I thought so but when I went to the husbandry tech to see which civs got bonuses it was not in that list. I guess it’s not technically husbandry, but you’d think that if you were going to page about a tech that increases the speed of calvary, then went down to the section about civ specific bonuses for that technology, you’d think to see that there a civ bonus that does the same thing but better and starting an age earlier. To me that would seem to be some relevant information. But apparently the editors disagreed.
You are correct. No civ gets husbandry for free, but cumans get something better that takes effect earlier for free.
War Elephants kinda stand out as odd in a Persian civ since they weren’t that common in their armies during the Middle Ages, since they had to be brought all the way from India and that wasn’t particularly practical.
Am sure they only got them because it was the only civ in AoK originally where they kinda-sorta made sense to include, but we’re a long ways from those days with over half a dozen civs having battle elephants now, so they feel less special now.
I’m completely on the camp of thinking War Elephants will be replaced with something else for Persians.
I’d much rather War Elephants be made more practical. Elephants in general, for that matter; right now they’re just not useful in the early parts of the game, and then become progressively more OP as you mass more of them, which IMO is kinda the opposite what you want for them.
If War Elephants were more practical earlier on, the whole gameplan could change for Persians.
Based on pro critique, the biggest issue is their crazy vulnerability to monks, with War Elephants especially being a major outlier even among elephants. Converting one war elephant is much easier than converting a knight, but gives 85% more value just in terms of resources, and something like 250% more value in terms of combat capability.
Even a rank amateur can convert a war elephant, and it’s all over. SOMETHING needs to be done about monks and elephants.
Personally, I’m thinking of some sort of elephant civ specific monastery tech that somehow makes elephants more resistant to conversion, but somehow only in small numbers.
Ooh, I asked chatgpt and it gave a decent idea. What if you could garrison a single unit on an elephant, which would be converted instead of the elephant if the enemy tries to convert the elephant? The thing about this is that it would require the player to manually garrison units on their elephants, which would be useful early on with small numbers of units, but would become prohibitive in terms of both apm and pop cap in the later parts of the game.
I think there will be medium size changes.
So not just a few numbers being moved around a little but also not a massive rework.
Maybe the Cavalier and Paladin get replaced by a unique unit like it happens for Romans.
That unit could also be a regional unit like the Winged Hussar.
Small tech tree changes and changes to their UTs also seem likely.
But I don’t think we will see the combination of a lot of changes.
seriously hope they dont split persians. adding civs are ok, changing architecture is ok, new unique techs/bonuses are ok, split NOPE. meaning persian should not change name at all, AOK all the way.
I’m okay with SL. But they should be focused more on heavy cavalry than light cavalry though. They may get a small bonus on SL as other 3 SL civs get some.
Why can’t they have 2 UU?
I’d love to see that. Regula WE in castle, and an unique knight upgrade.
Never heard of that. I was thinking about Immortal.
Can be similar to Slavs split though. Not official split but adding more Persians/Iranians civs. Though I don’t see much potential other than Sogdians.
I never said they couldn’t. My message was a reply to this message where in passing they mention the possibility of the war elephant being removed entirely
The Legionary replaces both the Two Handed Swordsman and the Champion and is a direct upgrade from the Long Swordsman.
So I could see the same happening here.
Cavalier and Paladin get replaced with a new unit that directly upgrades from Knight.
I have some ideas about Persians. Before that let me ask a question to all the Persians lovers.
For them, how important CA bonus is? I understand that is based on history of both the in game civ and actual civ. But how good CA you want to see them. A minor bonus like Koreans, a medium one like Saracens and Vietnamese, or a top top tier like Huns, Magyars, Turks?
Also, as I said, Persians should have more focus on heavy cavalry over light cavalry. However, CA relies on light cavalry for support since heavy cavalry is too gold intensive to add with your CA. So a heavy cavalry bonus and a CA bonus won’t synergize, rather they will compete.
I’d use a less specific name so it could be used as a regional replacement for other persianized civs, namely Tatars, Cumans and maybe even Turks.
The only problem I see with this trend of replacing regular unit lines is that it breaks the units abstraction system. Cavaliers would no longer be a generic heavy cavalry. Cause if it were that way, there wouldn’t be any issue with Persians simply having Cavaliers and Paladins. Why does Mongols, Japanese, Berbers, etc, keep having Cavaliers when they specifically represent european heavy cavalry?
And why does the Knight represent a generic heavy cavalry but the Cavalier do not?
I hope you get my point
Probably somewhere in between. Bare minimum is equivalent to FU CA.
Yeah. It’s more that the model looks really really like a cavalier. So it seems like it could replace it and not be confusing from an opponent’s perspective due to the similar silhouette. Otherwise if you saw these next to cavalier, it might be confusing.
It is difficult when you don’t have bracer. Last armor, or PT, or BL can be easily compensated by a good bonus. Compensation of range will be controversial. Look at Romans galley. Free armor is already criticised for having Portuguese UT for free. Extra attack is okay for galley but for CA, we already have Magyars.
