Which civs should be added alongside a Persian rework?

  • Afghans/Pashtuns/Khorasanis [Persians/Hindustanis/Tatars] (Ghurid and Sur Empire)
  • Alans [Persians] (Kingdom of Alania)
  • Armenians (Baghratid Kingdom, Kingdoms of Astrakh and Cilicia…)
  • Azeris/Azerbaijanis [Turks] (Eldiguzids, Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu)
  • Baloch [Persians] (First and Second Baloch Confederacies)
  • Chagatai [Mongols/Tatars] (Chagatai Khanate)
  • Daylamites [Persians] (Buyid dynasty)
  • Georgians (Kingdom of Georgia, Kingdom of Iberia)
  • GöktĂĽrks [Tatars/Turks] (First and Second Turkic Khaganates…)
  • Hephtalites [Huns] (Hephtalite, Alchon and Nezak Huns…)
  • Ilkhanids [Persians/Mongols] (Ilkhanate)
  • Iraqi/Levantines [Saracens] (Abbasid Caliphate)
  • Khitans [Mongols] (Qara Khitai, Great Liao)
  • Khwarazmians [Persians] (Anushtegin and Afrighid dynasties)
  • Kurds [Persians] (Shaddadid, Rawadid and Marwanid Emirates… roots of the Ayyubid and Safavid dynasties)
  • Safavids [Persians] (Safavid Empire)
  • Saka/Khotanese [Persians] (Kingdom of Khotan)
  • Seljuks/Qiniqs [Turks] (Great Seljuk Empire, Sultanate of Rum)
  • Sogdians [Persians] (Samanid Empire)
  • Swahilis (Sultanate of Kilwa, Mombasa…)
  • Tabaris/Mazandareni/Gilakis [Persians] (Dabuyid, Ziyarid and Bavand dynasties…)
  • Tajiks [Persians] (Kart dynasty)
  • Uzbeks [Tatars] (Uzbek Khanate, Khanate of Bukhara)
  • All of them!
  • None
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
  • Other(s)
0 voters

Additionnally, how many of those civs would you like to be added in this eventuality?

  • None
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • I don’t know
  • I don’t care
0 voters

This poll is a little bit unconventional compared to my other ones, but with the recent talks and speculations regarding the possibility of the much anticipated Persian rework could come together with a new dlc, I became curious. Keep in mind, this poll is about the civs that could be added in a single dlc with this very theme, so try to keep that in mind while voting rather than just picking the civ you most want to see in game. That being said, to be perfectly honest I don’t think there’s much suspense regarding who will be part of the top 3 no matter what.
If you have interrogation about the civs I picked, here are a few explanations:

  1. When there’s a civ’s name in square bracket, it means it’s an umbrella that another civ may be split away from. For this poll’s purpose, I’ve decided to consider all the Iranian people as being part of the Persian umbrella for now, and to include all those people in this poll (at least those I could think of and find relevant information about).
  2. I also tried to include as many possible civs that directly bordered (or were at some point part of) Iran and the Persian Empire, but I ultimately decided not to take into account the Sassanian Empire to its maximum extent because it would have forced me to make a full Saracen split. In the end, it was limited to ##### ##### ############## Afghanistan, some parts of Pakistan and the southern parts of Central Asia (excluding the Pontic Steppe)
  3. The Swahili are only there because the Sultanate of Kilwa was ruled by a Persian dynasty.
  4. I included a few dynasties because even though many people, including me, think they shouldn’t be civs, I know some people may want to vote for them. People may be especially inclined to want the Persians split into dynasties because the current civ is mostly designed after the Sassanians. When possible, I tried to tie the dynasties to a specific non Persian ethnicity, but I decided against it for the Safavids for multiple reasons even though they seem to have originally been Kurdish.

Anyway, I hope this poll will spark a fun (and respectful/civil/cordial) conversation and that I didn’t make any mistake that was too terrible.


As much as I want Caucasus civs, I feel like a Persian-themed DLC is not the right time for them. They should, ideally, have their own DLC. Preferably with a new architecture set.


I 100% agree, that’s why I myself voted for Afghans and Kurds while hoping for a Caucasian dlc in the future :rofl:

1 Like

I think the poll is not really realistic. If Persian rework is tied with a DLC, we will at best get 3 civs. So you should limit the poll to 3 options. If we want 5 as your limit, that can’t be covered in 1 wave of Persian rework.

Short but probably unsatisfying response: I don’t make my polls exclusively for people with realistic expectations and I never did.
Longer response: I’ve noticed people still massively vote for 2 civ dlc anyway, so I don’t think it messes the results too much. And the second poll is here precisely to clarify this point.

