Unpopular opinion: The problem with Persians was never the dark age bonus

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

This is one of the rare instances where the pros complaining about how strong a bonus is was misdirected
The 5% starting in dark age was something that should’ve been with them since inception but apparently it’s op because it’s an extra villager

You know, despite the fact that Chinese and Mayans literally get extra villagers from the start
You wanna get more nuanced with it, now goths can be factored with an extra vil since they start with loom
Or talk about vikings, how they can keep producing vils without researching wheelbarrow

I see the decision reasoning, but it’s honestly kinda deciding when the bigger war elephant in the room was the kamandaran tech

Kamandaran changes how persians play entirely
Virtually every inception of Persians had their composition be either straight stable units or halb siege in some situations

So let’s lay it out - the best eco bonuses are with civs with few options
Mayans have one of the best economies in the game - yet their only real options are eagle, archer/plume
Vikings eco is amazing but their only options are infantry/archer
Contrast this with civs like Byzantines and Spanish who have no strong eco bonus but a wide open tech tree

Persians, with the 5% dark age bonus joins the ranks of Mayans and Vikings

However
The kamandaran tech completely ruined the progression of their playstyle
Pre-DE Persians have a good eco but their post imp is bottlenecked into paladin/heavy cam and hand cannon - stable units were always your only real option . That’s a good thing though, they’re good at one thing and that one option, just like Mayans with their eagles, requires a lot of gold and therefore map control

However Kamandaran takes a crap on it and just says you can survive better as long as you have a wood line :confused:
Why even go for hand cannons when they cost more?
The importance of balancing a good eco is bottlenecking their options and my main point is the 5% dark age buff would’ve been just fine if Persians couldn’t survive without gold like it has literally always been

Kamandaran made them waaay too flexible. Even against counter-archer civs like Vietnamese, kamandaran spam is just too ■■■■■■■ good honestly and I don’t think it’s really a situation where you can nerf it and proceed. I think it’s a fundamentally bad design that might work for another civ.

The 5% bonus in dark age was never the problem. People act like the eco lead you get from the “extra villager” is anything different from the mayans. It’s not going to win the game.

Additionally, I think it would be good to cut the 5% out of dark age for docks - that’s a lot of what makes them hard to kill on water maps

My main arguments
- The 5% faster dark age town center buff shouldn’t have been removed and should have always been with Persians.
**- A lot of pros suggest that it’s equivalent to an extra villager - so? Chinese, Mayans literally have extra villagers on top of STRONGER economy bonuses. Malay who can age up later, Goths as of this patch, and other civs can make a similar claim. **
- The reason why the eco bonus seemed to strong was because one of their weaknesses was removed - by adding the kamandaran tech. Kamandaran makes them very strong. Kamandar + Hussar is one of the deadliest trash armies out there, not even mentioning the fact that this removed their reliance on gold to have hand cannons.
- Kamandaran makes them more flexible and gives them a very strong trash option whereas pre-DE their options were bottlenecked to stable units and hand cans
-The best eco civs have few options and little flexibility but they’re good at what they do. For Mayans that’s archers and eagles. For celts that was always siege infantry. For persians that was always stable units. Kamandaran ruins that balance

- They should’ve just added the 5% in dark age on DE and went a completely different direction with the castle tech.

Instead of giving them a gold-free gold unit, give them a buff in their castle tech somewhere else. Maybe for cav archers, like extra attack since they don’t get bracer

3 Likes
2

I don’t know why this was posted in modding I was on the normal discussion
Could a mod move this?

3

I get your reasoning, but it doesn’t take into account the fact that unlike Chinese and Mayan, the Persian bonus ends up snowballing as it gets better and better. Add on top of that the additional ressources at the start and it’s really easy to get going. As of Kamandaran, while it’s indeed strong, Persian can win just fine without it, and it will suck if the enemy has arbs or use camels instead of pikes against your cav. And I don’t get the deal with good eco = bad tech tree. Aztec eco is top tier too, and they are less “bottlenecked” than Mayan. Chinese have their good eco too and they are one of the most versatile civs. Celt, Khmer, Slav, Malian are other examples of good eco civs with more options than those you mentioned.

1 Like
4

Kamandaran made persian Hand cannons and to some extend elite skirms and scorpions obsolete in their tech tree.

