The ultimate Persian re-design thread

Persians don’t get bracer so if you give persian CA +2 against pikes, that’s only +1 compared to a bracer civ. IDK if you’d considered that or not.

1 Like

It wouldn’t be as strong in imperial, but it would still give some benefit in bigger fights. It would mean it would take 3 shots and a miss to kill, rather than 4 shots.

1 Like

Admittedly Persians need basically no late game buffing, so maybe it’s for the best you get +2 in castle age but w/o bracer it’s comparatively reduced to +1 in imperial. that’s really slick actually.

1 Like

But what is civ identity other than historical expression within the game’s limits?

According to the developer commentary, they deliberately made them use war elephants even though they knew it was not historically accurate. They did so because it was fun.

That tells you their intended identity right there. They are a Cavalry focused civilization that has really cool war elephants.

Since they were released, one other identity has emerged; the Persian Douche. When players think about persians, they think about late game Unstoppable armies of war elephants, and Persian Town Center drops.

That’s the identity that should be preserved. A big part of why people play this game is for the nostalgia, the joy of messing with your friends by dropping a town center on them and laughing at their pain being a meaningful part of that.

So I would like to see Persians expanded in those directions. Make war elephants more viable in the early game, and make weaponized Town centers useful for more than just the Dark Ages. If Cavalry archers can be used to accomplish that goal, so much the better.

Those two changes alone would get players to use something like 50% of the civilizations bonuses that currently go ignored for the majority of most games. And I can’t think of a better definition of well-balanced than when players regularly use all of their civilizations bonuses.

So it just occurred to me.

  • According the the roadmap FE released last June, they have listed for 2023 “So, you liked dynasties of India? We’re taking notes…”.
  • And in the june pup we were just teased about a “rework” to Persians.
  • And a while back there was this poll where the focus of the next dlc was voted on. The most popular answer was the Caucasus and Eastern Steppe and Central Asia were other popular answers. Admittedly it was recent but I think after LotW and DotD, the community is on average a bit tired of adding Euro civs.

I wonder if we’re in store for a Persian Civ split. That’d be very bold to split an AoK civ, but we’ll see.

I don’t know how I feel about a Persian civ split. I think I would prefer if the Persian civ remained and then other Iranic people were added in, like Afghan, Kurds, Tajiks etc…


I would never play the civ again if they made that cancerous tactic better or easier. It is the epitome of “one-sided fun” and I hope that the Persian rework includes binning the double HP.

I get the elephant part though. And the civ has a unique elephant unit with its own model, so there is no way the in-game Persians will stray away from that identity. I just keep seeing weird stuff like “make their foot archers really good” when that hasn’t been a Persian thing since the Iron Age. When instead there are Middle Ages elements of their identity and military that are not represented, but are easily available in-game. Like Steppe Lancers, giving them the Central Asian architecture or doing with Mahouts what they did with Berserkergang/Royal Heirs and giving them something to make their Cavalry Archers better.

1 Like

Mostly agree with this. I know some people complain about the devs nerfing off meta stats, but I don’t think anyone likes the Persian douche tc.

The bonus does provide some practical benefits. Persian are a little slower so they might need a but more protection.

If the Persians tc kept their hp bonus but also got a new armor class then you could give every other tc a bonus against the Persian tc, with the effect of each TC being equally strong against the other.

So in every normal situation Persians would have strong TCs, but you couldn’t Persian douche.

Or you could just make your starting tc non-deletable.

I also agree that kamandaran needs no buff.

When would Persians be making xbows? In a team game they’d probably open with knights, and 1v1 they’d only make xbows in a trash war. If you’re against a lot of pikes, their CA is perfectly viable in castle age. Encourage players to go for that.

Kamandaran could actually be moved to imp imo.

I hope devs just switch it up a bit, so it’s not that one-sided anymore.
BTW I just tried douching with some other civs that have interesting bonusses. Mayans is kinda interestinng as you have longer lasting food and +1 villager. It’s basically impossible to make work against opponents who know how to handle it. But there are still a lot of people who either completely overreact or are too greedy, thinking it would be a self-killer move.

I probably need to make a topic here "How to defend against a ######## explaining what’s the moves and options you have against persians and britons and what changes when facing all the other civs.

It’s so weird to see people completely ignorcing the ####### not even trying to get the wood they need to built a new TC and then have no idea what to do once their TC is down.

If you would have some experience you would know that kamandaran is currenly almost exclusively used to boost up their xbow play in the midgame.
As it looks like skirms still dominate trashbows in the super lategame.

That’s why the trashbows should receive a buff so they get used a bit more in these super lategame sitiuations.

It’s so weird so many people punching on Kamandaran here, though trashbow play is basically never seen in trashwars. Maybe that’s exactly the reason for it. It’s easy to punch on things that see basically no play.

And it’s really sad, cause trashbows are an amazing idea and would fit so well with the otherwise havy cav focussed army ot persians, especially eles.

