Why? Under the same food income rate, the idle TC caused by too fast TC still brings a better economy than ordinary TC, isn’t it?
I’m not sure about benefitting a common unit, since the stats for a common unit are shared with every civ that has it. But I did see some people think it’s a waste to only benefit one UU. Maybe the reason is that UT and UU only serve that civ.
For Anarchy, Marauders, Corvinian Army, the changes they bring are someting that the upgrades usually don’t (or shouldn’t) affect, so maybe that’s one of the reasons people don’t question them.
Yes, so I stated “intuitively”. But Hindustanis/Gurjaras don’t have paladins and trash crossbowmen which make their gameplay quite different from the Persians so Ican’t be sure about stronger camels.
It’s hard to know how else to interpret that. Yes, you said it also represents Islamic Persia, but recall the context: you were shouting down a suggestion purely because it was based on something Islamic.
First, my attitude is calm actually, without “shouting”, even though my personality dictates that I like to express my meaning as clearly as possible, and I’m not good at condensed English, so I often type a lot of words. I would like to apologize if people have misunderstood my attitude.
Second, the current Persian civilization in the game is indeed based on Sassanians in many obvious parts for whatever reason. I think this is a consensus, so I won’t go into details.
Third, I wrote so much not because “a suggestion purely because it was based on something Islamic”, since that is not what I don’t agree with. At the beginning, when he used some Shia stuff as the references for UT, I say Zoroastrian might be better, and that’s it.
If you want the root, I would say it all starts with this one.
What I serously disagree with is that Sasanians is considered unsuitable for Persians in the definition of AoE2.
I have tried to use the second point to reply and explain, and I didn’t expect the dispute.
All this did not need such a dispute. At the beginning, I just wanted to tell him that monk UT is not a good idea from experience.
Tight on food compared to who and at what point in the game ? I can give you that they are:
“more tight on food than most civs in Feudal age”,
tight on food for the first 3 to 5 minutes of castle age if you FC into 3/4 TC boom.
very tight on FC build order as you need to really immediately build blacksmith & market upon reaching feudal age (or use more builders) if you want to avoid Feudal idle time.
You have to adapt your build order (eg. one more farm) compared to other civs, just like Malays you cannot “do the same” as most other civs.
When I say that they are not tight of food, I compare them with a civ without strong eco in early feudal So they are not tight on food compared to civs like Incas, Byzantines, Spanish, Berbers, Koreans, Sicilians, Malays, Magyars, Bulgarians when no maa, Turks/Bohemians/Portuguese when not opening archers, and maybe Vietnamese, Saracens and Goths.
Just check the math and you will see. Here some facts to help you out:
Start with 50f and 50w
in feudal age every 250s when everyone make 10 villagers (or 7+ wheelbarrow), you get a 11th one, pay 50f for it but gain ~2 villager.minutes from the earlier spawning of the 10 villagers (2.27s for the first, 4.54s for the second,…).
in castle age and fir each TC, every 175s when everyone make 7 villagers, you get a 8th one, pay 50f and gain ~1.5 villager.minutes of resources.
a farm cost 60w and give 20.27f/min before wheelbarrow and 22.86f/min after.
a lumberjack gather 23.4w/min before DBA and 28.08w/min after.
a Persian villager is created every 25s/22.73s/21.74s/20.83s
For feudal age aggression, you litererally just pay your first additional villager with the free 50f and make it a farmer with the free 50w, and your additional incomes exceed the cost of the next villagers from your main TC in Feudal and Castle age. 2 wheelbarrow farmers (from the 2.5 villagers advantage in feudal) gather enough resources to keep constant “additional production” from 3TCs in castle age, they gather 150f every 3 minutes…
I disagree that the villager production takes time to pay off. You must be confusing with additionnal TCs, where each of them cost 275w/100s + 300w (5 farms) + 5 farmers working time + 150 to 300 villager.minute resources to build the TC (using 1 to 4 villagers).
Compared to that, Persians nearly pay their villagers with the resources from faster villagers production, got a 50w/50f buffer and additional villagers easily compensate for the rest.
I would avoid that because Persians monks are weak without Sanctity, redemption and Atonement.
It is less of a double edge sword as Malay faster uptime is. When clicking Feudal, both civs got 2 villagers, but Malay have to pay them early and Persian late.
Persians are not really tight on resources. They would be tight though if we removed the 50f/50w and added a 5% dark age bonus though…
Just do the math and tell me your point in the game where you feel that if you didnt have the +50f/+50w/TC bonus, you would be better off…
Maybe you are just being greedy and researching upgrades that you would not when playing a civ without real eco bonus (ex horse collar when opening archers as Magyars) and later realize that you kind of paid it with the initial 50f/50w that were meant to use for TC production…
Yes, even if you stop your TC for 20s every 10 / 7 villagers in Feudal / Castle age, you still got 120 / 90 villager.minute of resources.
I hope Persians keep FU halbs and FU heavy camels.
I personaly dont need camel buff as I rather take knights as my power unit, and use camels against knight spam and sometimes cav archers.
Obviously having a special camel line like Saracens/Berbers/Byzantines/Hindustanis/Gurjaras do would be cool and surely not OP, I just think Persians do not need buffs and are interesting already. Maybe I am the only onevin thus thread who enjoy the Persians and their turbo TCs without thinking that I am being robbed of my eco…
Sounds good. I wouldnt mind that, but those who complain about Persians being uninteresting would probably not see a difference.
