Why is there no campaign or focus on Cyrus the Great / the rise of Persia?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

In Age of Empires Definitive Edition, we see campaigns and scenarios focused on Alexander the Great, the Romans, Britons, and many other famous civilizations and leaders.

However, Persia is mostly presented as the enemy in the Alexander campaign, without any campaign or narrative about the rise of the Persian Empire itself, especially the story of Cyrus the Great, one of the most influential leaders in human history.

Cyrus founded the Achaemenid Empire, created one of the first large multicultural empires, promoted religious tolerance, and introduced advanced systems of governance that influenced later civilizations (including those of Greece and Rome).

It feels like a missed opportunity that players only experience Persia as something to be conquered, rather than a civilization with its own rich history and legendary founder.

I think a Cyrus the Great campaign (or a Persian origin campaign) would be an amazing addition and would add more historical balance and depth to the game.

It feels strange that we get multiple Western-focused campaigns but none telling the story of how Persia rose in the first place. What’s wrong with Age of empires developers? if you want to create campaign about Hammurabi, or the Aztecs, but why not Persia?

Is there any chance Persia’s story could be explored in a future campaign or DLC?

2

It’s not like Achaemenids get nothing – they have seven scenarios in Battle for Greece. (Which, it seems worth pointing out, is more than most main game civs have.)

Their campaign is after Cyrus the Great, though. I guess the reason is partly because the devs wanted to cover the Greco-Persian Wars, and partly because the DLC only adds three civs. By my reckoning, you’d ideally need Medes, Babylonians, Elamites, Lydians and Scythians for a Cyrus campaign.

Also…

AoE2 Romans do not have a campaign, and…

there’s no Hammurabi campaign either.

3 Likes
3

I get the point about Achaemenids having scenarios in Battle for Greece, but those scenarios still present Persia almost entirely from a Greek point of view and mainly as the opposing force. That’s not the same as giving Persia its own narrative or showing the rise of the empire under Cyrus the Great.

There’s a big difference between “appearing as the enemy in someone else’s story” and “having your own story told.” We have origin campaigns for many famous leaders and empires (Attila, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, etc.), but Persia’s foundation is never explored, even though Cyrus is one of the most influential figures in ancient history.

As for needing Medes, Babylonians, Lydians, Elamites, etc. AoE campaigns already use abstraction all the time. Minor factions are regularly represented through existing civs or scenario-only factions. The game has never required every historical group to be a fully playable civ to tell a story.

So this feels more like a matter of developer priorities than any real design limitation. Wanting to cover the Greco-Persian Wars is fair, but it doesn’t really explain why Persia’s rise and Cyrus the Great have never been given a campaign of their own.

I still think a Cyrus campaign would add historical balance and depth, instead of Persia only being seen as “the empire Alexander or the Greeks fight against.”

4

Yes there is a Hammurabi campaign:

Key Details of the Hammurabi Campaign (“Voices of Babylon”)

  • Campaign Focus: Players guide Babylon to greatness, defending the frontier and liberating the city from Assyrian influence.

  • Scenario 1 (The Holy Man): Involves using a priest to convert neighbors and expanding influence in Mesopotamia.

  • Scenario 2 (The Tigris Valley): Set in 1755 BCE, this mission involves recovering stolen artifacts (including the law code) and requires a strong naval presence on the Tigris River.

  • Scenario 3 (Vengeance): Features the destruction of the Hittites and the liberation of Babylon.

  • Context: The campaign spans the rise of the Babylonian Empire under its most famous king, known for his early law code.

This what we call Voice of Babylon.

5

You have a custom Cyrus campaign in Return of Rome… and then the questline that Cyrus gives you in AoE Online, like the Battle of Opis, which you can play with any civilization in the game and even in co-op…

1. Cyrus the Great - Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition: Return of Rome [ROR]

Legendary Battle of Opis - Persians - Age of Empires Online Project Celeste

1 Like
6

Sure, it really has to be a matter of developer priorities. It’s not like Cyrus has some kind of magical protection that prevents people making computer games about him. But given that the devs had decided that the Battle for Greece DLC would focus on the Greco-Persian and Pelopennesian Wars, and given the practical constraints they had, including scenarios about Cyrus would have been a weird choice.

No, it really does! Why is there no campaign about Cyrus the Great? Because the devs chose to make campaigns about different things.

From a Greek point of view, yes – in that the narrator is presumably (but I think not explicitly) Greek. But as the opposing force? No – you play as Achaemenids in those scenarios. Besides, in a sense a campaign about Cyrus would effectively be from a Greek point of view, because the main sources about his life were written by Greeks.

