Dude, no. Multi-pop units don’t fit in this game. I remember from a past thread that you are angry with elephants because pikemen can’t defeat in equal numbers, but this is not the way.
3 Likes
When you say a civ is overtuned you’re implying a numbers issue.
Modern Iran is in the Middle East yes, but the Persian Empire itself was predominantly Central Asian. Only after several changes leading to what is now modern Iran are they now part of the Middle Eastern region. However Persia before they became what is now Iran, was predominantly Central Asian.
Yes…only one building. The Monastery. The rest are all Arab/Ottoman influenced. CEA set on the other hand is completely based on Persian architecture.
But they HAD an identity. Now they are completely overshadowed.
This is exactly the problem with Persians. Even Mongols (Who aren’t even considered a cavalry civ) have better cav play when not factoring Paladins due to HP bonus on top of access to SLs (With said HP bonus).
I’d argue they also don’t have a Castle Age UT too. It’s a strong tech, but what are Persians gonna do with it outside of trash wars?
idk about them being completely worthless, they can be made to work in TGs, but I do agree they are much riskier to use than BEs.
Yes ES did intend for Persians to go for CA play, but access to gunpowder and lack of Bracer meant their CAs weren’t viable in Imp anymore and they could just tech into HCs.
No it’s not numbers mate. It’s counterplay.
Exactly. I think devs should go back and take a look at what made elephant units work in AoE1, and perhaps transfer some of those aspects to AoEII.
1 Like
If coyplatapiss has you blackmailed please call the authorities immediately!!
Your ideas for a Persian civ rework are well-thought-out and consider both historical and gameplay aspects. The proposed changes to bonuses, unique units, techs, and architecture could indeed refresh the Persian civilization while staying true to its roots. It will be interesting to see how the developers approach potential reworks for Persians in the future. Good job in brainstorming these ideas!
1 Like
Not at all. It looks more closer to malian architecture.
When someone said you sound like a chatbot reply i was skeptical and I apologize to them for that whoever it was i doubted
2 Likes
I think the identity of Persians as a strong cav civ needs to stay, but they need a more unique approach.
What to keep:
-Faster working TC and docks.
-Start with +50 wood and +50 food.
-Docks have double HP.
-Kamandaran as Castle Age UT
Their economy should overall stay the same, as is the Dock HP as it is good on water and nomad maps. Trashbows were a good addition to Persians in DE, it is as of now their most unique aspect.
What to drop:
-TC have double HP: Let’s admit it: it is a useless bonus besides meme TC drop strategies.
-Mahouts as Imperial UT: The most useless UT in the game.
What to modify:
-War Elephant: They must stay, as they are one of the most iconic units of the game, but, I don’t know how, they should be made more viable, but the current effect of Mahouts should apply to the Elite upgrade.
-Team Bonus: As the author of this post said, extend its effect to camels and even elephants.
-Tech Tree: Armored Elephant line instead of Battering Ram line. Add Redemption, Illumination, Treadmill Crane.
-Sogdian Cataphract replaces Paladin
-Add something to make their CA usable.
-Add Battle Elephants
-Add an additional bonus affecting trade.
1 Like
To forever close off another civ option like this would be a grave mistake. Maybe not this decade but one day sogdians might be worth
1 Like
First you need to identify what their themes are. Any changes to a civ should be with the goal of enhancing their themes, first and foremost.
So what are Persian themes?
Versatile Melee Cavalry.
Powerful TCs.
Trash Gold Unit.
Powerful, expensive UU.
I’d start by giving them a stable upgrade discount. You rarely see paladins in 1v1, and persian paladins would be the perfect civ to see in 1v1s.
I’d delay tc bonus damage to feudal age, so douching still works but gives more time to react.
I’d enhance their gold trash unit theme with their longswords, to make that a deliberate major theme of the civ.
And I’d give war elephants some sort of conditional conversion resistance.
IF you add warelephant and savars then thats just sassanians that we are trying to change
warelephants have sassanian emblem on their legs… So both warelephant and savar are sassanian units. We know later persian empires like Ghaznavids, Safavids didnt use them much … Im guessing Tatars and Persians are going to share warelephant . Savars will still remain as sceanrio editor unit and Qizilbash or Tofangchi will be new Persian UU
Qizilbash in AOE 3
I like where you’re head’s at, but just a head’s up: Burgundians already have this, and Burgundian Paladins are not uncommon in 1v1.
1 Like
about Zoroastrian i thought about adding a monk bonus like Atonement for free or +20 HP
also Persians are very famous for their strong cultural influence and ability to affect invaders during history for this reason i was thinking about adding new bonus like fate recharge X% faster (maybe 20 or 30 or 50)
however giving every monk related bonus will cause changing their identity from aggressive to defensive or from military focus to monk focus and this is i really dont want.
1 Like
tnx for your kind words.
Persains are very important civ for me personally so i tried to make a logic suggestions.
Qizilbash or Tofangchi are more related to aoe3 timeline
In my opinion, the Persians should not be affected by any far-reaching changes. Especially since we are talking about a characteristic and specific nation, not only in terms of architecture, but also in terms of the type of troops or units they use.
