The ultimate Persian re-design thread

Persians are not an archer focused civ, and historically their strengths during the middle ages lay in cavalry and cavalry archers.

If we want a new foot archer UU, lets wait for a civ to come along that actually has reason to get them.

So don’t replace all the gold cost, just do part of it. The thing is, the precedent is already a part of the civ, so it makes much more sense to expand it than to try to give them a whole new direction. They’ve never been a CA civ.

Trash, or near-trash CAs would fit with their existing themes AND give them viable CAs.

You could keep Parthian Tactics, but only if you didn’t make them full trash. Which would be fine.

Their eco bonus is useless in feudal and early castle age, when it’s resources that limit you more than production capacity. 3x TC is a very nice balance for booming, with plenty of villagers but still some resources for defense. Going over that or under that is almost always a downgrade.

In reality, the main real bonus it gives is the ability to make up for being housed and such. It makes up for mistakes, it doesn’t make you stronger.

That doesn’t work. You can’t say that light cav is enough to protect their elephants when their elephants aren’t viable because their light cav can’t defend them!

The Persians have weak monks. Making those monks a lynchpin of a powerful conversion resistance tech is perfectly balanced, though you might need to make it specific to Elephants or something, but I’d be concerned that would make it too niche to justify the elephants in the first place.

I suppose it could be, ‘Units within range of a Monk have conversion resistance based on current HP’. That’s getting a bit too convoluted, though.

Persians already lack Fortified Walls and Keeps and Arrow Slits and Bracer. Their turtling is never going to be particularly good, so I find arguments about this lacking.

Especially since they’d need to be doing aggressive TC drops to GET the stone in the first place, AND the bonuses wouldn’t even kick in until the castle age!

This would be crazy OP.

This is interesting…

Also interesting but unnecessary I think. War Elephants should have that one weakness to monks. And I say this as a fan of Persians. I think giving speed boost to War Elephants is really enough to make them more viable. And I don’t think in 1v1 a Persian player should be able to field an army made of entirely unbeatable War Elephants. You should be able to throw them in with your already strong Paladin army for a bit more punch against buildings and such. After all Elephants were only ever used sparingly and as Persians you are already picking up all the armor and attack upgrades anyway as you do for your other cavalry so you don’t need to spend additional resources to “tech” into it, other than the elite upgrade.

That’s a fair point. I wasn’t sure what the numbers should be, but yes I can see that they need more.

So make it just a gold discount. We’ve already seen civs with 60% gold discounts on knights be just fine. This could be similar but for CAs, and make them very usable without needing to buff them at all.

They have two weaknesses; monks and halbs. In the lategame, monks are not an issue, because it takes too much micro, but in the early game, they’re the main and crushing weakness, and honestly the main thing other than the castle that keeps them from being used.

I’m not saying they should be fielding an army of them, but throwing out a few would be just fine, even good. The more you have, the more you’d need to defend your precious monks to keep your elephants alive, and with only 30hp, they’d be a great vulnerability.

It would be skill vs skill, and that’s exactly what you want.

1 Like

I don’t care much about historical accuracy. Also we already have Kandaran, a bonus for Persians foot archer anyway. I don’t see why they can’t have a foot archer UU. And I’m all for 2 UUs for new Persians. 2nd UU can be a heavy cavalry as well as them can get some good bonuses for CA. As for elephant, they may get one or some of the 3 reginal elephants.

Then there is no point to having civs have anything to do with their irl counterparts is there? Why not suggest a full stable access for Aztecs? Or Battle Elephants for Britons?

Civs should have an identity, or there is no point to having them in the first place.

Because it’s just an old word for archer. Persia didn’t have some special elite corps of them (unlike heavy cavalry, which did).

1 Like

50f/50w is a nice resources buffer in early feudal, which many civs do not have.

I think 3TC is only viable if you alrerdy got a lead or if the opponent does not all in you. So not a good balance in many case.

I thing going 1 TC with persians is a good strategy as well because it may force your opponent to stay on 1TC. Going 3TCs because you are Persian and want to make maximum use of your civ bonus sounds like a noob trap to me.

