I disagree. Persians start with 50f/50w, and in Feudal age they usually get 2 more villagers (~15 viks + wheelbarrow gives 1.8 villager production time). So first villager is “free” from the starting food, and the 50w gives you like one free farm with pays back nearly 100f when the second villager comes out, if the first " free villager" makes the “free farm”.
So overall they are 2 villagers ahead on clicking castle age without being tight on resources like chinese.
Then they get half a villager during castle age up time, so you get for instance ~50f/70w from free farm+farmer and lumberjack. And you outscale moat civs with your faster TC and your 2.5 villagers.
Disagree, being middle of the pack trash units wont make you need to win early. This makes no sense. Having bad trah makes you need to win early, if you are miflddle of the pack, you just need middle of the pack level of performance.
The way it is now is fine already. I like playing them this way. Those who feel Persians are not unique/interesting enough can play other civs and let people who like them play them. We are a consistent 2% to 2.5% of play rate in 1v1 RM since their Dark age nerf (revert 5% bonus), and a high pick rate in open map team games due to having paladins. We don’t need them, they can enjoy the Franks/Magyars/Lituanians/Gurjaras cavalry civs like everyone else.
Give back the 5% faster working TCs in Dark Age but not to the dock, only to the TC.
Give Elite War Elephant the Mahout tech for free.
Unique Tech ideas:
How about something religious/monk related. Maybe tap into their identity as a center for Shiaism. In terms of time line it would also make sense for it to be an Imperial Age tech as it was later in History (during Safavids) that Shia Islam became the state’s official religion. So what could this tech be?
Maybe a tech called “Seminary” would be interesting and not too OP. It will be something like ‘Monasateries produce Monks 100% faster’ to reflect the fact that Persians imported and trained a lot of clerics during the Safavid era to help them rapidly change the religious landscape of Iran. So in game it’ll be something like the Goth’s Perfusion tech but only for monks. As far as I know we don’t really have a tech or bonus around the idea of spamming monks so it will also be fairly unique and also be representetive of an interesting part of the Persian civilisations identity that is a bit overlooked in the game. It not gonna win or lose games but it’l be an interesting little something extra for Persians to play with.
Another idea could be an Imperial Age Unique Tech called “Falsafa”. This would make Monks be able to convert 2 units before needing to recharge their “faith” but also it would make that faith recharge a lot slower after the second conversion. This would obviously be a bit stronger than the previous idea, but it still requires micro as you’d need to click the second target for conversion manually and also monks usually get picked off after the first conversion anyway so possibly not OP?
Another possibility would be an Imperial Age UT called “Jihad”. This would greatly increase resistance to conversions for military units only. Something akin to the Teutons civ bonus but with a price tag and only affecting military units. From a gameplay perspective this would be an indirect buff to War Elephants which really need to see more gameplay action.
anohter idea would be an Imperial Age UT called “Mysticism”. I don’t know about this, maybe something like instantly produce 5 free monks at each TC or at each Monastery or both.
Or an Imperial Age UT called “Mujtahed”. This would make some sort of buff for monks. Increase in stats such as HP and armor, maybe healing rate. Not sure exactly, would need to be something balanced obviously.
Another possibility would be a UT called “congregation”. Increase gold gather rate of captured relics.
They are tight on food. Their eco bonus consumes food faster than normal while the vills take time to pay off.
I would like to see an Imp UT that enables monks to instantly convert enemies on being deleted, like Sacrifice from AOE 1. Persians are an AOE 1 civ as well, so it would be nice, considering the upcoming DLC is also going to focus on AOE1.
I believe this civilization is mostly based on the Sasanian dynasty, so Zoroastrianism might be a better source, which maintains a consistent theme with the Kamandaran and heavy cavalry warfare tradition.
But more importantly, experience tells us that monk UTs are often unpopular UTs. I’d rather use it to improve other military units like CA or swordsmen.
Why don’t I just build a few more monasteries?
The need to replenish monks is not as high as other military units, even for the something like Aztec monk rush.
I don’t think it’s a gimmick that people will welcome.
The effect must be lower than Faith, or the cost must be higher than Faith, otherwise people will just choose the Faith. Also, it makes War Elephants significantly harder to deal with. Due to the difficulty of balancing, personally don’t like it.
The last UT like this was removed and became a free bonus for another civ later.
Do we need to make it happen again?
This is likely to be very unpopular in AoE2 in my opinion.
For players who research it, this effect is very unattractive. For opponents affected by this effect, this hurts the game experience a lot. In short, it’s cool the first time see it, but not particularly fun afterward.
Yea but it doesn’t fit the timeline of the game. And clearly its just a catch all umbrella CIV for all the various dynasties that ruled over Iran in the middle ages. And the architecture is clearly Islamic. And they have gunpowder units which clearly is way outside of the time period of the Sassanids.