In my opinion in made the civ play out much less diverse.

5

You are getting it wrong, kamandarian doesn’t win most of the persian games, a mixed map like baltic or similar, persian can go feudal min 9, with faster docks they will control water immediately, now you tell me how many civs could fight that? Italians? well they get destroyed same like vikings.

The current nerf doesn’t actually prevents that, the persian can still going up faster with faster docks, they aren’t addressing the issue properly, also they dominate in nomad.

Removing completely their docks bonuses would have helped for mixed or water maps, they are over nerfing fire galleys, soon we’ll go back to the single unit dominating in water, back to the galleys days.

2 Likes
6

Galleys days were cool. They surely didn’t overnerf, just a small adjustment to strike better balance on water.

2 Likes
7

Before DE no one complained about that so it’s fine I guess?

It’s a 8% increase in build time, I don’t see this as an “overnerf”

1 Like
8

I feel like the 5% bonus should have stayed, but only for tcs and not docks. Kamandaran is part of the problem, but only much later in the game. I think this tech should cost more and should be moved to imperial, right now it is kind of a no brainer to get it…cheap and extremely effective.

9

Nobody would know it without using Advanced Genie Editor before the April patch, but Persians didn’t have their Dark Age Dock work rate bonus this whole time 11, and their water was still so strong on mixed maps. They might end up needing another water nerf, like removing their Dock HP bonus.

10

wait wait what 11 Maybe the villager bonus was still carrying them quite a lot. After all, I don’t remember people complaining about Persian being OP before DE

11

I agree they should keep their dark age Boni. Move kamadaran to Imp and faster eles to Castle age.

12

The issue there is, I think people would still not use War Elephants (Mahout dead UT) and they would still B-line to Kamandaran.

Persians usually go Kamandaran in Imp anyway, as in Csatle they just mass Knights.

13

So why not do it then? At worst it barely has Any effect at all.

14

Because it would achieve nothing, but make Persians have to wait for Imperial. Mahouts and War Elephants are useless elements, as long as Monks exist.

15

So Last Post you Said they would only Research it in Imp anyway but now it would make them wait, which by the was is the Point of the switcheroo. Trash bows should only come into Play in late imp, a Point where persian xbows are weaker than generic FU bows

16

I know you really just want to nerf Persians, but changing it around would do literally nothing, they would still beat most civs 1v1 easily.

Switching it around would make make games last longer, but inevitably end the same. Mahouts is garbage, Persians are effectively a civ with only 1 UT, and Trashbows are easy to counter with Castle Age Skirmishers.

Why switch it if it does nothing? Do you just want to download a bigger patch?

17

What does it say about the quality of players and the game if one villager advantage cannot be overcome by players using other civilisations. :roll_eyes:

18

Actually i wanna keep them at current Power Level by buffing them (giving them their DA Bonus Back) while nerving them (making trashbows an Imp Tech).
You argue they Beat other civs anyway, so you must think they are overpowered and should be fine with a Nerf.
If the persian can only start building Up a critical Mass of trashbows in Imp the other Player at that Point has better Options to Deal with it, as other unit lines/civs gain more from an advance to Imp then persian xbows do Stat wise.
In Imp you have skirms and onagers outranging trashbows, comparatively more PA on Units and so in.
It is Overall easier to Deal with a Mass of trashbows in Imp than in Castle as they are comparatively weaker.
If the persian Player wins anyway No Matter what, Like you suggest He does, why Play at all?
You argue that persians are one of If Not the best civ, yet trashbows are easily counterable, what makes the persians so good in your opinion? Id argue Like OP that trashbows are a huge part of it.
Not quite sure what youre arguing Here or If youre Just being a contrarian for the sake of it.

19

No need to do this either, they already have a high win percentage.

I honestly do not think Persians need any more changes, buffing weaker civs is a better strategy.

Elite Skirms and Magos in Castle Age do the same.

20

Giving them their DA Bonus and switching the UTs keeps their Power Level while increasing the Skill required to Play them to their full extend as you need to make Use of the DA and have to survive longer without your powerfull win conditions (trashbows).
You could View that as a Nerv, or boosting their DA while nerving their CA.

Id argue onagers and bracer skirms counter Imp trashbows better than Mangos and regular ca eskirms do so in castle especially due to Higher Range and more likely oneshotting the xbows with onagers