Voices of Babylon is not “the Hammurabi Campaign”. The first two (out of eight) scenarios are set during his reign, but that’s really not the same thing. It’s also not really an AoE2 campaign, but an AoE1 campaign that got ported to AoE2…

2 Likes
7

I think you’re mixing up three different things:

1\. who you control in scenarios,

2\. where historical sources come from, and

3\. whose story is actually being told.

Yes, you play as the Achaemenids in Battle for Greece, but Persia there exists almost entirely in relation to Greek conflicts. There’s no Persian internal narrative, no origin story, no “rise of the empire” arc. Playing a faction is not the same as that faction having its own story told.

The “Greek sources” argument also doesn’t really hold up. Most AoE campaigns rely on sources written by rivals or outsiders (Romans for Attila, Persians/Chinese for Genghis Khan, Christian chroniclers for Vikings, etc.). The game isn’t recreating the sources, it’s creating a narrative perspective. A Cyrus campaign could easily center Persian goals and politics even if some sources are Greek or Babylonian.

Saying “the devs chose to focus on other things” is true but doesn’t really answer the criticism. Over decades of AoE content, we’ve had named campaigns for Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Saladin, Joan of Arc, Barbarossa, etc. Cyrus the Great who founded one of the most important empires in world history and directly sets up the Alexander campaign has never received that treatment.

Not fitting the theme of one DLC explains why Cyrus isn’t in Battle for Greece. It doesn’t explain why Persia’s rise and its most famous founder have never been given a campaign at all. That’s the imbalance people are pointing out

8

Age of Empires clearly loves named legendary leaders, yet Cyrus the Great who is as influential as Alexander and more foundational than many leaders who do have full campaigns appears only indirectly or not at all. Persia exists in the game without its founding figure ever being given a proper narrative, which feels like a strange omission given how central named heroes are to AoE’s campaign identity. It’s basically like having Roman content without Romulus, or Mongol content without Temujin :man_shrugging:

9

Don’t get me wrong – I agree that Cyrus would make a good protagonist for a campaign, and I don’t dispute that he was influential or that the Achaemenid Empire was historically important. But that doesn’t mean the absence of a Cyrus campaign is a great mystery. The devs are under no obligation to base their decisions purely on your preferences, but from the way you’re talking it sounds like you think they are.

Sure, ok, I see where you’re coming from here. Again, this is because of the context of those Achaemenid scenarios within Battle for Greece. If they’d included Cyrus, they could have presented him in the same way if they’d wanted.

How come? It definitely answers the question, and as far as I can tell, “the criticism” is really just a question.

Right, but for most of those “decades”, AoE2 was a purely medieval game (with a little wiggle room around the edges). We’ve only recently started receiving ancient content as spin-offs, but those have been heavily focussed on Greco-Roman content, so Cyrus has not been an obvious candidate for inclusion.

Who are the “people” here? Just you, as far as I can tell…

1 Like
10

China, the biggest country though almost the entire human history has not had a real campaign in the entire Age of Empires Franchise.

  1. No Song campaign in AoE1
  2. No Chinese campaign in AoE2
  3. Fantasy “what if scenario” Chinese campaign in AoE3
  4. Obviously made up campaign in Age of Mythology
  5. and now fantasy 3 Kingdoms campaign in AoE2

Persia itself does not have any campaign in the Age of Empires franchise until the Mountain Royals 3 years ago.

So this answers the question why is there no campaign on X. They don’t really make campaigns based on what were important events in human history. They do just do whatever they feel like doing.

12 Likes
11

I will never get you wrong bro, I still enjoying our discussion, with respect of course.

I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

I’m not saying the devs are “obligated” to include Cyrus, or that their choices are illegitimate. Of course they can focus on whatever they want. My point is that “they chose to focus on other things” describes what happened, but it doesn’t really engage with the criticism about patterns of focus in AoE campaigns.

AoE2 may have started as a medieval game, but at this point the franchise has clearly opened the door to ancient content: Alexander, Pyrrhus, Romans, and the Achaemenids appearing in Battle for Greece. Given that shift, it’s reasonable to notice that the ancient content we do get is still heavily centered on the Greco-Roman world. In that context, the absence of a “rise of Persia” or Cyrus campaign stands out.

Battle for Greece also doesn’t really address that gap. Playing the Achaemenids mainly as part of Greek narratives isn’t the same as giving Persia its own internal story, perspective, and arc. It still frames them largely in relation to Greek conflicts rather than as a subject in their own right. That’s the imbalance I’m pointing to.

On sources: AoE campaigns have always been selective, dramatized narratives often built from outsider or rival accounts. So I don’t think source limitations meaningfully prevent telling a Cyrus story. A campaign about the unification of Persia, the defeat of Media and Lydia, and the conquest of Babylon is very straightforward to structure, even if some surviving sources are Greek or Babylonian.

