First Look Persia

[Leyrann]

That is weird. Historically they did capture cities. I guess Persia *has* to build cavalry or other melee units to capture cities instead now....bizarre. Gameplay wise and realism wise.

Aw no man. You gott a build a single heavy chariot or spearman in order to conquer cities. SO immersion breaking. I mean, why would there be a single mounted unit in their army? And why would they ever use spears? I mean, it's not like spears were part of standard equipment around that time...

 

[Kyro]

Though they're at Iron Working, quite a bit after Archery. And when they declare surprise wars, they have 4 movement.

I think they aren't as stellar as people think. AFAIK, units with ranged attack defend against ranged attacks (such as city strikes) using their ranged strength. Since theirs are the same as Archers, they should be as vulnerable as them against walled cities. But they're much better when deployed against units, since they can be shooting from the frontline.

Right 4 movement ranged swordsmen that comes just as Archers are losing their advantage.Sounds like the perfect hit and run to me. A walled city with no defenders is still easy picking. This essentially allows a player to "archer" rush for far longer.

It would be strange if it defended with its ranged combat strength when it is is marketed as a Archer with higher melee strength.

Also it apparently upgrades to nothing according to the wiki page.

 

[Siptah]

Right 4 movement ranged swordsmen that comes just as Archers are losing their advantage.Sounds like the perfect hit and run to me. A walled city with no defenders is still easy picking. This essentially allows a player to "archer" rush for far longer.

It would be strange if it defended with its ranged combat strength when it is is marketed as a Archer with higher melee strength.

Also it apparently upgrades to nothing according to the wiki page.

They upgrade to Musketmen, that has been confirmed.

 

[Mesix]

Are Immortals range 1 or 2?

 

[Siptah]

Are Immortals range 1 or 2?

Range 2. Same ranged strength as Archers (25) and having 31 melee strength in the live stream. Using melee promotions that also help them with ranged attack. Should be rather deadly unit to level up easily. Good thing that corps are not a thing in that time of the game.

 

[Kyro]

Range 2. Same ranged strength as Archers (25) and having 31 melee strength in the live stream. Using melee promotions that also help them with ranged attack. Should be rather deadly unit to level up easily. Good thing that corps are not a thing in that time of the game.

They use melee promotions? O.o That's new. Means their combat strength with promotion is actually 32...and they can get defense from ranged attacks as well. Sounds very deadly given their mobility.

 

[Siptah]

They use melee promotions? O.o That's new. Means their combat strength with promotion is actually 32...and they can get defense from ranged attacks as well. Sounds very deadly given their mobility.

At least they can't get the +5/+7 combo of ranged units. I wonder if they get the default bonus against spearmen that swordsmen have.

 

[Leyrann]

At least they can't get the +5/+7 combo of ranged units. I wonder if they get the default bonus against spearmen that swordsmen have.

I suppose they do. They're melee in every aspect except having a ranged attack.

 

[Siptah]

I suppose they do. They're melee in every aspect except having a ranged attack.

So the Immortal will also not get the -17 attack strength against cities that archers get?

The longer I think about this unit, the better it gets in my head. I always felt that a archer UU would be hard to make without making it OP. The way they combined the swordsman and the archer into the Immortal seems like they managed it. It is better than a swordsman and better than an archer, seems incredibly strong, but not outright OP.
I wish that at some point a new civ will have an archer UU that has a bonus (and stronger defense) against archers though.

 

[Leyrann]

So the Immortal will also not get the -17 attack strength against cities that archers get?

The longer I think about this unit, the better it gets in my head. I always felt that a archer UU would be hard to make without making it OP. The way they combined the swordsman and the archer into the Immortal seems like they managed it. It is better than a swordsman and better than an archer, seems incredibly strong, but not outright OP.
I wish that at some point a new civ will have an archer UU that has a bonus (and stronger defense) against archers though.

They actually do, I noticed in the first look video. So not all melee, but then again, it's a ranged attack that gains the strength reduction, so you could say it's part of the attack.