That may be true, but its very hard tweaking those things without making Persians OP.
Because then you can put those resources into something else? The idea with this isn’t to give some amazing OP bonus to the Persians as I don’t think they need that. But something to just make them a little bit more unique and interesting.
No, Sasanian totally fits the definition of AoE2 Persian civilization. In other words, the Persian civilization is Sasanian. I’m not denying that it also represents Persia in the Islamic period, but the civilization is clearly based on Sassanian in every way except the architecture set, and there are also many people in the community suggesting to change to the Central Asian architecture set. Regarding gunpowder, this is a weak argument, like the Goths have gunpowder, it’s all about balance.
Giving incomplete unit bonuses is an acceptable direction. For example, CA without Bracer +3 attack, Longswordsman without the next upgrade costs -45 food and -10 gold.
Or you can just keep Mahouts instead of stuffing them with something less popular.
With the resources invested in the castle and UT, I can build at least 4 monasteries.
Sassanians ruled from the 3rd century to the 7th century. AOE2 timeline is from the fall of rome in the 5th centuy until roughly the beginning of the 16th century. Sassanid Persia barely fits in the AOE2 timeline and even then not completely.
Nothing about the civilisation is specifically Sassanid and it feels much more like an umberella civ for all the various medieval dynasties that ruled over Iran. Its not just gunpowder. The entire tech tree is a medieval tech tree. Trebuchets, crossbows, steel weapons and armour, gunpowder, Islamic architecture, camels which the sassanians never used.
As for goths getting gunpowder it actually makes sense, since the Goths settle and morph into other Western European and Central European cultures over time so it makes sense for them to have access to gunpowder in the Imperial Age.
Similarly its fine to see the Persians as being Sassanid in the Dark Age or even in Feudal Age but clearly the identity of the civilisation becomes Islamic from the Castle Age onwards with access to camels and the Islamic architecture.
I can’t think of a less popular UT currently in game than Mahouts.
Silly argument, obviously a castle has other benefits as well and you aren’t just building it to get the UT.
The dev chose the War Elephants, the Battle of Bukhara, Taq Kasra, the simurgh, etc. I don’t intend to convince you, but I believe most people agree that Sasanian elements are at the core of Persian civilization, even it has Islamic Persian elements too.
In addition, here to remind you that the so-called AoE2 timeline is only a rough general term. The definition of each civilization is different and unclear. Some civs like the Huns and Goths are obviously early, the Chinese are believed to have begun in the 6th century, and the Mongols even have to wait until the 13th century. It is not surprising that the Persians can be earlier. Even in the 5th century, there was the greatest Khosrow I at that time.
So why don’t you think it would be better to just give gunpowder to those European cultures instead of giving gunpowder to the Goths? Chinese gunpowder was learned and spread to the West by the Mongols. Why don’t these two civilizations have hand cannons?
In fact, Goths can’t lose the hand cannoneers or it will be unbalanced. Historical reasons are only added as an afterthought as much as possible. May be appropriate, may be far-fetched, but the balance is something matter.
A very far-fetched afterthought. Like AoE3, AoE2 doesn’t have this kind of definition to the tech tree too.
Can you explain why conquistadors and organ guns are available earlier than trebuchets? Were the Dark Age of the Spanish the Imperial Age of the Goths? Why can’t the Chinese use crossbows and halberds in the “Dark Age”?
And those monk UTs were removed earlier than Mahouts.
Mahouts is just not decent enough since it seems a wasted slot for UT, but at least balanced and useful.
How about saying this to those UTs that were removed?
Do I have the energy to build a castle first when I want to use monk rush? How many situations that I still need to use monk rush after I already build a castle? Not to mention, how many people like to use monk rush in the Imperial Age without a powerful monk bonus?
Yes, this is more or less the current situation.
And exactly because of that, if any change is implemented with a historical theme in mind, it should refer to the islamic persia, not the sassanian one. We should aim to make make the Persians civ more representative of the whole medieval Iran, not of its earliest stage only.
I hope you don’t get me wrong. I respect your opinion, and don’t think the addition of Islamic elements is unacceptable. Since it still able to represent the Islamic period while keeping a consistent Sassanian theme, I personally prefer to keep it. Of course, adding some elements like Safavid is also fine and decent. But saying that Sassanian does not fit AoE2, I can’t agree.
Extra HP and faster working rate are two different bonuses. In game description has put them together. Same with Turks having 3 gunpowder bonuses as 1. Technically Berbers has the least bonuses. They have 3 and 1 of them is for Navy. And yet they are consistently top 5 Arabia civ since DE.
