnāt transtale into a strong opening (I guess you can do 19 pop Scouts or 20 pop MAA but for some reason Persians players never do that)
-
their eco bonus kicks in relatively late and in Feudal is even a disadvantage in the short term because it sucks food from your bank at a faster rate and the marginal impact of 1 more villager is negligible compared to the 50f you must pay upfront. You start noticing the effects of this bonus at min 35-40 IF you boom on 3+ TCs (booming on 1 TC isnāt very good as Persians, yet another thing that separates them from other civs capable of performing all-ins in Castle Age like Burgundians or Franks)
-
their late game is somewhat awkward because they lack Champion, any usable Archery Range unit (trashbows take fairly long to tech into and arenāt that much better that skirms vs their intended targets) other than Handcannoneer and their Siege is also average (they get BBC I guess but no Siege Engineers).
Of these issues, I would address mainly 1) and/or 3). 1) could be buffed by giving them a further, say, +25w, while 3) could be buffed by giving them Siege Engineers for example.
They cant get more resources at the start lol, they already are S tier on nomad
And their late game is prob fine
2 Likes
Agreed. But donāt necessarily agree with your method
As others pointed out
Mahouts, of all the techs , is the one that needs to be removed. Not kamandaran
4 Likes
Honestly would a complete rehaul work the way India had it? Split between say Sassanids, Sogdian and Afghans (other civs could work instead of these, theyāre just examples) could give 3 very unique civs and the original bonuses can find new homes amongst the 3 if needed. This is probably very out there and a long term idea for many years away.
I also think despite the encompassment of a few civs sandwiched between Iran and Hindustani India doesnāt really require major overhaul or rename to current Persia.
In this way the current bonuses can find different homes if itās too hard to give Persia more and more defining bonuses without breaking the universe of balance.
Afghans are already covered by Hindustani and Persians (Both have Ghaznavid and Ghurid AI names)
2 Likes
The problem is finding a civ to justify elephants and Lancers together and I canāt think of any that arenāt sandwiched between India and Iran.
This is important to ensure maximum civ flavor potential.
this is a fair observation, and tbh Iām against buffing Persians, because they are already a top civ on a certain map. I think nearly every civ has a place in the game atm, for example Goths are close to S tier on Socotra, my post was merely a way to highlight the limitations of Persians as a civ so that people can understand better when and why they are weak on Arabia.
True. OP seems more a Persians nerf than a buff to me.