And when I say “people point this out,” I’m not claiming some huge movement — just that this isn’t a unique or unheard-of criticism. Even if it were only one person making the argument, the point still stands or falls on its reasoning, not on how many people are making it.

So yeah, I agree it’s a choice the devs made. I just think it’s fair to point out that the choice reflects a continuing bias in what parts of ancient history AoE tends to center, and that Cyrus/the rise of Persia is a pretty glaring omission given how influential it was.

12

I’d actually go a bit further and say it should be done, because there’s a real historical gap there. The rise of Persia under Cyrus is a foundational moment for the ancient world, and AoE has already stepped into that era with Alexander, Pyrrhus, Romans, and Battle for Greece. Leaving out the Persian rise creates an oddly incomplete picture of the period the game is now portraying.

A Cyrus campaign would also open the door to fresh factions and settings that AoE barely touches: the Medes, Lydians, and Scythians, for example. That’s not just “more content,” it’s genuinely new material that would diversify the game’s ancient side instead of repeating the same Greco-Roman focus.

So yeah, it’s not about entitlement — it’s about the fact that, given the scope AoE has chosen for itself now, this is a pretty big and interesting hole in the historical narrative the game is building

13

What I was trying to say it that they left out a lot of very important historical events in the series.

So the question “why did they leave out X” can’t really be answered.

Not arguing about if a Cyrus the Great campaign would be good or not, just saying coming here and asking the question won’t give you any good answers. Making a thread “There should be a Cyrus the Great campaign”, “I want a Cyrus the Great campaign” or “Would you guys like to see a Cyrus the Great” campaign would make for a better discussion.

4 Likes
14

Smells like a vinifrss topic :roll_eyes:

15

You are right, I am sorry, I didnt understand ur meaning hahaha. thanks tho

16

I still hope for a prequel which starts with Neo-Assyrian Empire to Cyrus The Great and thus leading to where BfG started.

2 Likes
17

Doesn’t three kingdoms count then?

18

I agree, but I am honestly not sure what kind of answer would satisfy you.

I also don’t understand your position. You claim that you’re not saying the devs have an obligation to include Cyrus, but then you say things like “the choice reflects a continuing bias in what parts of ancient history AoE tends to center” and “it should be done, because there’s a real historical gap there”. It sounds like you think the purpose of AoE2 is to give a complete and unbiased depiction of history, or something. I don’t understand why you would think that, or how you would think it would be possible.

I think I must be misinterpreting, but I just really don’t get it. I would understand if you were just saying the kinds of things Skadidesu suggested:

But you seem to be saying more than that. If AoE2 were an encyclopedia of world history then perhaps the things you say about “an oddly incomplete picture” and “a foundational moment for the ancient world” would make sense to me – but since it’s a computer game, they don’t.

2 Likes
19

Yes, that’s true…although in the case of AoE 1, it would be Shang, or even Qin, not Song since that’s already medieval for AoE 2…at least in AoE 4 we’ll finally have a historical Chinese campaign from the Song and even Ming against the Jurchens and Mongols (1115-1368), we could even see Zheng He’s voyages in the 15th century connecting with the AoE 3 “what if” campaign in 1421…

Yes, they could make a prequel with the Achaemenids from BfG focused on Persia: Battle for the Fertile Crescent or simply Chronicles: “Cyrus the Great (559-539 BC)” and add 2 new civilizations: Babylonians and Egyptians…

Technically yes, but they were factions and not the Chinese civilization per se from AoE 2…

Yes, and it’s not as if there aren’t more events before that in AoE 1 and Return of Rome that don’t appear in the games, like the end of the Bronze Age in 1184 BC up to the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC at the end of the Babylonian campaign… in between there’s only darkness and they don’t even touch on the rise of the Phoenicians or the Israelites (who only appear as custom scenarios in Return of Rome)…

1 Like
20

Not sure what you mean – half of the Voices of Babylon campaign is set between those dates, plus one scenario in Glory of Greece.

Not sure why you pick out Phoenicians (and Israelites, who aren’t even in the game) specifically, but yes, by my count there are 6 to 9 civs in AoE1 without at least one official scenario (depending on which versions of the game you include and whether you count demo campaigns).

But also, AoE1 campaigns aren’t about storytelling or about giving a full picture of ancient history (even for the one civ they focus on). They’re more like a sequence of scenarios with some historical context for each one. Sometimes the historical context barely relates to the design of the scenario! I really like them personally, but I understand that approach is considered very outdated now, and was arguably outdated even when AoE1 was originally released.

1 Like