The ultimate Persian re-design thread

Eles and CA don’t have that much synergy.
First ofc what you already mention is that they both cost gold and are therefore hard to sustain.
But they also both share the same weakness to siege and the Eles take away the mobility advantage of the CA.

That’s why I proposed to make a new trash Chariot that would have bonus vs Monks and Pikes in ranged but Bonus vs Siege in melee mode. That btw could have been the ratha design already as then the bengalis had finally a good unit to add to their eles instead of being forced to chose one path with easily exploidable weaknesses.

Apart from that trashbows are already amazing against monks and halbs for persians. They only lack against the Siege the same way the CA would.

1 Like

Elephants aren’t really weak to siege. They can basically ignore them and just walk up and kill them, and it’s even a decent trade. It’s only really a problem if they’ve got monks or pikes defending them, which the CAs would, at least in theory, help to counter.

Gonna put my ideas here which I posted in a similar thread:

  • Give them access to every non-unique mounted unit in the game FU (So getting Battle Eles, Steppe Lancers and Ele Archers with their Elite upgrades) - If these comments are anything to go by then the devs should really take this to heart.
  • Remove gunpowder (HC, BC and CG) and Halb, give them Bracer - This way they have FU Cav Archers, and a full Blacksmith means at least their foot soldiers have all weapon and armour upgrades even if they don’t get Imp unit upgrades. Giving Persians gunpowder was a mistake imo that held part of their power budget hostage.
  • Give CA’s a civ bonus (e.g. increased attack, fire an extra arrow, take the Mongol bonus and Mongols get a new CA bonus) - Personally would prefer they take the Mongol bonus and Mongols get a new CA bonus, or they fire an extra arrow (To really emphasise Parthian Tactics, as I don’t think attacking while moving is possible in this game and even if it was it would be very hard to animate for a game that uses the Genie engine).
  • Remove Kamandaran, replace it with a UT that gives mounted units either a gold discount or bonus damage resistance (Or both) and call it Aswaran - Kamandaran is a great tech but for the wrong civ. Kamandaran is another tech that takes from their power budget that could’ve been spent on their core identity (Strong eco, mounted units and navy).
  • If not keeping Mahouts give (Elite) War Eles the bonus movement speed staggered (i.e. War Eles +15%, Elite War Eles another +15%). Then give them a UT that heavily discounts gold cost of their foot soldiers.
  • If keeping Mahouts, then make it apply to other elephant units too, and make the foot soldier gold discount a civ bonus - Why am I suddenly talking about a bonus to their foot units when I’ve been pushing for stronger mounted units? Because with the above changes their foot soldiers would not even be worth looking at, it would be all about their cavalry. And historically their foot units although weak, were much cheaper.
  • Team bonus could either ramp up +2/+3/+4 based on Knight/Cavalier/Paladin, or be changed to something like faster training speed, more Pierce Armour etc.

Kamandaran is a problem, not a solution. Trashbows along with gunpowder take up a lot of the Persians’ power budget that there is no room to make changes to their eco, mounted units or navy - their supposed 3 main strengths. So much so, that their tech tree has become too similar to Cumans (Not accounting for civ bonuses).

A back track from my initial opinion. I was mixing up “Rework” with “Redesign”. Incas and maybe even Vikings are good example of “Rework”. And Indians → Hindustanis is a “Redesign” imo.

Maybe Persians will indeed get a “Rework”.

2 Likes

Based on those dev comments you posted, it doesn’t look like cavalry archers are MEANT to be a main focus of the civ. They’re supposed to be ‘average’. Which in castle age especially, they are already. Their main purpose is supposed to be to counter pikes.

I think care needs to be taken to avoid turning them into a CA civ rather than a cavalry civ. It wouldn’t take much to turn them into an expy of the Huns.

A big-ish issue is the way Kamandaran isn’t worth researching at first because of the high up-front cost and long-term payout. What if it were given an immediate benefit, as well?

Something like, “all archers +2 damage to pikes and monks.”

I think this is more streamlined than the original post. You don’t need an additional UU, but with an UT slot open by rolling Mahouts into Elite you can buff the CA, basically ending with the same end result. Additionally if it’s the Castle age tech, it hits earlier which I think would be more useful than Kamandaran. I like it. IDK about the exact effect you proposed, but I think this works way better than a UU. Whatever the effect is it should be different from Magyar recurve bow. Not adding range and persians not getting bracer I think makes sense. Turks have sipahi, and mongols have faster firing CA. So I think this is about as different-y as it’s going to get. Maybe if you really wanted to have some meta effect you’d give the CA a bonus against monks.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the problem with Persians that they have difficulty getting to the late game? I don’t think free HCA and cavalier really help that. It’s less of a buff, but I think if they were given free Husbandry and/or Bloodlines that’d be a better targeted bonus. It hits right in the midgame and buffs knights, CA, and War Elephants.

Then you have Aswaran as the castle age UT to give them another power spike in late castle. That should buy them enough time for their docks and TCs to start making a difference. By imperial age they’re chugging along.

I’ve mentioned it elsewhere but your feelings about whether Persians getting the Steppe Lancer “fits” seems to be if you think Persians in game more represent the sassanids of the saffavids. I don’t have a strong opinion necessarily, but in general I’d like to see more civs to have access to the steppe lancer.

1 Like

That’s probably the one point from their comments that shouldn’t be considered. If historical accuracy is to come in play here, then both their cavalry and cavalry archers should be above average. Their navy being significantly above average is also not represented in game as the Dock work rate bonuses fall off in Imp and lacking Bracer and Siege Engineers means everyone else’s navy outdamages and outranges theirs. Above average sure, because those bonuses do help in Feudal and Castle.

That’s not going to be the case because Persians’ roster of mounted units is more diverse than the Huns in having access to Camels and Eles; Huns not only don’t have those units, they also lack the last archer armour upgrade. If anything Persian CAs will end up superior but without a discount bonus. If similarity is a concern then you should be worried about Cumans, because their tech trees are too similar.

Their in game description even says that they are not specifically pre or post Islam Persians and that they represent several dynasties that ruled over the Iranian plateau in the middle ages. In fact both Sassanid and Safavids are mentioned by name in the description and considering they were hundreds of years apart from each other, presumably everything in between also counts.

I agree with this way of looking at it as well. I think being good at a whole range of mounted units whether they be melee or ranged should be part of the Persian identity.

I think maintaining their civ identity should take precedence over purely historical changes. Their CAs are perfectly decent as-is; not great against other CAs, but then, persian CAs never really fought other cavalry archers in the first place, they fought infantry.

I’d lean towards making Kamandaran increase their bonus against pikes and monks. +2 to Pikes and Monks would take them from killing monks in 6 hits to 5, or 4 to 3 without Sanctity. And for pikes, from 7 to 6. That means they can be more effective in smaller numbers, which means you can get them out on the field faster - but only as a support unit, not as the majority of their army.

A Persian player could start scouts, then transition into CAs at the start of castle age, and then with their raiding unit taken care of, they could potentially justify a swap into war elephants, with the CAs having the option of Kamandaran to boost their anti-anti-elephant capabilities.

Plus, when the enemy goes archers to counter the CAs, you’d already have trashbows ready and waiting.

only need mahout to be included, or something like elephant moves 25% faster in castle age, 30% faster in imp as a new civ bonus of some kind.

steppe lancer a yes, royal cav archer MAYBE and might destroy balance. rest are hard no for me.

Persians is an iconic civ, should be left mostly untouched and just make elephants more viable than just team game.

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…

:face_vomiting:

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.