I think it woukd be high skill (persian opponent) vs lower skill (persian player), because you dont have to keep the monk alive, just long enough to do its job.

Keep, arrowslit, and bracers are imperial techs, which youndo not resesrch when turtling. I never saw anyome research Fortified walls outside of black forest TG and very specific situations (flemis revolution)

I guess Persians will get better cav archers (maybe bracers or a civ bonus), as it is what most voices are asking for. So the question is: what should they lose for it and what should be their weakness.

I personally like giving a weaknees to a civ because it enabled them to strenghtens another part of the civ (thats how civs get balanced). Just like:

  • Mayans and Chinese trade their weakness to halbs+SO (and Huskarls spam to some extend) against being S tier on arabia.
  • Indians were lacking a counter to eagles, and got reworked into Hindustanis with UU countering eagles, but lost halberdiers for it (and then their top tier eco) for it.

I would like Persians to keep gunpowder, because otherwise they get too similar to Magyars/Huns. And I dont want them to lose Hussars, paladins, or camels.

  • Losing Halberdiers may be interesting, as it would be the first paladin civ without it. But it would make their barracks really terrible.
  • Losing elite skirms may be interesting as well.
  • Maybe losing husbandry and giving their CA line +20% movement and attack speed ?
  • maybe losing bodkin arrow and giving their cav archers +1/+2 range and damage in castle/imperial age ?
  • Maybe losing Onagers ?

Actually, I am not sure what to do because I kind of expect the current civ design “great cavalry with eco power in the mid game” to be kept (so: string hussars, paladins, camels + faster working TC), but I am not sure what to give them as main tech tree weakness…
Like if you have strong stables, strong CA, and gunpowder, what significant tech/unit can you lack ?
Weak trash sounds like an easy road but I dont want to take it too far, and lacking an early and mid game eco sounds like a horrible idea.

Anyone has an idea what could be a good weakness for Persians ?

Monks? Siege? THS? Good Defences?

Persians lack a lot of stuff in the lategame, they can definitely use some more useful options.

1 Like

not care much =/= not care at all.

  • Monks arent significant in late game unless you have most if not all technologies
  • Having BBC + Onagers looks like very decent siege to me
  • 2HS isnt significant as long as the milicia line is weak. Having FU champions with bonus is a strength, not a standard. Lacking 2HS+Champions would become a significant weakness if they get further buffed. And when facing a EEW swarm, I would probably rather go handCannoners+hussars instead of 2HS/champions
  • I don’t know what is a “good defense”. The only civs where I see a problem are Huns (no house), Cumans and Goths (stone walls). Lacking Bracers hurts but do not feel significant. I dont think many people playing persians would ever say “Oh no, I get raided to death by hussars/eagles ! If only I got Bracers/FortifiedWalls/Keeps, this wouldnt happen !”. Lacking Fortified walls is also a shame in Blackforest, but you often multi layers anyways and the opponents end up onager cutting.

So I see they do lack a lot of stuff in the late game (like ~40 other civs).

  • Most notably they lack strong xbows/cavarchers which are the 2 go-to late game ranged units (so they rely on subpaar HCA, weak trashbows, HSkorps with 7 range, and Hand cannoners).
  • I do not see how the other missing stuff hurt them in any way.
  • If they get good HCA, this most notable wrakness wont be felt anymore.

Or do you have a common situation where you really see that you miss better monks/siege/2HS/Defenses compared to what 75% of the other civs got ?

It IS a noob trap…but so is 1tc. You end up putting too much into eco instead of aggression and become worse at it as a result, while the minor eco benefits don’t pay out until the game is already over.

It’s a buffer, sure, but it’s nowhere near as potent as true early game bonuses. It doesn’t enable early game aggression, it just allows you to make a few more mistakes without being screwed completely. Which is basically what the stats show; they’re decent at lower ELOs, but fall behind at higher ones.

If the monks go out of range or die even for 5 seconds, your war elephants are gone and it’s game over. Meanwhile, the enemy just needs to throw a few scout cavalry in their general direction. Honestly, I think the idea would be significantly harder for the persian player to execute than the enemy.

