What if Persians had Bracer? But lose Ring Archer Armor?

What if Persians had bracer? But they lose Ring Archer Armor? How would this affect the Kamandaran tech, their navy, etcetera? Would Persian Archers be stronger, or weaker? This is a hypothetical discussion.

1 Like

It would definitely make them stronger, but as long as they are missing Arbalester and Ring Armor it could potentially be balanced. Maybe something like trading Bracer for Thumb Ring could also work. A side effect would be strengthening Castles’ map coverage. I would like to see Persians have some good options that don’t involve dropping a TC on the opponent.

If they lost Thumb Ring then this change would be pointless. Persians are a boomer civ, meant for long booming games. (slow based michi/black forest team game with lots of trade) They become wracking machines in the late game.

Crossbows with Bracer beat those with Thumb Ring, but it would be less of a buff than keeping both and losing Ring Armor. And Bracer affects Castles, while Thumb Ring does not (unless garrisoned with archers).

Interesting point about Michi and Black Forest, I’m guessing that comes down to the pop efficiency of War Elephants. I rarely play either of those maps, and it would be nice to see Persians perform better in 1v1 ranked game modes.

1 Like

Persians are meant to use their HCA even if they lack bracer

You really cant acccept the fact the Trashbows are stronger than (even Imperial) Skirms, so now you want them to eat Hussars even more easily. If Persians didnt have BBC on top of this potential gold-free deathball in the late game I’d understand such a change.

Tech tree holes are the beauty of this game, dont ruin it.

Cavalry Archers need Thumb Ring.

I would like to exchange Crossbowman upgrade for Bracer, and perhaps reduce the wood cost of trash Archers from 60 to about 50 if it is needed.

The Persians could have the full Cavalry Archers for reflecting the Parthians, and the bowmen could get cheaper for its weaker quality.

Overall stronger as a general rule for ranged units you want prioritize attack/range over armor. The armor upgrade is more important with skirms, so you can make the case that ring archer is better than bracer for skirms. your archer should not be tanking damage it is much more important for them to have extra range/damage so they can better eliminate threats before they harm your archers. In most situations I would gladly trade all of my archer upgrades for +2 damage

I think keep them as they are, and if anything, give them Parthian tactics in Castle Age, at a discount, and maybe cause it to increase their attack by 1 or something to reflect their roots in the literal Parthian empire.

Parthian empire existed wayyy before AOE 2 timeframe started.
And Parthian Tactics in castle age could be way too powerful as cav archers could reach 4 PA, which is even more than Tatar cav archer in castle age with Silk Armor (Which is more expensive and requieres a castle).

I know the Parthian empire was before, but the Persians of AoE2 literally have their roots in it.

Persians are the new Incas??? 11