My dude, I get that you’re new here, but you always seem to find yourself on the wrong side of a good take. If you want to be taken seriously, and if you don’t want to continuously butt heads with most people here over almost every comment you make, I’d recommend taking off 6 months or so to really learn how the game works. Or at least have a little humility, and you can learn a lot from the greater experience of other forumers.
8 Likes
Not with this civ.
Thanks for the recommendation, but being socially isolated is not a way out.
That, I probably will be able to do. Right now I am reading Reddit comments about AoE DE and how it changed from the initial release. 
1 Like
No.
According to the information from the link, this is just a Camel Rider the Persians already having.
It can not replace the units you mentioned.
Siege Rams without SE does the job just fine and is much better than Capped Ram with siege engineers.
Why not just give them Steppe Lancers though?
1 Like
This. Just add Usabari as a title of a unit. Does it looks like a Genitour to you? It sure does to me.
Because it won’t be historically accurate. That’s why I suggested to make this unit with the stats of Steppe Lancers.
Perhaps, if you convert them. Unless of course you use Tatars’ Flaming Camels which can kill the War Elephant almost instantly. Not to mention that melee units don’t do much harm to War Elephant in comparison of making a total tost of your beloved Siege Ram.
Looks alike or not look alike is not the point.
First prove that these changes are harmless or beneficial to the balance, and then discuss whether there is any suitable historical material as a reference for these changes.
I don’t think the Persians should have a new trainable mounted skirmisher unit in their tech tree, no matter if the unit you mentioned looks like a Genitour. I’d rather give a new gold-costing mounted skirmisher unit to Spanish Archery Ranges than to a civ that has both an economy and a military.
Also, javelin-throwing cavalry is not rare in history. There are records in the Asian Steppes, Africa, and Iberia. Just because you find out that this unit existed for the Persians doesn’t mean they need this to feature in the game.
Unfortunately according to stats it is literally the opposite.
4 Likes
Don’t take my low Elo Suggestion/Wish too serious
But i just want persians to have a complete stable again, just for the sake of it and without any Kind of boni to them Battle Elephants and Steppe lancers would only be situational at best 
I think it fine just make sure that the elite upgrade is expensive enough that you have to choose between it and Paladin my only problem is that if it creates from stables will this make camels redundant?
1 Like
No. Camel wield a sword and shield. These guys can fire 2 projectiles (similar to Chu-ko-nu). At least according to this source here:
However, from as far as I see this prposition won’t fly because according to the same source, it was just their name for being camel-borne, similar to the asabari – horse-borne.
What’s so incomplete about it?
What do you mean by “harmless”?
As for balance, my plan was to recycle historically inaccurate Knight-line, or at least get rid of Paladin. I also don’t see the point behind Cumans having Paladins either.
I didn’t say that because he looks like a Genitour we should toss it in. I compared him to Genitour, assuming that the stats will be similar. The devs can tweak it up or down to make it balanced.
Nobody claimed that it was.
Just because you don’t see the historical significance doesn’t mean that a gamer should play only what you think is historical for the civ.
You are going to remove the Knight line for adding a kind of mounted skirmisher unit to Persians.
How can it not hurmful to the balance?
That’s the symbolism that AoE2 generic units have.
Besides, you’re asking for historical accuracy, not for balance, so don’t say “as for balance”.
I can totally see it. But, my opinion remains the same.
I can see such a unit of the Persians in history, but I don’t see a need for such a unit for the Persians in the game.
Let history serve the game, not the game serve history.
Last time i checked they were Missing Steppe lancers and Battle elephants 
1 Like
That’s what always bugged me about the Persian War Elephant too. Though, on the other hand, if we changed it to an Asian elephant, it would be even easier to confuse with the Battle Elephants.
What Persians need is deleting their both UTs and give them something else better and also give them Bracer.
The game is based on history, so both things go hand in hand.
Read it again. I said [quote=“OvertZoo9245494, post:34, topic:225213”]
or at least get rid of Paladin
[/quote]
By getting rid of Paladin they will be similar to the Mongols and therefore will be balanced.
They already have a War Elephant. Why on Earth would they need Battle Elephants? As for Steppe Lancers, those units didn’t existed historically for the Persians.
That, I probably will be ok with. We already had Boiling Oil as their UT, didn’t worked. Somebody here suggested to make Boiling Oil as a University tech and I am in huge support of it. Ever since The African Kingdoms we have no more techs for University and Monastery which are a must for balance and variety. Personally, UTs that Persians have now are ok in my view, although rather useless, I admit.
I considered to just give mahouts directly to the War Eles
And instead add a tech that gives their CA 4 melee armor and some Cavalry armor aswell. How much I’m not sure, but prob something around 6 - 12. Needs to be tested with Camels ###### # ###################
With that Persians could use their CA against other Cavalry Civs despite lacking Bracer.
I like Kamandaran. Prob the trashbows need a buff. But prob they only can’t shine currently as War Eles are pretty useless still. They should synergize so well.
This is terrible logic. The Persians are not the Mongols, and therefore, will not be accurately balanced in the same way.
Persia had a lot of units that were a whole lot like Steppe Lancers.
4 Likes
I have looked at the tech tree of the Persians and of the Mongols and see no issue if we will remove a Paladin from the Persians.
And that’s why I proposed Usabari, because it is similar to exactly that unit, and will be historically accurate as well. Yes, it maybe will look and act like a Camel skirmisher, but as I said in my original post:
Which means - balance won’t be an issue.
As for the meme, I know exactly what balance means. Maybe I should have stated for historical accuracy and variety, but since all of you here are so focused on it, I had no option but to use it too. I guess, I need to say that I support balance or else… While in reality, I am more like trial and error guy. Let’s do this and see what will happen. If there will be an issue with balance then the devs will issue a patch. Trying something new won’t kill a game!
It’s funny how when we discuss civs, the question of balance isn’t even present, lol. Everybody wants new civs. But if somebody proposes a unit or tech change then balance becomes the key word here. Don’t you all find something odd here? I sure do. Besides, I bet many of you were against the DLCs but then you went to the store and got them after they got patched and all. If something will be added and will be patched eventually, you won’t be screaming balance here? Or you will? Just so that people can get your attention?
Not to mention that non of us are devs on this forum. Our job is to propose an idea - their job is to make it balanced. If they realized that our proposition violates balance one way or another, they just wont publish those changes. Or you really think that devs are reading this and think “oh cool, let’s do it OvertZoo way, screw the balance!”?
Persians and Mongols are not the same at all. They play in very different ways. How is removing one of the best units from the Persian tech tree not an issue?
It’s pointless. You’re creating a new skin for something that is literally just a Steppe Lancer. It is totally redundant, much easier to give them SL.
1 Like