They also lack Redemption and Sanctity, which makes their ability to counter enemy siege much more limited. They’re really not a good turtling civ, and a stone bonus alone isn’t going to change that - especially not one that requires aggressive TC drops to accomplish!

Oh boy, this place is a warzone. Let me have a try at this as well. Here are my key points:

  • I see a lot of discussion about adding Steppe lancers to Persians, but very little was said about what exactly this does for them in the current meta. From what I’ve seen they’re mostly a gimmicky unit in higher levels of play and a civ with strong cavalry rarely builds them - so while I fully agree that Persians should have a flexible stable, without an incentive to actually build the lancers, I don’t see how this fixes anything.

  • As much as I enjoyed Kamandaran when it first came out, it seems to actively harm the persians’ identity and gameplan rather than help it, since it doesn’t allow the devs to add the Bracer the Persian Cav Archer desperately needs to be relevant. It is of my opinion that it has to go.

  • War Elephants remain one of the trickiest units to balance in the game, since they’re positiviely horrible in open maps but the most pop efficient unit for closed maps. Any and all buffs to its stats aiming to fix its usage in open games will severely upset their balance in closed games, so I believe that any buffs should focus on deploying them faster rather than addressing their weaknesses.

  • A lot of people brought up the Persians’ economy scaling. I’ve seen a few people doing the math here in the past and it really isn’t as impressive as it seems, as effectively what it does is letting the Persians pop cap a bit faster than other civs, often at a cost in aggressiveness. I fully believe that making it smoother rather than stronger should be the main goal here, to help the feel of the civ.

  • I’ve seen much talk of immortals giving HP regen. I’m not going to pretend I’m a history buff, but from what I gather, the main thing about the immortals army is that they were always replaced instantly to ensure their numbers were kept at exactly 10.000. I think there’s a more effective way to represent that in game than what’s being suggested.

With that in mind, here are my suggestions:

Civ bonuses

TC and dock 100% hp bonus - > 100% hp starting in feudal age.

No brainer decision, hopefully most people agree with it.

TC and docks work 10/15/20% faster → TC and docks work 5% faster and have a 5% discount in all units and techs starting from Feudal age.

I think one thing we’ve learned from Romans in AoE II is that giving a small catch-all bonus is both powerful and smooth to play with, so why not try it with the Persians too? While it overlaps with Hindustanis and Italians a little bit, such is the nature of this kind of bonus and it was already overlapping with Malay anyways.

New bonus: Persian Stables can produce different unit types simultaneously. Each unit being produced reduces overall production speed by ~33% (so 100%/66%/43%/28% depending on the units)

This is my proposal to really nail down Persians as a “Stable variety” civ. At its worst, this bonus does nothing and you can keep your knight play the exact same. However, if you’re willing to make a mixed cavalry army, then Persians can absolutely overwhelm their opponent by massing a strong army quickly. The drawback to this strategy is that said army is a bit “watered down” compared to just knights and you’ll be faced with difficult upgrade decisions come Imperial age. Do you invest heavily on Paladin or should you get Cavalier and spread out some upgrades to your other units to keep producing quickly? Hopefully, it’ll depend on the situation and reward the player who chooses it well.

Unique techs

Mahouts
NOT removed, moved to Castle Age.
War Elephants start with +15% movement speed.
Cost 300 food 300g → 300w 300g
30% movement speed increase → 15% movement speed increase, ~30% training speed increase.

This should only help War Elephants in the mid castle age especially. While still a niche unit that could be used against the militia line and occasionally buildings, if you ever choose to go with them, Mahouts should help you get a few units out and into the fray very fast, as well as replace them quickly. Removing the food cost also ensures that the tech isn’t too taxing on your economy.

Kamandaram
Removed.

New Imperial Age Unique Tech: Immortals
Cost: ~600f ~500g
Militia-line refunds 50% of its cost upon death.
Full disclosure, while this should allow you to field and replace Longswords like you’re a Goth player who forgot their barracks upgrades, I’m not sure if this will actually make Persian Longswords viable. That’s ok, though, because I think the civ will already be quite strong after the changes I’m suggesting and a niche unique tech never hurt the mongols much.

