That’s fair. I mentioned Lituanians for Hybrid maps as I already had Franks for open land maps. Lituanians may well be a better Persians in 1v1. In team games, Lituanians still need to bypass the midgame power hole, but should not be far behind Persians, if at all.
I agree for 1v1, not for team games. And my point of view is that being niche in 1v1 is fine, as long as they are not plain bad.
Agreed
I do not think they are “WAY” more versatile, but Italians are more versatile especially as they dominate on water maps. In 1v1 open land maps, I think they basically trade Persian mid game eco bonus versus Arbalesters (and Monks to some extend).
In team game, it feels like comparing a great pocket civ to a good flank civ, which is an advantage to Persians as there are around 10 “good paladin” civs versus around 20 “good arbalesters” civs. So it’s not like you would pick Italians over Persians any day.
I still think that if you compare Persians to Burmese / Japanese / Celts / Slavs / Bulgarians / Teutons / Goths / Cumans / Spanish, you don’t feel that Persians are not versatile enough or are underpowered (as Persians fare very well on water and hybrid maps compared to the Siege Onager powerhouses on closed maps). Not saying they are necessarily better than these civs
Persians aren’t bad at all, it’s just that maps on which they shine aren’t played enough.
That said, I’d prefer to give them back their faster working dock in dark age (not the tc though). That would them put on par with Japanese and Lithuanians on Four lakes and the like; currently they are slightly worse than the top-2.
They never had that bonus in the first place. When persians were put back to tc/docks only work faster from feudal again people noticed that the dark age dock part was falsely implemented and actually didn’t work faster despite saying so when DE came out.
Irrespective of that Persians are already quite strong on hybrid maps so giving them faster working tc in dark age again would be a better change imo.
Yes I would say they still fall short in terms of viabilty in diferent settings compared to almost everyone here except other civs that should also be buffed. I dont get how you would consider Japs and Celts around these civs, they are pretty great I would say.
They are just a better civ in general I would say, only being slightly worse in hybrid maps
IMO pros were exaggerating the 5% work rate bonus of dark age. They get 1 extra vills out but 50 food less same time. Very similar to Mayans, where the bonus wouldn’t be enough to make a civ drop from S-tier to B/C tier. I think the reality was Pros overrated the DE Persians and later found that they are not really that good in arabia.
Persians were top 3 winrate for all the time they had that bonus. Persians are a civ that had a solid eco bonus they were rarely able to use and with an additional villager since dark age hey were suddenly able to compete with other civs early game
I wouldn’t mind them getting a third civ bonus. Currently they are the only one (Magyars could count too) with only two bonuses. They seem pretty ok, but they are also a little bland, similarly to the Slavs