I agree with most of your other posts in this thread, but another thing I’d like to add is that persians were originally a generalist (or pseudo-generalist, whatever people call it) cavalry civ with full stable.
So personally, I think that bringing back that part of them could be great. Like taking a different route, doubling down on how their cavalry gets small bonus damage against some units.

Give them Steppe Lancers! >:3

1 Like

I wasn’t saying Persians couldn’t make xbows, but why would they? Doesn’t really fit with their identity. Moving kamandaran to imp reinforces that cavalry identity.

Just because you’ve been forced to make trash units doesn’t necessarily mean your opponent is making exclusively halbs/hussars/skirms.

If your Persians and you’re up against Malay trash 2HS I think xbows is a good option. With their +2 pierce atk, faster ROF, they’d be far more potent.

I wasn’t saying you’d always make xbows in a trash war.

Good example.
As fat as i know Persians get completely owned by ######## ###### in Trash wars.
When there is enough eco to spam the trashmen like crazy, there’s little the trashbows can do to stop that.

Atm it’s almost never. That’s the point. Moving Kamadaran to Imp would be jet another nerf to Persians as Opposed to War Eles xbows actually see some play in the midgame for them.
And moving mahouts to castle age would add some additional investment to make War Eles work there already, whilst if it’s in imp there’s room to directly adress War Eles and bring them to a usable state in the midgame.

Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to move Kamandaran from castle age.

Idk if this is really a good idea. Giving their eco and limited other options doubling down on that would mean to give them the best Paladins in the game. And I don’t think we need to replace Franks for that role, do we?
I think Persians have interesting concepts, like both their CA and Trashbows would only need a mediocre buff to be a reliable option.
And tbh with sicilians, burgundians, lith, bulgarians and cumans we have a lot of cav powerhouses lately added which just do a lot of things better than persians. Persians could use some options. And these options are actually already designed in, they just need to be activated and worthwhile.

I get that currently xbows are viable for persians in the mid-game. I just don’t think that jives well with their identity.

It’s waaaaay up in the thread, but I was theorizing with some guys and we came up with these changes.

  1. Give persians free Bloodlines and/or Husbandry.
  2. roll mahouts into the war elephant (IDK if just elite or both. Old Royal heirs was added to elite shotel, but beserkergang was added to both berserk. I don’t have a strong opinion)
  3. move Kamandaran to imp.
  4. With our castle age UT slot, we buff the CA. The exact values could be argued, but something like +2 cav archer armor, +2 against pikes and monks.
  5. Give Persians Steppe Lancer.

Persians are a slower civ. They have no gather bonus and because of their increased TC work rate they actually burn through food faster. In the long run it’s a great bonus, but in the mid-game it might actually, possibly, be a indirect nerf. So this whole concept is based on doubling down on their cavalry identity while giving them some midgame options so they can make it to the late game.

Free Bloodlines and/or Husbandry effect the knight, war elephant, and the CA, giving you a cavalry power spike in early castle. Steppe lancer also gives them another option while again doubling down on their cavalry identity.

Bloodlines and husbandy help CA some, but aren’t as impactful as thumb ring. So while your early castle age CA are improved, they aren’t quite as improved as the knight and war elephant.

This is where their castle UT comes in. While it won’t kick in immediately, by late castle age your CA is pretty strong though mostly as a compliment to your other cavalry. However this design is a little extra good imo, as Persians are good in team game imp and don’t really need a late team game buff. Because they lack bracer, their HCA fall off a bit ending up -1 range and +1 atk vs halbs and monks, but because or their CA armor buff are still a bit more resistant to their counters.

If somehow, someway, you do all of this and the Persians are still not buffed enough, then Kamandaran can effect CA too, but re-write the effect to change only 45 gold cost to wood. So you’d still get your trashbows, but CA would still cost 15 gold, so better but not trash.

The only thing I’m not SUPER crazy about with this is that it’s odd that a cavalry civ has two UTs that buff archers. I think it works in context, but on paper that’s admittedly weird.

I don’t want to make the Persian douche better, but I also don’t want to get rid of it. I think it’s an interesting strategy that makes people play in unique ways.

No, what I want is something to encourage Persian players to use their Town centers in other aggressive ways. Right now, the HP bonus is largely ignored once the possibility of douching is past.

I disagree. All I see is a meme strat to try and end the game in the first few minutes.

The first time I encountered it, I had to restrain myself from not putting a villager in each corner of the map and building walls. Something I have never done before.

Yes, and now you know how to counter it! In fact, it probably makes you approach the entire game differently when you play against the Persians.

I think that’s delightful. The early parts of the game are too standardized on the whole; something that changes it up every once in a while is great, especially when it’s something so eminently counterable.

I wouldn’t want to make it any stronger, but it would be good to see more uses for the TC HP bonus, especially later in the game.


You think it’s a good thing to have a strategy so annoying that it makes people contemplate stalling the game out to punish the opponent?

Ok I think we know what to do with this. Please devs, just bin the double HP.