Farimba is objectively better then Manipur Cavalry.
+5 attack against everything is better then +5 attack against archers.
Also a lot of bonuses can be easily compared directly.
A attack speed bonus is easily compared to an attack bonus.
You can calculate when +5 attack is worth more then 33% faster attack.
Persia is not in a really bad state. If you want to give them Cavalry Archers that are better then fully upgraded ones then you would have to take away some other bonus from them.
Even giving them a seemingly small bonus like 5% faster TC in Dark Age made them way to good.
They already have fully upgraded Paladins, Heavy Camels and Hussars.
And on top of that they have a small bonus for the Knight line.
I don’t think they need any stronger cavalry.
The only other civilisation that has both Paladin and Heavy Camel Rider are the Byzantines and they don’t have Blats Furnace.
Giving them stronger Cavalry Archers would give them a strong unit they were intended to have, it would be historically fitting (Parthian Tactics were named after Persians) and I think it would be more balanced then giving them even stronger melee cavalry.
That would fit into the pattern of the great Empires like China and the Byzantines having a flexible techtree.
Look I don’t want to despise or come across as mean to you, I just want you to talk like you have an elo in triple digits because then people would engage you with more kindness. Try to understand the PvP just a little bit.
Historically, Persians had quite good archers. The Parthians. Will Cavarly and Archer civ description work? Because both cavarly and archers of Persia were top notch (from historical perspective).
That’s why I proposed to remove the Knight-line (or at least, remove a Paladin), but people think it’s a bad idea. I prposed the idea of removing Rams, but again, got stumbled on the same protest. So, what bonuses can we fibble with, without issues?
My PvP knowledge is of 0 since I don’t play it. I play Single player only. That is, Campaigns and Random Map. That’s why I look toward historical accuracy more then balance. I hope, you understand that this too is important.
I know. But Persia is already a very nice civilisation the way it is.
I like how it works so well with just 2 simple civilisation bonuses.
I think their Cavalry Archers should not suddenly turn from bad to super good.
I suggest 3 changes:
Make Mahouts part of the Elite Upgrade
Move Kamandaran to Imperial Age
Add new unique technology for Cavalry Archers in Castle Age
New Unique Technology for Cavalry Archers:
+2 attack vs cavalry and +4 attack vs Camels
+5 Cavalry Armour
Now the Persian Cavalry Archers do +1 damage at -1 range against Cavalry compared to a Fully Upgraded Cavalry Archer.
(same damage but -2 range compared to Magyar Cavalry Archer vs Cavalry)
But they do +3 damage against Camels while also taking 5 less damage from them.
They also take less damage from the Spearman line but they already do bonus damage against them anyway so that wouldn’t change much.
This new cavalry Archer would be the perfect unit to support their Paladins and Hussars against their two biggest threats, Halberdiers and Heavy Camel Riders.
While being worse against Skirmishers then a Fully Upgraded Cavalry Archer.
They would still lose against Camel Archers too.
It wouldn’t be too OP either. In many situations a Fully Upgraded Cavalry Archer would be better.
The one less range is a huge disadvantage.
I just remembered Goths Infantry +1 attack vs building per age is almost always an worse version of Burmese infantry +1 attack per age. Cases where Goths bonus is better are spearman line vs walls.
