Persians, What Changes Do They Need?

Hello friends!

With the recent note from Devs we all expect new civ rework for Persians, maybe like what happened to Indian civ, with introduction of new DLC with 2 or 3 civs and Persian rework, or just seprate Persian rework. I like to share my ideas about Persians and listen to your opinions as well.

First question is are they really need any change?
Answer: Yes. Why? for many years they were very unique civ, with full stable with paladins and camels, only civ with elephants, good eco with full eco tech tree and etc.
But as the time passed and many civilizations with various new bonuses introduced, Persians slowly lost many of their identical aspects, both gameplay and historically.
Currently many believes they are very common and normal civ ( which i personally think they are very good but they need to be played well).

Community is ready for Persians rework

2nd question: what aspects of Persiana should be changed?
Answer: both gameplay and historical approach toward Persians should be changed.
Why?, Persians mainly designed based on Sassanid empire, but Sassanids were not only part of Persian history. We have many Persian dynasties after Sassanids some of them controlled huge lands maybe as large as Sassanids.
About gameplay. With new civs added to game we need more various options for Persians.

Persian rework should consider both their historical identities and gameplay behaviour

3rd question: now what should we change?
Answer: well, I like to start from beginning,11

Civ Emblem: Current civ emblem is “Great” and should not be changed.

Music Theme: Current music theme is “Good” but it is not pure persian music i suggest to use new music theme with more persian instruments.

Voicelines: When you task villagers to make farms they say “Me’maar: Builder” and when you send them to farms they say “Mikonam: I will do” which both of them are big misses in both of this situations they should say “Keshavarz(کشاورز): Farmer”

Architecture: Middle Eastern architecture have many persian aspect and is not bad for Persians. BUT, Central Asian architecture is completely based on Persian architecture and is “Best” option for it.

Tech Tree: Current tech tree is fine, but some situational techs can be added, Treadmill crane, Illumination, Atonement can help them in Arena
Personally i think giving them siege engineers and bracers is not a good choice.

Civ Bonuses: i saw several ideas about new Persian bonuses some of them are good.
Bonuses:

  1. Start with +50 food and +50 wood. I believe that this is one of best early game eco bonuses
  2. TC and Dock 2x HP and work 10/15/20% faster in feudal/castle/imp. Yes, i think 5% working rate is OP. Another idea is give only TCs +5% working rate in dark age.
  3. Caravan free, can build Caravansarai in Imperial age. Caravansarai in Central asia architecture will be amazing 11.
    Another potential Civ bonuses:
    _ Scout line cavalry attack 20% faster
    _ Cavalry archers +2 attack vs infantry and building
    _ Stable units +1 attack
    _ Monks recharge fate 50% faster

Unique Units: Persian War elephants are one of most iconic units in game and “Cannot” be removed from game.
Savar: they were main body of Persian army specially Sassanids and they are Good choice as 2nd Unique Unit. But how can we add them if they dont want to remove War Elephants? They can be added is Stepp lancer line with same stats but +2 att against infantry. OR, as a upgrade for knight line in Imp.

Unique Techs:
Kamandaran: Archer line gold cost replaced by additional wood
Parthian Horse Archers: Cavarly archers can attack while moving.
Another potential Techs:
Immortals: all military buildings and castles work 30% faster
Aswaran: knight line affected by Parthian tactics

Team Bonus: Camels and knights +2 attack vs archers

I eager to see your opinions,
Thanks a lot <3

2 Likes

Hi !
Overall, the propositions look fair, but I dont like some of them.

No, they dont “really need” any change.

Most of the community hope for a rework of some kind, yes.

I am fine with it as well.

I dont see Persians getting a new theme (and dont think they should get one) unless there is a split.

Sounds good

I think (and hope) we will getting it because so many people ask for it, and they recently changed architecture sets in ReR, so they are willing to do it.

I agree that the tree is fine and Persians do not “need” specific changes besides at least an eco buff that would satisfy pro players for their tier list.

Because their win rate isnt bad (I dont think that a strong civ irl has to be top tier in game), ans people mainly use pro toer list to complain.

It is true though that Persians win rate on Arena is pretty bad, so minor buffs as you suggest would be welcome.

I also think +5% in dark age would make them top tier on open maps and OP on hybrid maps.

I am fine reworking the bonus to a flat 5% from dark age. You then gain +6vil.minutes (or 150w) before minute 14, equal ecountil minute 20 (if non damage taken) and worse scaling afterward.
Plus the fact that people wont complain that Persians eco is too taxing on the food bank and the worse booming potential on closed maps.

