In STOL video on the Persian he mentioned that were originally supposed to have decent CA however the devs overestimated how powerful CA would be and assume Persian CA would be a solid option despite lacking bracer. Replacing Kamandran with a UT designed to benefit CA would help emphasize CA as a part of the Persian identity. I do not know what to call it but it should Decrease the reload speed, frame delay, and attack delay of the Calvary archer. This would encourage hit and run tactics while also making up for lacking bracer.
In my opinion, Persians are fine. They aren’t a thrilling civ to play, but they are also one of the oldest releases. It only makes so much sense to rework old material X times and I think effort should be put into creating new material/balancing recent DLCs instead.
I would agree Persians need a minor buff, but I’m thinking maybe +1 armor to Archer-line within Kamandaran tech would be enough, to allow them to play better their desired comp of Paladin + trashbows.
The civ design makes sense, because they still have something unique going for them, with faster working TCs and a full Stable + a very pop-efficient UU (mostly relevant for TGs and sometimes Arena, but still).
you mean effectively like a kipchak? i know its not exactly the same but the idea is similar, low damage, more arrows etc. i think its too similar to things that already exist (mongol civ bonus / kipchaks) although it does make CA a lot more appealing, i far prefer mangudai and kipchaks purely due to their attack delay
effectively this means nothing. berbers stable is 100x more appealing. gurjara stable is 100x more appealing
having a “full” stable. doesnt even exist. because it isnt a full stable. there are no battle eles. nevermind having a full stable doesnt even make the civ exciting
having faster working TCs is definitely not unique in any impactful way or form.
literally the only 2 unique things about persians is their douch (which isnt singular in its uniqueness) and their trashbows, which dont happen that often anyway
you are discussing power levels now. Which is a self-contained discussion. There will always be a top dog. We could buff Persians TCs to work 40% faster and then you will come with a post saying “no point playing Gurjaras when Persians are more appealing”.
I agree, Persians are like bottom 15 civs atm. But their civ design makes sense. And they even have 1-2 maps where they are semi-meta so you can’t even say they are “bad”, either.
Battle Elephant isn’t a real unit, in the sense of relevant 1v1 unit. It’s Hussar, Camel, Paladin. Persians have all 3 with FU.
you can write this type of post, ignoring advantages and listing disadvantages, for virtually any civ. Gurjaras, not even Spearmen upgrade and bad Archery Range! Franks, a cav civ without even Hussar!
Again, Persians make sense. Their bonus is not bad. There are better bonuses, and their bonus takes a while to kick in, but it’s possible to create a 5-10 vill lead given equal macro on both sides from it.
Even in early Castle, you are often like 3 vills ahead due to it. Persians eco is actually fine, the main problem for Persians is that they don’t have a military bonus, when there are civs that have both an eco and a military bonus (e.g. Burgundians cheap Cavalier and the early eco upgrades)
They are the only cav civ that has below 45% win rate at high level. Interesting that is your level actually and you find them fine.
I understand the stigma about reworking Legacy civs but Kamandram is a relatively new UT and it doesn’t really fit the Persian considering they never even used crossbows. Also the balancing on Kamandram is weird. They can be strong if your opponent is stuck in castle age. But in imp post 8Atk is very easy to negate meaning they are good at countering halbs and not much else.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Did you? I didn’t read your second comment.
Sure. But everyone should have at least 45% win rate in Arabia. Persians don’t have that on 1700+ elo. In fact the higher the elo, the lower their 1v1 Arabia win rate is.
This could be overlooked if they were good at closed maps. But it is the opposite. They are one of the worst closed map civ. And they are not a pure water civ either. Only map type they are good at is hybrid.
I don’t think they need a big buff either. Imp UT should be free with Elite upgrade and get an useful UT.
Maybe they could remove Mahouts (work it into the Elite upgrade) and add a new tech for Cavalry Archers such as Cavalry Archers +3 attack. Then they’d have +2 attack but -1 range compared to generic Cavalry Archers.
dunno you also need to consider that:
a) they DO have a map where they are meta or close to that (it might not be the map you like but they do have one)
b) they do, at least on paper, have both a reasonable eco bonus and a reasonable tech tree. +100 starting resources AND faster working TC. And they get acceptable Skirms (without Bracer but with last armor), FU halbs, Hand Cannoneers, Bombard Cannon, Hussar. That’s rly better than most civs can ask.
The only real disadvantages Persians have are lack of Bracer, lack of Arbalest, bad UU and bad Militia-line. But if having Bracer is the standard for a civ to be viable, I guess Franks, Malians, Teutons, Cumans should be bottom tier civs.
I just think that their bad winrate can be explained by people civ picking so much and having more experience with civs like Berbers or Hindustanis than Persians. Persians are probably rarely, if ever, picked as a civ, and most people try to do full Knights with them which results pretty much them being played as a generic civ. When you have a civ that has a “flat” progression with nearly no power spikes, you need goot macro to make it work. Most people would rather do something easy to execute like 3 Stable Berber cheap Knights.
instead of removing kamadaran, I think it should affect their own CA is instead of archer line. Of course, they shouldn’t have heavy CA upgrade.
The real disadvantage is they are so boring imo. If I want to play knight with a camel support, I’ll choose Berbers. maybe even Chinese 11.
I’m considering all these. They were okay until DOI. So maybe they are just the victim of this wonderful pathing and inclusion of Gurjaras+Hindustanis.
The problem with Persians is how bad they die to halb ram.
I had that opinion for quite some time too but don’t think that’s true anymore. By no means are they a good civ here but I don’t think they are among the worst anymore (something like huns, berbers, goths, chinese, tartars, mayans is way worse imo). Firstly you have strong boom. It takes a while to get going but at least you have +100 res to start with.
You have halb, siege ram and bbc which are among the most important standard units for closed maps. If the game goes to trash war persians is one of the best civs. Trashbow can also be useful before that point (or simply hc as infantry counter). Paladin and heavy camel aren’t the most common closed maps units but ca be good sometimes. And let’s not forget about war elephants. I’m not kidding btw. It’s super hard to play because your strategies (imp opening, timings, eco,…) must be on point but it can work on every elo if you play smartly (which generally is a necessity for persians as they are a rather difficult but not necessarily weak arena civ for instance).
Chinese is completely elo based. They are right now #1 Arena civ for 2000+ elo on ladder.
Berbers and Mayans are better than Persians imo as having a good UU helps a lot in closed map.
Persians is bottom 3 in Arena both in all elo range and 2000+ elo range. Same thing in all closed maps.
That’s precisely why you shouldn’t take winrates too seriously. They don’t reflect how good a civ is. Chinese is a bad arena civ no matter the elo.
A good UU is mostly used for pushing in castle age. And archer units aren’t really suited for that. Wall behind and make a siege workshop: aggression stopped. In some cases you can try to make them in late game but mayans dies hard to champion SO so early imp arb push is one of the few things mayans can execute well (but not even that is great because no bbc and bad monks). Persians at least have good late game and bbc so they are okay imo.