My picks are Sogdians, Pashtuns and Tajiks for first DLC. For later, my picks are Khitans, Kurds and Gokturks. However I don’t want to ser none of the later 3 with Persians themed DLC. Instead -

Khitans - Chinese DLC.
Kurds - Middle Eastern DLC.
Gokturks - Central Asian/Chinese DLC.

No one said it’s going to be a Persian-themed DLC as far as I’m aware. I think the general consensus is that it will be a Caucasus themed one that might be tied to the suggested Persians rework.

If it is a Caucasus DLC, that would be better than just tacking on the Georgians and Armenians to an unrelated themed DLC. Let’s hope that it is. I also hope that they come with a new architecture set.

1 Like

I’ve just realised:

Why is Sogdians tagged as representing the Samanid Empire? Samanids were persians, and the fact they had their center of power in Sogdiana (the region, basically Transoxiana) is one of the reasons for the decline of the Sogdian language in favor of persian. By the end of the Samanid period Sogdians were practically assimilated by the persians.

Also, it draws my attention how many votes they get, ending up third and not that far from the always requested Armenians and Georgians.
I’m not gonna say they’re not worth their own civ or smth like that, but they kind of weren’t that relevant during the time-frame of the game, don’t you think? mostly living under the rule of Sassanids and then the Caliphates.

If they’re supposed to represent eastern iranians or eastern persians there are better civs to fulfill that role.

I put the Sogdians in here because I noticed they were a commonly requested civ even before this poll, and I picked the Samanids as an exemple of civ representing them because… it was the only named one I could find in this time period, aside from city states. Maybe I should have gone with Bukhara and Samarkand, but they’re associated with many other people at later times.
To be honest I agree with you, the very fact that I couldn’t find a satisfying candidate to represent them despite being in Eurasia makes me reluctant to see them as a good option for a civ. But as I often say, just because I put a civ in my polls doesn’t necessarily mean I want it in the game. If I operated this way, then asking for the advices of the community would not make sense.

I think the best option would be, following the format of LotW and DotD, Armenians and Georgians with an additional Persian campaign, and no Persian “split”. Armenians and Georgians should have a new architecture set, Persians should switch to central Asian architecture, and all three should get unique castles.

Obviously it’s tempting to ask for more than two new civs, but I’d rather have two well-designed civs than a greater number of less well-designed ones. (Although experience of DE expansions so far suggests that expecting even two good designs is asking a bit much – more likely two flawed designs, only one of which gets satisfactorily fixed over time.)

Additionally, I voted for Seljuks, not because I think they should feature in such an expansion (although they comfortably could), but because I find their absence from the game conspicuous. Yes, I know they’re in some sense represented by Turks, but the Turks are really Ottomans.

1 Like

This is what I am expecting. Wouldn’t mind 1 more civ, but this feels more likely.

1: Not how the civs are picked.

2: In-game Turks have several bonuses based on the Seljuks. Like the free Light Cavalry upgrades extra pierce armor, and Sipahi.

1 Like

Do you have some specific insight into this (e.g. something from an interview about how new civs are chosen)? It seems to me that several of the more recent civs have been chosen this way (at least Tatars, Cumans, Bulgarians, Sicilians, Bohemians and Romans) so I’m not sure what you mean.

True, but I think janissaries and their gunpowder bonuses feel much more civ-defining.

By looking at the civs, and their names.

Dravidians not Chola
Japanese not Takeda/Oda etc
Hindustanis not Mughals
Franks not Carolingians

Onto your examples, all the ones you listed are ethnic groups, some share their names with empires, but they are all ethnic groups, just like all the other civs.

Ottomans & Seljuks are the names of empires. Both originate from the same group of people, just at different times. Which is how the game works, advancing through the ages.

Regardless, they have both elements.

I’m not talking about the names, so I don’t know why what you’ve said is relevant. Call them Qiniqs if you’re really opposed to the name of a dynasty/political state in a civilisation’s name, although it wouldn’t be the first time.

I think the in-game Turks should be renamed as Seljuks, and the Gokturks could be added to represent the various Eastern Turkic groups.

Even though they have janissaries and a focus on gunpowder? Why?

Dont tatars cover this already?

Well the Seljuks were the direct ancestors of the Ottomans, and the in-game Turks cover both of them though they don’t cover the early medieval Gokturks.

Tartars with their Keshiks and Flaming Camels are rather specific references to the late medieval Timurids, and they don’t cover the early medieval Gokturks either.

1 Like