What do you think of Persia as a civ?

[FaohKi]

Persia has the best warfare trait in the game.

 

[Amrunril]

Persia has the best warfare trait in the game. 10% strength and +1 move is insane. China is the only civ that is close.

This is arguably true, but remember that many of the strongest millitary civs (Mongolia, Arabia, the Huns...) get their strength primarily from their unique units.

It seems to me that Persia is effective, not because it has the most effective military bonus in the game, but because, in addition to a good military bonus, it has other bonuses that work exceptionally well with a large puppet empire (Puppets will build Satrap's Courts early for much needed happiness, and long golden ages synergize well with trading post spam).

 

[Chum]

What a well reasoned argument.

You're telling me that you can't control your Golden Ages when great artists exist in the game? You're telling me that +1 movement on every unit isn't good? You can move thru 2 open tiles and take a city inside the great wall with a horse. That's not good? You can move, set up, and fire in the same turn with seige units. You can move and fire twice with logistics Xbows.

You're not thinking clearly or you have no experience with Persia if you don't think they're god tier for war.

 

[Redaxe]

Persia has the best warfare trait in the game. 10% strength and +1 move is insane. China is the only civ that is close. Their unique unit would be better if it did not upgrade into lancers. Persia is really good with liberty and freedom. Go for 4 or 5 cities and a fast NC (really easy with liberty) and build some army. If you time it right the liberty golden age will time with your natural golden age and a late CB attack that carries over into Xbows and further (if you get your guild up or take a GA from liberty). Depending upon the map and your happiness you either go full domination or consolidate at 8-10 cities all working max specialists with freedom for a comfortable science victory.

I always thought Japan had the best warfare trait. +10% strength doesn't really seem all that much on paper but I guess the +1 movement is pretty useful.

To me it just seems that Golden Ages are pretty difficult to come by for most of the game. The UU doesn't really look all the useful either - who really uses spearmen for domination?

The Satraps Court is ok I guess - it's purely useful for puppet civs that are biased to gold buildings. The only issue I have with it is realism. The Satraps is obviously a reference to the Persian governers that ruled huge provinces but why is it unlocked at Banking - a renaissance technology?
It really should be a Courthouse UB replacement that has 0 maintenance and provides 2 happiness and some gold and can be built in every city including unoccupied cities and puppets.

 

[Redaxe]

If you look at the best civs, they are all very important empires, with the exception of Poland and Korea, which are glitches/unbalanced design.

Babylon = first empire
Maya = made swift civilisational advancements until they exhausted their land base
China = nuff said
Mongols = biggest empire
Persia = huge, and hugely influential
Arabia = nuff said

The only thing wrong with this list is that Rome doesn't fit

 

[consentient]

who really uses spearmen for domination?

Spearmen are available very early compared with Swordsmen, so Spearmen replacement UUs perform much better on Immortal/Deity than Swordsmen replacements, as the AI hasn't got units that can deal with them really effectively.

On the Celts ICL I smashed up Shaka with a bunch of Pictish Warriors, and speaking of Shaka, do I really need to make the argument that clearly punctures the idea "who uses spearmen for Domination?". Ok I will...spearmen that upgrade into Impis into Riflemen are clearly better than Immortals, but Healing and Additional movement are great for that period of the game.

The only thing wrong with this list is that Rome doesn't fit

Well I think that Rome are great on say, Emperor. You can have 10 cities without much drama, and you're saving a lot more hammers. It's just that the developers designed the UAs before they really tested them on Deity, and so Rome are quite poor on that level.

 

[InDubioProReo]

I think they are extremely strong. Timing Representation from Liberty tree with a CB rush supported by 2-3 immortals is really strong for early attacks, and if you are going to turtle, longer golden ages don't hurt for that type of play either. Satrap's Court is an amazing bank replacement too.

 

[FaohKi]

What a well reasoned argument.

