they need something for their cavs
You may think so, but thatâs a different argument. Having bad bonuses and having no bonuses are 2 completely different things. And the 2 senteces convey very different messages.
Now that we really found the purpose of your topic, I would argue that +2 bonus damage vs one of the most common unit seen in castle age itâs a strong bonus. Having +2 for free means that they need one less hit on a xbow, skirm or CA to kill it.
Also, having FU hussars, paladins and camel give them flexibility and an answer to everything. There is no other civ with such flexibility on their stables.
They may lack BE, but WE is arguably a more expensive but also more powerful substitute. The only thing that they really miss are SL, which isnât that big of a dealâŠ
Last but not least, the rest of their bonuses, tech tree and eco revolves around their stables. Either by giving them a strong eco to sustain knights and hussars productions, or to give them a fantastic trash counter to enemy pikes and camels.
So personally, I donât see any useless bonusâŠ
If you mean instead that you want some flashy cav bonus that make a name for their identity, instead of simply having solid cav options, then itâs something else, and there isnât much to discussâŠ
You want to see an useless cav civ who is terrible despite having bonuses for their cav identity? Just look at IndiansâŠ
7 Likes
Persians have trash lategame due to their weakness against Siege+Infantry pushes, Meso civs and Archer/Halberdier civs.
But they already have all what they need.
Heavy Camel is free. Thereâs something not too insane. (Iâm not sure it itâs insane or not.) Since, I think they already have what they need.
1 Like
They have Bombard Cannon
1 Like
Bombard Cannon without Siege Engineers is trash vs Teutons or smt like that on Arena and BBC wonât kill Siege Ram+Halberdier.
So you want what? +1 PA to their Knights?
Historically accurate and fitting to their identity, but whatâs going to happen then??
Persians will be instapick on every TG and insanely too strong here.
1 Like
Well, of course they have vulnerabilities like any other civ, but in term of what a stable can offer, they have the most flexible stable in the game.
And BBC even without SE is still good vs SO and trebs, you just need to be careful vs civs with better BBC.
But what are they then, if they arenât a cavalry civ?
2 Likes
yeah this is why i wrote this topic, if they donât have anything special for their identity as a cav civ, so why are they a cav civ then?! so we should give them something special for their cavs/scouts
They neither need or should have anything else.
Persians are already balanced.
2 Likes
Their identity as a cav civ have nothing special compared to any other cav civ and this is why i wrote this topic. Persian as a cav civ donât have anything special to pick them as a cav civ
So to clarify, itâs just a matter of civ identity, of appearances we could say? Not a matter of civ balance?
It have a matter for their balance of course as a cav civ, which they donât have anything special for their cavs compared to any other cav civ
Cav identity doesnât imply they must have a huge bonus on all their cav units. As I said the whole civ is designed to produce high quality cavalry and the right support for them. And heck even the war elephant can be the single best cavalry unit available given the right circumstances.
1 Like
Ok, but there are 2 things to consider then:
- How they compare to non cav civ?
How are the when compared to non cav civs? For example, players generally agree that italians (for example, but we can use other civs) have a good/mediocre cav. How persians may be seen in this prospective? Are they on the same level? Higher? Lower?
If persians can generally be seen with a overall better cav than all (or most) non cav civs, then they fill the first requirement for being a cav civ.
- How persians compare to other cav civ?
With that I donât mean that they need to be as strong as other cav, they can still be the weakest cav civ. The important thing is that the gap isnât too big. For example, how they are compared to huns? Both are cav civs, both have FU hussars and paladins with no bonus on stats (except for +2atk vs archers, but that doesnât count it seemsâŠ) and both have cav UU.
Now, huns have a faster working stable, persians have camels. The 2 things cover different areas, but still demonstrate how one civ outshine the other on different areas. Now huns UU is more viable than persians one for sure, but that isnât a fact of cavalry identity, simply some UU are more viable that others, is a problem that plague several civs.
If with persians you can scout rush, use knights in castle age, have different viable cav options the game, in my opinion can be considered as a cav civ, and they fill the second requirement.
1 Like
Yeah i agree with you that they are in general are a cav civ, but this is why i wrote my topic, i mean they are a cav civ but have nothing special to their cavs which they need actually. Even Portuguese (Gunpowder civ) with their 20% discount on gold have better cavs with this discount than Persian; Turks (Gunpowder civ) have better scouts, Spanish (Gunpowder civ) have Paladin and Hussar and free gold blacksmith but a civ like Persian which they are a cav civ have nothing special to their identity as cav civ except full stable upgrades.
How in the world Portuguese have better cav than Persian? No hussar, no paladin, no camels at all, and no cav UU. Sure they save some gold on knights, but the Persian economy is so much more powerful than the Portuguese one it doesnât matter, Persian will have more villagers sooner to mine gold faster.
Turks have better scouts but nothing else, and Spanish have no camel. And same deal than with Portuguese: their eco is dwarfed by the Persian one, and they donât have a cav UU or the trash bow to have an easy combo to field.
2 Likes
I am not talking or comparing between cav civs or non-cav civs, i am saying that even some civs are not cav civs but have better discounts/bonuses for their units/cavs comparing to persian which they have not anything unique for their cavs; no discounts, no +armors/attacks, no faster moving, no +hp, no unique stables work rate. They are completely generic cav civ
pls focus
Besides the facts those bonuses are all taken, how are they more legitimate than +2 attack against archer? And you canât just decide that the tech tree of the civ has nothing to do with what the civ specializes in. Are Portuguese no longer a gunpowder civ if the enemy doesnât micro and thus make arquebus useless? Are Chinese not an archer civ because their arbs donât have a straightforward bonus?
1 Like