I dont think so, safavids existed during the time of ottomans, mughal and shogunate which exist in aoe 2 timeline
It’s not so much that they need a unique approach. They already had a unique approach in having access to FU Hussar, Paladin and Heavy Camel. Problem now is more civs exist now that can compete with that lacking Paladin, because of how expensive the Paladin upgrade is. They should stick to the formula of having FU Stable (And adding BEs, SLs or both) while also offering some sort of bonus for these units.
Yeah their 2 current bonuses should stay the same.
This I disagree with. Kamandaran is one of the worst things to happen to this civ. The devs had the right idea in making their weaker foot units cheaper, but turning their XBows into trash units took up power budget that could’ve been put elsewhere, like their mounted units or CAs. It’s a really strong tech, just not exactly what Persians need.
No, that’s just your opinion. The TC HP bonus, besides the iconic ###### strat, helps Persians stay defensive until Imp, when stronger siege becomes available, and makes strats like FC more viable. This needs to stay.
There are more useless UTs in the game, and Mahouts is a prerequisite to make War Eles even remotely usable. Not that the UT should stay in its current form, I’d rather it get reworked to affect other elephant units than removed entirely. But if it DID get removed, the bonus movespeed should be given to (Elite) War Eles in a staggered fashion.
Their main weakness is Monks. Persians at least have HCs to deal with Halbs (Or CAs or TrashBows), but if there was a way Persians could deal with them or have their War Eles resist conversion then that should be the direction in which the War Ele rework goes.
Yeah extended their team bonus to other Stable units would make things pretty interesting.
Nah, Armoured Elephant is unique to Indian civs, and Persians did use Battering Rams irl. If it wasn’t a UU then yeah I’d be all for it.
Agreed with both Monastery techs, it makes sense flavour wise (Their culture being so influential that other cultures adopted their ways) and Persians could use stronger Monks to back their Eles. I’d also want Sanctity and remove Block Printing, but that’s more so that their Monks don’t die as quickly rather than historical accuracy/flavour. But at the very least they should get Redemption.
But I’m against Treadmill Crane. Unless the work rate bonuses for TC and Dock are majorly nerfed Persians shouldn’t get it, because that’s why they don’t have the tech in the first place.
Cool as that sounds, Sogdian Cataphract replacing Paladin as a sidegrade takes away the one unique gameplay aspect Persians had over other cavalry civs (FU Paladin). What if it was an upgrade of the SL line instead?
Like Bracer? A civ bonus? Or both? I think they should get both, because lacking Bracer means 1 less range than other CAs so they can’t compete, and a civ bonus would make Persian CAs stand out as they were historically among the best.
With Elite upgrade yes. Not only can they serve as a budget alternative to War Eles, if War Eles got reworked to have an aura affecting other elephant units, that can make for some fun possibilities. Or Mahouts can be reworked to affect other elephant units besides just War Eles.
I’d add that Persians could also get (E)SL, historically makes sense and adds to the full Stable fantasy.
Or just give them Caravanserai. Being unique to Hindustanis doesn’t make sense when Persians have more claim to them.
Not so much ‘trash’ gold units, but weak gold foot units (Besides HC). Yes you can make Trashbows, but the civ’s ‘identity’ from the start emphasised weak foot units.
But the rest are spot on.
Agree with this. What if just the unit line upgrades were discounted instead? Or Stable and Archery Range techs were double researched (Similar to Romans Infantry melee armour upgrades).
What if the bonus health was staggered instead of pushed to the next age? That way douching can still be achieved in Dark Age, but they would be easier to destroy.
I like your thinking, but again, Malay already have trash 2HS. Kamandaran was a mistake in making XBows trash units. However, a bonus that affects both LS and XBows cost is a step in the right direction (Without making them trash units).
Also agree with this. They need another way to deal with Monks besides Hussars, which can be bodied by Halbs, which can be dealt with by Persian HCs, which get destroyed by other ranged units because those civs have Bracer (And Siege Engineers) and Persians don’t.
If there’s going to be any splitting of the Persians civ, then Sassanids and Safavids need to have their own distinguished civs, because what we have now doesn’t do either justice.
Drat, forgot about Burgundians. Hmm, that makes this trickier. Will give it more thought.
I wasn’t thinking of an expy of malay 2hs though. They can be the bulk of your army and are still quite powerful. I’m thinking more like a 60% price reduction or rebate on food and gold, to make them insanely cheap but to be more of a meat shield than a damage source, one you replace quickly after big fights and then slowly swap out for more potent units like war elephants.
10 war elephants are easily countered by halbs, but 10 war elephants and 40 longswords not nearly as much.
I disagree, people don’t fight under TC in feudal anyway, that’s why I think its useless.
That’s why I say the current effect is given to the Elite upgrade. And I don’t like that effect to also apply to Battle Elephants, as faster moving elephants it’s already a theme of the Khmer. That’s the reason I argue for that tech be replaced, maybe something that affects their CA.
Perhaps, its a good idea.
I think Bracer needs to stay out. It can be a bonus or the effect of a new Imperial Age unique tech. I just don’t know what that bonus could be, as faster firing, faster creation, more armour, more HP, more range and attack, cheaper cost and faster movement are all already used by other civs. Perhaps HP regeneration, or cheaper Heavy Upgrade?
Perhaps.
100% agree.
1 Like
Any information on the release date for the redesigned civ?
1 Like