You're telling me that you can't control your Golden Ages when great artists exist in the game? You're telling me that +1 movement on every unit isn't good? You can move thru 2 open tiles and take a city inside the great wall with a horse. That's not good? You can move, set up, and fire in the same turn with seige units. You can move and fire twice with logistics Xbows.

You're not thinking clearly or you have no experience with Persia if you don't think they're god tier for war.

How many turns will be GA in entire game? Especially on Immortal and Deity diff. If you're not in GA you literally have no UA to use. Just think a lil bit before talk. If you want UA for war Zulu is for you, nuff said.

 

[Redaxe]

Spearmen are available very early compared with Swordsmen, so Spearmen replacement UUs perform much better on Immortal/Deity than Swordsmen replacements, as the AI hasn't got units that can deal with them really effectively.

On the Celts ICL I smashed up Shaka with a bunch of Pictish Warriors, and speaking of Shaka, do I really need to make the argument that clearly punctures the idea "who uses spearmen for Domination?". Ok I will...spearmen that upgrade into Impis into Riflemen are clearly better than Immortals, but Healing and Additional movement are great for that period of the game.

Good point - hadn't thought about it that way before. Everyone here always seem to rave about ranged units being overpowered and melee units used just to snag cities. Zulu's are probably the only civ where you want to build spearmen/Impi's ad infinitum because they upgrade to Riflemen - they're an exception and maybe Poland with their crazy Winged Hussar. Can't see that happening to the same extent with Persia though. I might build some Immortals but it would probably be only a part of my army.

 

[GenuineRisk]

Ok I will...spearmen that upgrade into Impis into Riflemen are clearly better than Immortals, but Healing and Additional movement are great for that period of the game.

Gotta love Ikanda Spearmen...

How many turns will be GA in entire game? Especially on Immortal and Deity diff. If you're not in GA you literally have no UA to use. Just think a lil bit before talk. If you want UA for war Zulu is for you, nuff said.

Between Great Artists, the UB, social policies and the UA, you'll probably have a lot of turns in GA. I think the real question is - how many turns do you actually need to clear the map? I think that merely three Great Artists and three natural Golden Ages should be enough to all but secure victory on a standard-sized map. When your units are sitting around between wars or at the beginning of the game when you're just getting your cities up, what does a military UA actually do for you? (other than unit maintenance UAs)

 

[FaohKi]

Gotta love Ikanda Spearmen...

Between Great Artists, the UB, social policies and the UA, you'll probably have a lot of turns in GA. I think the real question is - how many turns do you actually need to clear the map? I think that merely three Great Artists and three natural Golden Ages should be enough to all but secure victory on a standard-sized map. When your units are sitting around between wars or at the beginning of the game when you're just getting your cities up, what does a military UA actually do for you? (other than unit maintenance UAs)

Even if you have a lot GA to be able to use UA it can't compere with Zulu because they have their insane UA for entire game.

Really can't understand how you compare persia's UA with Zulu's UA at warfare...

 

[consentient]

FaohKi, I have to say that you're talking like someone who hasn't actually tried to see how much of the game you can get as GA. In DCL #3, I had almost constant GA from T150 to finish.

You'll get less GA if you go Domination, but then when you do, it's explosive.

Zulu's strength is not the UA necessarily but the mixing of their UA, UU and UB. If you take out the Impi, Zulu fall a tier at least.

 

[claudiupb]

How many turns will be GA in entire game? Especially on Immortal and Deity diff. If you're not in GA you literally have no UA to use. Just think a lil bit before talk. If you want UA for war Zulu is for you, nuff said.

Let's say you don't even get Chichen Itza.

In a normal game you get at least 4 Great Artists, so that is 4x 12 = 48 turns of Golden Age.
You can go liberty, and if you time things right you can get a natural Golden Age right before the one from liberty. You will have 30 turns of Golden Age + another 12 if you pick a Great Artists as the free GP.
With Aesthetics you get another golden age + a free Great Artists, and the chance for another free great artist with Ufizzi. So that is at least another 27 turns of Golden Age.