Tech tree changes

-Steppe lancer/elite steppe lancer added
-Bracer added
-Bombard Cannon Removed

With Bracer, Persians should finally get access to fully upgraded Cavalry Archers, which is the least they should have based on historical accounts. This overall might make Persians a bit more vulnerable to pikes and halbediers, but a bit stronger against other knight civs and a possible strong pick for water, which seems to me like a reasonable compromise.
Removing Bombard Cannon seems to be the best move to balance out all the buffs they’re being given and providing clear counterplay (turtle up successfully and the Persians’ strongest bonuses stop being relevant). It also has the bonus of slightly increasing the chances of seeing War Elephants as the anti-building unit, which is a win in my book.

Open to thoughts and criticisms, as always.

1 Like
  • Add elephant siege in siege workshop
  • new UU : Savar cavalry

I dont think 1 TC is a noob trap. You are “only” behind something like ~200 to 3~00 resources, and already have 2.5 extra villagers. If you both stay on 1TC, you should have the eco of a top civ by minute 25. Staying on 1 TC makes you pay 50f every 3 minutes, which is not that much, at least not much compared to the 800w+100s + 250 every 3 minute that your opponent would have to invest if they add a 2nd TC.

Early castle age (minutes 20 to 25) are tricky for every civ as they have to decide how to balance boom vs army.

I agree that it is nowhere as good as a “real bonus” that wont disappear after 3 minutes.

But I think it enables earlier aggression. For me the first 2 minutes of feudal are very tight. I want to put my military buildings asap, start farming, and research ######### or make scouts, alk that without stopping TC production. And I only really feel the cost of the extra villager after 2 minutes, when I already have 0.5 villager lead. And the 60 only get away as a farm for the extra villagers 4 minutes after reaching feudal. At this time I should start floating food.

I dont agree with the “youre skrewed if you make mistake” argument, as it is true for all civs. One mistake => lose eco.

I agree that current Persians eco state fails at high level. The numbers are simply not enough compared to civs like Burmese/Jpnese who are ahead 200 resources upon Feudal, or civs like Berbers/Teutons who got huge savings upon castle age.
Compared to Italians not going ballistics, they are similar at minute 21 or so. And afterward Persians outscale. But its not enought as xbows is very meta at top level, and that Arbalesters is an important upgrade as well.

So overall, Persians fall flat at top level because you cannot easily get away with a minor lead at 10 minutes and a big hole in the mid game.

It is interesting to compare with Lituanians, who now only have 100f and faster foot trash. They are very similar in tech tree and eco (starting resources + incentive to add TC). The difference may be that Lituanians forces their opponent to beaware of relics, while Persians forces themselves to beaware of their build order.

I though after your monk dies, their monks still need to start conversion. Which needs eAPM, while the Persian can just throw everything and sacrify his monks. His coukd also add his own light cavs.

Maybe I dont see properly how it would play out. But anyways I dont like he concept.

I do not really like this direction for the civ, but it looks very fair and maybe a good compromise.

Ok

I like the old bonus style better, but I can understand that this bonus will be more satisfying for other players. The second villagers comes out at the same time and the first villager comes out ~6 minutes earlier. That makes +125w already. The discount makes +100f before castle age.
It might be a good thing to hard nerf the eco castle eco (as your bonus does), because it “allows” this much better eco in feudal and early castle age, where the civ currently struggles.

That is a weird gimick, but I can live with that.

Ok

No problem.

Ok.

I like and hate the change at the same time. I like it because it seems the community want better Persians HCA, and I think improving HCA should come at a cost. But I really #### ### with Persians, and feel that Persians will be added to Chinese/Magyars/Huns/Mayans, who do not really want to face a Onager+halberdiers(or champions).
It is one more reason to “force” their eco to be properly buffed, but I would have rather stayed with a weaker Persians with BBC.
Still, I find the decision well thought.

Agreed.

One more remark: so it seems that Persians would become the 2nd cis with FU trash. Was it on the agenda, or just the result of having a paladins+HCA civ that should better get halberdiers to avoid a desastrous barracks state ?

