The Mountain Royals DLC - Persian changes

I would like to thank the developers for being possibly inspired by some of my desired changes for the “Persians” in my created theme to the Return of Rome DLC last May: AoE 2 DE Campaigns suggestions - Feedback DLC: Return of Rome :smiling_face:

The strength values for the war elephant have been reduced, but the values of the elite war elephant have been strengthened. I laugh and cry at the same time.

However, with the addition of a human special unit, a Persian paladin names “Savar”, my suggestion is supported.

The inclusion of the “caravanserai” in the Imperial age is further positive fact in relation to historical accuracy, because the word “kārvānsarāy” comes orignially from Persian.

The focus of the developers in the changes for Persians is obviously to strengthen their cavalry units.

The addition of Parthian tactics is also something typically Persian and reinforces the peculiarities of the Persians.

The Persians also get a new fortress technology.

Here are all the changes that affect the Persians. The changes mentioned strengthen the Persians as a late game civ.

Thanks at this point to the YouTuber “Spirit Of The Law”, who recently presented this new videos with the shown content.

Now if only they listened to the large amount of people that want their architecture to change to Central Asian.


Of course yes, the large number of fans currently want adapted architecture sets like never before.

Considering that civilizations will constantly being expanded with the same architectural sets, this great wish of the fans is fully understandable.


IMO the middle east set more closely exemplifies Sassanian era architecture, whereas Central Asian more exemplifies Safavid era architecture.

To me the civ design seems to tilt more to safavid, so if the devs want to make the persians embody Persian history as a whole, then i can see using the middle east architecture as a counterbalance.

If the devs really wanted to double down that in game persians represent safavids, then I’d agree, but I don’t think the devs are focusing 100% so I think the middle east set is reasonable. Not to say the desire for central asian architecture is un-reasonable but I think the using the middle eastern set is justifiable.


I disagree. I think the Feudal Central Asian set looks a lot closer.

(Not a great image, as the building has not been treated kindly by the elements). Here you can see the buildings look a lot like the Central Asian Feudal barracks. The colour of the brickwork is also closer.


At least according to the wiki, the middle eastern set uses Iranian architecture as an influence whereas central asian architecture using Timurid architecture of Samarkand and Bukhara as the primary influences.

If you look up the wikipedia page on iranian architecture (it seems to mean the architecture of iran thru history not iranian architecture as a singular concept), to me eye the earlier stuff looks more like middle eastern set, but yeah you get into the later safavid stuff and it’s very close to central asian.

1 Like

Here’s the thing, Arabic architecture uses some Persian elements because after conquering them, they used their architects for some buildings. Namely, mosques. So it was going to have Persian elements no matter what.

Central Asian on the other hand is just 100% Persian. Samarkand and Bukhara were built by the Persians. Timurid architecture is also heavily taken from Persian architecture, just taken to a bit more of an extreme.

Clicking the “Parthian style” links to buildings like I posted earlier, which in my opinion still look closer to the Feudal Age Central Asian set.