I don’t think the games needs more OP paladins. Franks/Teutons/Lituanians is already too much.
I will not pay for a monk tech as persian unless the tech is really OP. Missing Redemption/Atonement/Sanctity push me away from Persian monks.
The problem is that a lot of UT are very situational and are mostlt researched late imperial team games as “sure, w/e”. UT as often researched either because it is OP (like Goth/Poles castle age UT), or because you want to train the UU (Mongols, Hindustanis, Spanish,Koreans,…), or because you’re Franks and castles are cheap.
I think it is fine to benefit only 1 unit, even if it is the UU. We really dont need Franks castle age UT to be buffed to more units.
Not that much. 50 extra food covers the 5% faster TC. You get 1 extra villager right before clicking up to Feudal. And during age up, you get 130/1.05 = 124 seconds of work time which you can use to collect wood to make the 1 extra farm. If there was no 124 seconds of TC idle time (Not actually idle, it is aging up), it would be tight.
I agree that adding (back) the 5% dark age bonus on TCs would be a straight buff as the extra villager would be paid by the 50f and would use the 50w to farm and generate 40f already upon reaching feudal age.
I read some time ago a thread about buffing Persians, stating that they were not really that strong in early DE. Someone proposed to replace the starting 50f/50w with the 5% dark age bonus, and others opposed the idea.
Agree. The Persian camels also feel to me like assistants supporting the knights’ battle, rather than being a main force.
I think it depends on the cost and the regeneration rate.
But indeed if this effect is for a Cavalier civ, or for a Paladin civ that doesn’t have such a solid economic bonus, it might be easier to balance.
Yes but if they get more than 6hp in 12s, they will need a 6th hits to die from halbs. So you will easily get as tanky as a Teuton/Frank paladin. And hp regen on a 7 PA cavalry unit would be even stronger at raiding.
So to balance out we should make it so expensive that it becomes more of a DM or very late game UT, so I am not convinced.
Well for late game, Magyars/Teutons/Cumans/Lituanians/Persians got crop rotation and two man saw already, Franks got stronger paladins, fast stables, Spanish got spanish gold, And huns got fast stables and a smooth eco all game long.
So I would either give it to a new civ, or as an alternative UT for a cavalier civ like Sicilians (replacing hauberk) or Poles (replacing any of their infamous UT).
I proposed 15 HP/min. Same as Berbers Camels. That is 3 HP in 12 seconds. So no extra hit is needed. But still will perform better than generic in large scale fight due to walking/running time to find a new target.
After an Imperial Age UT. While these 2 get it for free.
I would guess 20 or maybe even 25 per min. Berber UT also benefits a ranged unit, that is why its rate has to be lower.
Well, “a solid economic bonus” I mentioned did not assume to include these yet.
Since mostly they are seldom researched, I feel they are fine to this issue.
In addition to knight regeneration, knight (or cavalry, or maybe even also infantry) return cost when killed is another effect that can be considered. It can be also named to Immortals, by the way.
I still think the Persians gaining a bonus for CAs would be a good idea, as it has historical significance (the Sasanians were famous for horse archers), and CAs would also help protect more vulnerable cavalry from spear units and other units that can be hit-and-run.
Ahhh it wasn’t even what I’m saying, but anyway this arguments boring me… I wasn’t really intending to talk about abstract things like the civ identity etc beyond explaining the reason for my UT ideas. If you don’t like the tech ideas per se fine I don’t care, I like them. Let’s just agree civs in AOE have always been a ########### thematically and just move on.
This is actually interesting and even conceptually makes sense as mahouts could in theory be training the elephants faster. Although I don’t really know how spammable elephants would be with their prohibitive cost, but still would help to get a few out in a pinch really quickly if need be.
How about Avecinnian Medicine? There is a cool historical basis to it too as Avecinna was one of the most important doctors and surgeons in the Medieval world and people would come from far away places such as Europe to learn the art of healing from him. Could potentially be a castle age tech and we push Kamandaran to the Imperial Age which I think is also suitable because usually it’s too expensive in the castle age to tech into and having trashbows as an additional trash unit available in the Imperial Age is when I believe that tech gets the most utility anyway.
That can be a solid Castle Age play for many civilizations. Knights are simply better marauders than Camels, so mixing the two can pay dividends against non-Camel civilizations who are playing for knights. Be mindful that monks can spoil your day by converting Camels. The precise mix requires judgement.
What about giving them +50 Wood and food for each age advancement (in addition to more starting resources)?
That would’nt make them more “interesting” but it would Help them to some degree early on in the Game.
Some other points i read in older topics:
gain Arbalest but still Lack bracer.
As of now we have only one civ that got bracerless arbs which is malians. Imho trashbows are fine as they are but i think its an interesting point.
Mahouts integrated to the Elite Upgrade
as many others already said.
new UT which gives Bonus “all buildings” Armor to castles
How high the Armor should be or If its worth a consideration is something Higher elo Players than me should judge. It would somehow fit the Spirit of old “oiling boil” ut.
Edit: added a space after the -
I think they should replace their War Elephants with Sogdian Cataphracts (or change the names to Ghulams or something) then replace Mahouts with other tech that gives Sogdian Catas melee armor. If you still want to give them elephants then unlocking elephant tech line should be enough.
Cav archer + 1 range per age starting castle age and (maybe also benefit from civ bonus).
Mahout is free for war elephants.
new UT: mounted units cost 20% less pop space. (maybe down to 10% or 15% depend on how good it is at 20%)