1 Like

That’s pretty much my point; it’s already difficult to balance boom vs eco when you have normal vill production. Sacrificing more resources for more vills is going to be a net negative in most cases, because it makes you more vulnerable to early aggression; if you have 1 less unit in the early game, it can easily make the difference between taking lots of damage and taking none at all.

Many high level players, like viper, actually encourage occasionally sacrificing full TC production to take advantage of your early bonuses. But if persians sacrifice their production speed they sacrifice the bulk of their eco bonus.

So it’s a lose/lose. If you try to use it, you open yourself up to early aggression. If you ignore it, you’re giving up most of your bonus.

It’s also important that food is more valuable in the early game than wood. You collect food then more rapidly than at any other point, so getting extra then multiplies across time. Wood, by contrast, isn’t worth nearly as much at that stage.

That’s fine, I’m not married to the concept, but I do think their individual war elephants need something to reduce the critical monk weakness in the early game. Making them a viable pseudo-siege option would go a long way towards making the civ more viable and interesting in the midgame.

I would change the UT that gives persian trash xbows, gives them trash HCA instead

With that change they should lose the last armor for sure, maybe Even chemestry

And give them their cataphacts

Well hey, thanks for the feedback! I really do appreciate it.

It’s true, but siege+halb is one of the nastiest team comps out there anyways. That being said, something else you said caught my eye…

Honestly, I didn’t consider that bit. Overall it shouldn’t be a massive issue since Persians don’t have anything else going for them in the super late game, but I was re-reading some older posts in this thread and saw this:

Perhaps we could combine our ideas here?

If we kept BBC, removed Halb and made it so that the unique tech I proposed (Immortals) also affected pikemen, it might be possible to give Persians a tech loss without outright deleting their infantry. Their spear-line would be weak individually but incredibly cost-effective once you research the tech.

This is a well intentioned sentiment, but the problem is you cant realistically speed up their production too much as they are super expensive and no exonomy (not even the Persian one) could keep up with producing them really fast. So I think this will only allow a Persian player who has pretty much already won the game to seal the win by spending their banked up resources quickly on elephants.

Again, why? Usually if you are making Knights you do not need camels and aren’t making them, if you are making camels, then knights are not going to be your unit of choice. Also again this is just expensive to keep up with. Its usually much more useful to have 2 stables producing knights simultaniously than 1 stabl producing a knight and a camel at the same time.

Nope, I think kamandaran really helps stop the civ feeling less generic and gives something to sink wood into in the game.

Honestly this is one of the worst ideas. No offense intended. LS is barely worth making except if you are fighting eagles in the castle age. There is even less reason to make them in the imperial age. Whatever is killing them, will happily keep killing the ones that come out of the barracks to replaces them with the saved up resources.

Again no. They were one of the original 3 gunpowder empires in the Islamic world, Safavids, Mughals and Ottomans. They should definitely have cannons.

1 Like

Regarding Cav Archers, i have 2 ideas. Doubt both could be implement at the same time, probably would be too good? With enough counter adjustments a lot of things can work though.

  1. Give them a britons like range bonus, but for CAs instead. Maybe +1 range Castle Age, and another +1 on Imperial? This way their Cav Archers can be more usable without giving them Bracer, since giving them Bracer would mean trashbows would have to be removed. Would maybe mean a power spike in Castle Age?

  2. Better access to Parthian Tactics, maybe by going the Burgundian route? I mean, cheaper and/or one age earlier?

2 Likes

Really, I could see how leaning into the Cavalry archers could actually help the war elephant play quite a bit. In theory, they could help to counter both monks and halberds. The problem is, getting into both of them at the same time is completely impractical, and by the time you can get into war elephants, it’s too late for them to get into Cavalry archers.

What if you gave them a unique Scout Archer unit, that they could build in the feudal age? Kind of like the camel Scout. Make it quite weak, and probably have a significant frame delay, but allow them to get started on building a army of Cavalry archers much earlier in the game.

If they really need help, you could then do what the above guy said and allow them to research parthian tactics in the castle age. That could actually be pretty spooky.