Like WTF does this even mean? How can representing the islamic period still be consistant with the Sassanian theme? I just can’t even follow what the hell your saying…
I don’t think you should read too much into this. The AoK civs were mostly quite broad umbrellas. Persians have always had Hand Cannoneer and Bombard Cannon, and in the AoK campaigns represented Khwarazm and various Crusades-era states, so it’s clear the original intention was not that they were just Sassanids.
Bukhara was added as part of the Forgotten Empires mod, by fans who had nothing to do with ES, and the Simurgh was added for DE, probably chosen by someone else entirely. It’s not like these choices were made at the same time or by the same people, so I don’t think you can sensibly read coherent design intentions into them.
So did you mean now this civilization with Sassanian stuff as the main elements is not representing Islamic Persian in your opinion? Isn’t the current Burgundians whose theme is distinctly the duke period also representing their barbarian period in the game? Aren’t the Spanish and Portuguese whose theme are obviously the exploration age also representing their Reconquista period in the campaign?
My “consistent” means that when the new UT is also a Sasanian thing, it is consistent with other Sassanian elements, maintaining the theme. At this time, such a civilization still represents Islamic Persia.
Of course we can say is that the civ could have more Islamic elements to emphasize the Islamic period, but you can’t say the Islaic period can’t be represented when the civ has a Sassanian theme because it actually works that way in the game, like representing Khwarazm.
Yeah I never said Persians are only Sasanian, but what I did point out was that Sasanian elements are at the core of the theme of this civ so far. I never said it can’t include Islamic Persia. God why do I have to repeat what I have already explained.
Successive generations of developers and related participants have consciously chosen Sassanian elements, regardless of whether this was an agreement between them or not, which made up this distinctive theme and has maintained it for over 20 years so far. I love it, that’s why I stated I “personally” prefer to keep it on.
I believe that is an argument we all respect or agree with. I just don’t understand why you have been so upset with Sassanians. If you mistakenly think I’m just bothering you, I just want to tell you that my replies did just point out that I disagree with your argument that Sassanians does not fit AoE2 Persians, but I’ve never been adamant that the Sassanians must be everything of the civ.
What’s more, my more replies were aimed at monk UT, which doesn’t matter whether it is Sassanian or Islamic. No matter which period you prefer, game balance and gameplay design are issues we cannot avoid.
Not gonna get bogged down with the historical arguments (BTDT), but whatever changes are made to Persians bonuses/UTs should make the civ more interesting. I’m wondering whether initial resources + resources per Age would be balanced (with the intent of synergizing with their faster working TCs).
I think the regenerating cavalry UT is a solid idea, wouldn’t be OP, and somewhat solves the issue of them having once been renowned for their full stables, whereas that aspect has been powercrept into diminished significance.
Alternatively, the Mahouts tech could provide a training speed boost to War Eles, and possibly a small conversion resistance or food discount (with the current speed given for free or baked into the Elite upgrade).
Alternatively, Persian Imp UT could give camels some kind of boost, like +1/1 (1/2?) armor and/or faster training speed. Or a cav archer tech, but I’m not crazy about that idea, despite the historical basis for it.
If Mahouts gets replaced by a niche monk tech, that will inevitably kick the can a few months down the road, then people will make a thread about how their new Imp UT is boring/niche, and should be replaced (as happens with every low value/niche UT regardless of the overall power or other strengths of the civ.)
This had been discussed in other thread before and seemed not bad.
It can be named like Immortals or something.
I don’t know any Islamic term suitable to this effect, but if there is, it’s an option too.
So it still serves the UU only? Would people feel the same again that it should be part of the UU line?
Intuitively feel this may be too strong unless they lose Halberdier.
People hope that UT, as a feature and characteristic of civilization, should provide some solid or interesting strategic values, rather than simply filling a slot. Otherwise, as I stated, Mahouts can be left alone there.
At the beginning, I challenged to the effect of those idea about monk UTs, nothing more than hoping that I could be persuaded, or that better suggestions were put forward. But the response I got was about historic. Should I not explain at all?
Depends on the amount. Like +50 food/Age would probably be fine, maybe even up to 50/100/150 by Imp. Not necessary of course, but it partly assuages the issue of faster TCs being a double edged sword.
Nor I, but I do know there was a strong tradition of Iranian physicians like al-Razi, so this tech could even be a reference to that.
TBH I’m not sure how many people really believe that techs that only benefit 1 unit or a UU are bad, given how little I hear complaints about Anarchy, Marauders, Corvinian Army, El Dorado, Logistica…even Berserkergang is rarely criticized apart from its high cost.
I definitely don’t think +1/1 is too strong. 1/2 maybe, but I’m not convinced with Hindustanis/Gurjaras having more powerful camel bonuses for free, among so many other things.