 

[Morningcalm]

Aw no man. You gott a build a single heavy chariot or spearman in order to conquer cities. SO immersion breaking. I mean, why would there be a single mounted unit in their army? And why would they ever use spears? I mean, it's not like spears were part of standard equipment around that time...

Your sarcasm is SO not appreciated. I don't see a single point in your post about the immortal unit itself. As my post made fairly clear, the reason it's bizarre that Persians have to use other units to capture cities is that historically Immortals were the backbone of the Persian infantry and DID capture cities. And your statement is ridiculous because immortals were themselves wielding spears as part of their "standard equipment", so they should be more than capable of capturing a city if a regular spearman unit can.

Obviously it's not "immersion breaking" if a spearman or cavalry captures a city. It is immersion breaking when an immortal cannot.

 

[Siptah]

Let's hear what Herodot has to say about Persians:

'Their sons are carefully instructed from their fifth to their twentieth year, in three things alone---to ride, to draw the bow, and to speak the truth.'

No mention of melee attacks or capturing cities...

 

[Katakanja]

Let's hear what Herodot has to say about Persians:


No mention of melee attacks or capturing cities...

But did he say whether they got their promotions from the Melee tree or the ranged tree?!

 

[Leyrann]

Your sarcasm is SO not appreciated. I don't see a single point in your post about the immortal unit itself. As my post made fairly clear, the reason it's bizarre that Persians have to use other units to capture cities is that historically Immortals were the backbone of the Persian infantry and DID capture cities. And your statement is ridiculous because immortals were themselves wielding spears as part of their "standard equipment", so they should be more than capable of capturing a city if a regular spearman unit can.

Obviously it's not "immersion breaking" if a spearman or cavalry captures a city. It is immersion breaking when an immortal cannot.

Just because immortals were the backbone of the army (they were? I thought they were the elite troops), doesn't mean they went without supporting units. What does it matter which of the units walks into the city, really? Isn't the capturing of the city an effort of all the units together?

 

[Zaarin]

Let's hear what Herodot has to say about Persians:


No mention of melee attacks or capturing cities...

It's a good thing Herodotus was always right--and honest--when he spoke of foreign people, especially his people's traditional enemies.

 

[Siptah]

It's a good thing Herodotus was always right--and honest--when he spoke of foreign people, especially his people's traditional enemies.

It's a good Quote, though. Easy to remember and telling some behind the scenes stuff about persian religion and phisolophy as well, while being an outright lie. Herodot at his best.

 

[Morningcalm]

Just because immortals were the backbone of the army (they were? I thought they were the elite troops), doesn't mean they went without supporting units. What does it matter which of the units walks into the city, really? Isn't the capturing of the city an effort of all the units together?

You are missing the point. An Immortal can NEVER capture a city in Civ VI. Which is just bizarre. You would think a unit armed with all variety of weapons and shields could take a city. If a bare-armed Hypaspist can take a city, why not an armored Immortal?

 

[Leyrann]

You are missing the point. An Immortal can NEVER capture a city in Civ VI. Which is just bizarre. You would think a unit armed with all variety of weapons and shields could take a city. If a bare-armed Hypaspist can take a city, why not an armored Immortal?

Why can't someone with a cannon just walk in and capture the city if it's already been shot down to rubble beforehand?

Kinda the same question, wouldn't you agree? And yet you think this is fine while the Immortal case is not.

 

[DemonMaster]

It's how the game works, it's game mechanics. Like others have said, the guys with the cannon should be able to walk into a city and take it. An army consists of all sorts of parts, this mechanics is an incitament to build an army with many parts, not just to have one type of good unit and keep producing that.

 

[Yzman]

You are missing the point. An Immortal can NEVER capture a city in Civ VI. Which is just bizarre. You would think a unit armed with all variety of weapons and shields could take a city. If a bare-armed Hypaspist can take a city, why not an armored Immortal?

And my leader lives for 4000 years. Its a game with game mechanics.