I am fine with all besides the monk bonus (unless they get at least sanctity), and hope they wont get Caravansersai (because I dont like unique buildings in general).

This sounds fine. I am also fine with an “imperial steppe lancer” as well.

I hope not, I dont like alternative upgrades (like Winged Hussars)

I dont like it. I would rather give the extra range that others propose. Or some discount on HCA, or on all cavalry units.

This sounds fine. The number just has to be tuned properly when compared to Franks Chivalry

The additional PA sounds too strong. I would rather make it a second husbandry, or a bonus of all cavalries vs halbs.

Looks good.

1 Like

Tnx a lot for your reply.

I would add Persian Catapharcs as an upgrade to knights that replaces cavalier and paladin

500F 400G cost to upgrade
150HP with BL
2/3 base armor
13 base dmg
1.9 attack speed (a little slower than cavalier)

3 Likes

I respect the change proposals. But do we really need another thread for this? This is like the fourth thread recently, I believe.

On another note, war eles need to go. Or changed to 2 pop. There is no other way to make it work.

1 Like

War Elephants are already incredibly unviable. Not sure why you want to nerf them further. They’re too iconic to remove.

3 Likes

On arabia. They are incredibly broken on fully closed map team games like amazon tunnel. That’s their fundamental problem. They are either too bad, or too strong. There is no way to balance them.

War Elephant being trainable at Stable

1 Like

If Persians get major changes, it won’t be split because that civ mostly only represents the namesake civilization that is in Modern-Day Iran. Also, Middle Eastern building set will be kept because it still makes sense for them to have that building set and also because the amount of civs with the Middle Eastern building set shouldn’t be reduced.

Can’t you just make a metric butt ton of halbs?

In team games, the support is usually strong archers/hand cannoneers. Unless you have goths, it usually isn’t easy to keep up. Or, unless 2 of the players keep making halbs. But then, the problem is that you aren’t pushing. You can’t push with halbs.

Maybe they should be made even more expensive. Or less tanky.

No they will not split, i mean it is possible that their rework introduced with adding new DLC and new Civs.

As i said Middle Eastern architecture is good for them but central asian is better

War Elephants are powerful, but by no means a guaranteed victory. Even in teamgames, at best they only manage something like a 52% win rate in the extreme late game. And by contrast, they have a majorly negative win rate in the extreme lategame in 1v1s.

All they’re really good at is taking a major advantage and quickly snowballing it into a victory, but if you had that much advantage anyway, you’d have won anyway, just in a less overwhelming-feeling way.


No, if anything, they need a buff, not to be nerfed or removed. Primarily a buff in how they are used in smaller numbers, to mitigate their massive weakness to monks.

The ideal solution is one that takes micro, so it becomes less practical in the lategame, preventing their moderately powerful teamgame comp from becoming legitimately OP. That’s why I’m a fan of allowing them to be garrisoned by 1-2 riders, which are converted instead of the elephant. That gives them extra ‘lives’, allowing them to be used in smaller numbers, as part of a larger force.

1 Like

There’s already a civ with fast attacking scout line, and are the Bulgarians, and for a good reason they need to get a castle and 400f 200g for such powerful benefit, as a civ bonus is totally overpowered because you basically beat any feudal unit.
Cav archers +2 attack vs infantry and building is half worth and half broken, vs infantry won’t chamge anything while +2 attack vs buildings just amke them good on something they shouldn’t be.
Stable units + 1 attack, too uninspired, basically like Magyars scout rush, but then you get even more attack, OP in castle age.

1 Like

a change to their cav archer would be nice.

The whole Persian voicelines is a mess. Even when they say “Ari?” its a literal translation of the English “yes?” in response to being summoned, except in Persian it makes no sense. You can tell they just gave the voice actors the English words without any context and asked them to do the “Persian version” of the line.

Also for historic reasons, the monks should speak Arabic. Just like how some of the Western European civs have their vernacular language and then Latin for the monks to represent the fact that the Catholic religion was still completely Latin. Therefore since the Persians in this time period are an Islamic civilisation where the language of religious institutions was Arabic the monks should also speak Arabic.

1 Like

Even before the fall of the Sassanid empire?

No, but by the time you build monastries in the game you are in the Castle Age which I estimate to be sometime around 10th to 12th century time period give or take. That is well within the timeline of Islamic Persia. Also their monastry is cleatly a mosque.

But what if they give them a Khosrow campaign? It would be inaccurate. Not that it’s that important when looking at other inaccuracies but still… That’s why I think splitting them would not be a bad idea.