[Poll] What is your expectation on Elephant in the room: Persians Changes?

This isn’t controversial at all, a lot of people have been asking for it. But agreed, Vinfriss has given this idea a bad rep.

Yeah being able to build a certain building should never be a civ bonus. It’s much more coherent to just call them a unique building.

Buuut disagree with changing Grand Trunk Road’s effect. Grand Trunk Road should keep its current effect as it reduces the Market trading fee as well. Instead the healing of trade units should be the civ bonus instead.

I like the starting Food/Wood bonus being changed to giving you that Food and Wood for each TC built. It buffs the civ without breaking them.

I prefer the current bonus of x2 HP and staggered work rate increase starting Feudal. Removing the x2 HP removes one of the civs’ most iconic strats, which is very polarising. I’m also against removing the Dock bonuses, especially considering your proposed change does not give them Shipwright to compensate.

The first one is interesting, but the second one I’m very much on board with. Makes total sense for the people who the tech is named after be able to access it before other civs.

1 - Should be a civ bonus instead.
2 - These units are already costly to train in the first place. Do you really want to incentivise getting them killed, especially the CAs? One fo the main reasons cost refund on death is such a counterproductive mechanic imo. Madrasahs is pretty good example of that.

As a civ that mainly focuses on cavalry Persians should have a bonus geared towards them. This Dock bonus is pretty broken on Hybrid and Water maps too.

1 Like

Well, I guess that’s the case.

Just give back “Guilds”. Also an UT that gives smaller effect of 4 civ bonuses blend into 1 tech is a poor, bad and uninventive design imo. If you really want to repeat a civ bonus, just give a stronger version of 1 civ bonus to UT. Example - Aztecs Garland Wars vs Burmese civ bonus.

I already explained the reason for removing Dock bonus. And for Shipwright, I totally forgot that.

I agree. I was just uncreative. Can you suggest some? And please no gimmick - armor ignoring, charge attack, aura effect, stun the opponent, plunder gold, chance to convert, etc etc.

in 1v1, this is not stronger than old 5% faster Dock. This just saves 14 seconds. Is it really that big?

This…I actually agree with.

If you did it wasn’t in this thread. Mind linking me the comment?

So with Shipwright, how would that affect your ideas for the Persian Dock?

Based on the limitations placed, the best idea I can think of is bonus damage resistance. As Persians are so reliant on their cavalry it’s an actual shame when they can get countered by Halbs (vs. Cav and Eles), Camels (vs. Cav), Skirms (vs. HC) and Monks (vs. Eles). Bonus damage resistance would at least mitigate some of that weakness to help them stay in the fight longer. Other ideas that come to mind are increased Pierce Armour for melee cav or increased attack for CAs.

14 seconds is a pretty big difference. It means you get to start training ships that much quicker even if the Dock work rate is unaffected, imo the faster Dock is a weaker bonus early game, stronger late game.

It is here -

I’ll juts give them Shipwright and change the TB if needed.

Too much similar to Sicilians.

Maybe I’ll reduce Elite Savar PA from 3 to 2 and give all stable units +1 PA. Turks and Tatars already have +1PA for Hussar though.

I have a new idea about CA. Early and cheaper PT will give them an above average CA in Castle Age but will fall off in Imperial due to lack of Bracer. And extra attack as compensation just mean a generic CA. So my idea is what of they get a second arrow that will do half damage of the original arrow. Other multi arrow units only have 3 attack on their extra arrows. But they fire a lot more arrows. Persians CA will fire only 2. Main one will have 7+3 =10 attack and other one will have 0.5*(7+3) = 5 attack. Usually this will result in just +1 attack as most units have 4 PA in Imperial Age. But they will be excellent on raiding as they can snipe villagers faster than generic CA. Also against Halberdier and low PA target, they will be better. As well as against siege, rams and buildings.

I calculated again. Maybe you’re right. As a TB, this is huge.

Either this one here

I wanted to give them 5% faster Dock, and you said that was very small. Now you’re saying 14 seconds is too big. Surely 14 seconds early Dock is stronger in Dark Age, but 5% Dock over the whole game surpass that by a lot.

Getting cost back is a great idea imo, it just needs to be on a unit designed to die. The problem with madrasah was monks aren’t supposed to die. Same goes for Cavalry archers. Sure, there are circumstances where you need to sacrifice them or take risks, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Put that sort of bonus on a unit that is designed to get into a slugfest and die, and it would work perfectly.

Like Longswords.

Sorry to tell you but unless it’s also basically free Parthian Tacics won’t see any use in Castle Age.
PT isn’t a bad tech. Actually quite the opposite.
But it’s especially useful in imp. Not that much in Castle Age where you usually try to avoid to take any damage with your CA => you don’t trade them. And PT doesn’t offers anything in that context.

Ofc it would be great if Persians get PT basically free in Caslle Age. But this would cause an overlap with Tatars.
Even cutting just the Gold cost wouldn’t make it a good investment at that stage.


Give them more editor hero units with new skins and more eye candy and buildings in the editor. Also a ateshgad/fire temple

In this instance Tatars could lose the free PT and Persians get it instead. It won’t be a gamebreaking nerf for them.

Maybe could be more interesting make Parthian tactics 50% cheaper and available one age earlier for Persians

Given we have seen the images from the DLC, my predictions are:

  • New UU that is a Feudal Age version of the Steppe Lancer (similar to the Camel Scout)

  • 2nd UU that replaces either the knight-line or the Cavalier and Paladin.


The lancer like unit is a Qizilbash. Not sure how it would fit with Steppe lancer line.

1 Like

Yea my guess is that these guys will replace the cav archer for the reworked Persians, sort like a Ratha.

Because it looks like one without the armour.

They have cavalry archers in the same image.

1 Like

Let’s see how close my predictions were, then…

Yes. But I didn’t expect a defensive one, and not one so similar to the old Boiling Oil.

Not quite, but close.

Nope. I would like to see a civ with a Feudal Age version of the Steppe Lancer (“Steppe Scout”?) though.

Yes. Cavalier upgrading to Savar will be as visually jarring as Long Swordsman upgrading to Legionary, though.

Apparently not. Weird.

Yes. A bit more defensive now, at least in the late game once they’ve got Citadels.

More like blind than weird…

1 Like

Especially considering devs are trying to lean more into their identity outside of Sassanid Persia. Which would be even more reason to give them the CEA architecture set.

So yes, very weird/blind.


Ideally there should be a new Mughal-Safavid Architecture that is shared between Hindustanis and Persians.

Both Mughals and Safavids are AoE3 content. The former is already present, and I waiting for the latter to be added.