You will most likely get another natural Golden Age with World's Fair (unless you were in a golden age at the time). So that is another 15 turns.

Now let's say that you don't even go Freedom for the extra length of GA. With 4 natural Great Artists, 2 from policies/wonders, 2 full Golden Ages from policies, and 2 natural ones you total 132 turns of Golden Age.

Let's say an average game is 300 turns long, that is 44% of the length of the game. And without any other bonuses, with only 6 Great Artists (you can easily pull of more). If you get Chichen Itza and/or Freedom you easily will increase your Golden Age to let's say 60% of the length of the game.

Let's be honest, Persia is in the top tiers in all Tier Lists so far, it is clear that it is a top civ, and that the UA is golden (pun intended)

 

[FaohKi]

We are talking about warfare and still if you compare persia with Zulu at war, I have no word.

 

[Redaxe]

What other victory conditions does Persia excel at? The consensus here is that domination is strong if you can manage your Golden Ages well but even then it's not quite Zulu level though.
But Zulu's don't really get any advantage to peaceful victories whereas Persia's UA is a bit more forgiving.

You get longer Golden Ages and probably 1 extra Golden Age with the extra happiness from Banks.
I guess that gives you more production, culture and gold so it is a pretty general bonus that works well with all victory conditions?

 

[Chum]

How many turns will be GA in entire game? Especially on Immortal and Deity diff. If you're not in GA you literally have no UA to use. Just think a lil bit before talk. If you want UA for war Zulu is for you, nuff said.

Did you think before you decided to talk? Do you know what the Zulu UA is? 50% less maintenance on MELEE units. What units don't get used in the game en masse? Melee units. Now, obviously Zulu is an exception, but how many Impi's are you really using? Not as many as you'd have Xbows to back them up and actually siege cities. So what's their UA saving you? 4 units worth of maintenance at best? Cool bro. That's really helping me win wars, what with my melee units that are standing around fortified while my crossbows do the work.

50% more XP from combat is the other half, and while this is nice, there's a policy 3 deep in Honor that does this already, and furthermore, there's really a limit on how many promotions are truly useful for any given unit before diminishing returns kicks in. Once you start including barracks and the instant XP on spawn things, this devalues this quite a bit.

I will say it again, you have not played Persia, or you do not know how to utilize them effectively. Watch what other people do if you're not capable of making it work. Persia can clear a continent in the span of a golden age with increased movement, so the amount of golden age turns they get in a 300 turn game is irrelevant.

You don't actually want to have a discussion though, since you bring basically no argument to the table other than arrogance. Feel free to tell me how much more superior your viewpoint is without elaborating on it one bit, however.

 

[lindsay40k]

I milked XP from a CS with five Immortals to get March, Medic II, Blitz and Cover II. I upgraded them to Lancers and they didn't even have to wait for the Range Logistics Xbows, advancing in line and shooting everything to death. They simply ran at enemy cities and pillage-healed, burning everything that didn't have a Wonder or palace.

Then endless chained GAs were nice, but having the Fountain of Youth bonus guaranteed is what makes them terrifying.

 

[Myth and Legend]

Makes me want to try Persia which spawned near the Fountain of Youth...

 

[stormtrooper412]

We are talking about warfare and still if you compare persia with Zulu at war, I have no word.

In a game where movement is king, a 3 city Liberty Persian domination where you time the natural GA with the Liberty GA and the Great Artist finisher is insane, makes wars really easy and short and practically enough to clear out most of the map because your army is literally on steroids.

The Zulus perhaps take a bit longer to wind up because their style optimized XP farming

Once you get the ball rolling, both of them are unstoppable

 

[Chum]

Makes me want to try Persia which spawned near the Fountain of Youth...

It just adds the immortal buff to every unit. Immortals already have it.