First Look Persia

[nzcamel]

I'm a little disappointed they made such a safe leader choice. Not arguing that Cyrus wasn't a great leader (if probably not as godlike as Darius makes him out to be), but I would have liked to have seen Xerxes I, especially since this incarnation seems to have a fixation on choosing civs and leaders who haven't been in the game before and Xerxes I has better justification for inclusion than many of them...

I wouldn't say they have gone with quite that many leaders or civs never before represented I count four new Civs thus far (though Norway is arguably a continuation of the Vikings/Denmark); and five new leaders of previous Civs.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

They look similar to me, but I only have a passing familiarity.

Cyrus's standard is the Shazbaz, a legendary bird, facing to the right.
The Faravahar is a guardian angel, a human with wings, facing to the left.

So yeah they will look similar espeically since there isn't that great of detail in those religious symbols used in game. I would have to imagine its the latter.

 

[nzcamel]

The symbol from his shoulderpads is already in use for Zoasterism, so it probably won't be that.

We have seen them do this before though with (from memory) Orthodox Christianity and the Byzantium Empire in V sharing a very similar symbol.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

We have seen them do this before though with (from memory) Orthodox Christianity and the Byzantium Empire in V sharing a very similar symbol.

Yes they were the same, at least variations of the same thing. But the Orthodox Cross is also called the Byzantine Cross.

But the symbol on Cyrus is related to him and Persia it has, at least to my knowledge, nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. I am fairly confident that is not the symbol used in game, and it was just a case of mistaken identity, as they do share a passing resemblance.

Shoulda done this earlier, here are some visual aids!

Spoiler :

Cyrus's Standard(left) Faravahar(right)

Compressed these are going to look very similar.

 

[ferretbacon]

What is that emblem on Political Philosophy to the left of the three governments? I don't recognize it. Is that Persia's UI perhaps?

 

[DJ_Tanner]

What is that emblem on Political Philosophy to the left of the three governments? I don't recognize it. Is that Persia's UI perhaps?

Most likely.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

What is that emblem on Political Philosophy to the left of the three governments? I don't recognize it. Is that Persia's UI perhaps?

That's the unique improvement. Finally a reason to beeline that civic.

 

[ferretbacon]

That's the unique improvement.

Well that's a lot of incentive put into one civic. Part of the UA and the UI.

 

[Photi]

I'm a little disappointed they made such a safe leader choice. Not arguing that Cyrus wasn't a great leader (if probably not as godlike as Darius makes him out to be), but I would have liked to have seen Xerxes I, especially since this incarnation seems to have a fixation on choosing civs and leaders who haven't been in the game before and Xerxes I has better justification for inclusion than many of them...

Xerxes was leader of Persia in Civ2, the first time Persia was in the game. Would be nice to see a leader from the Islamic period. I agree with others who have mentioned Shah Abbas. Using any Shah or Supreme Leader of the 20th century would alienate too many Iranians of this or that persuasion.

 

[nzcamel]

That's the unique improvement. Finally a reason to beeline that civic.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't say they have gone with quite that many leaders or civs never before represented I count four new Civs thus far (though Norway is arguably a continuation of the Vikings/Denmark); and five new leaders of previous Civs.

Fair enough. It's still fair to say that they have an overwhelming preference for leaders who were not in Civ5, and a trend towards civs and leaders who have not yet appeared in the franchise.

Xerxes was leader of Persia in Civ2, the first time Persia was in the game. Would be nice to see a leader from the Islamic period. I agree with others who have mentioned Shah Abbas. Using any Shah or Supreme Leader of the 20th century would alienate too many Iranians of this or that persuasion.

Well, I started with Civ3... I'd prefer they stick with Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia; post-Islamic Persia feels like a different civilization. That being said, there's no reason we couldn't have an Achaemenid leader (Cyrus), a Sassanid leader like Shapur II or Khosrau I, and an Islamic leader like Abbas. If any civilization is worthy of three leaders, I'd say that Persia is one of them--especially since it's been a very flexible civilization over the course of its history, and I'd love to see a less militaristic leader for it in the future--like Darius II (unlikely due to his appearance in Civ5 and due to being Cyrus' direct successor) or Khosrau I.

If an Islamic Persian ruler is added at a future date, I wouldn't mind Sufism being added as a religion. If Christianity can be split, I don't see why Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism shouldn't also be split.

 

[nzcamel]

If an Islamic Persian ruler is added at a future date, I wouldn't mind Sufism being added as a religion. If Christianity can be split, I don't see why Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism shouldn't also be split.

Surely the more obvious split is Sunni and Shia. Then they may not want to go there, given plenty of people still die from that divide today.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Well, I started with Civ3...

Xerxes was the Persian leader in Civ3 as well, y'know...

 

[Zaarin]

Surely the more obvious split is Sunni and Shia. Then they may not want to go there, given plenty of people still die from that divide today.

That is, in fact, what I was implying: Christianity (Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy [which I wouldn't mind seeing further split into Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, i.e. the non-Chalcedonian churches], and I wouldn't mind seeing the historical Church of the East added either), Islam (Sunni, Shia, Sufi), Hinduism (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism), and Buddhism (Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana).

Xerxes was the Persian leader in Civ3 as well, y'know...

To be fair, I was eleven at the time.

 

[Morgawr]

UUs that replace generics always stay in the promotion path of the generic unit they replace, correct? In that case it will be warrior -> immortal -> musket for sure. The immortal is basically an archer that's strong on defense and won't be insta-killed by strong city garrison attack so perfect for taking cities in classical era and into early medieval. Similar to the babylonian archers in Civ 5.

 

[Photi]

Fair enough. It's still fair to say that they have an overwhelming preference for leaders who were not in Civ5, and a trend towards civs and leaders who have not yet appeared in the franchise.


Well, I started with Civ3... I'd prefer they stick with Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia; post-Islamic Persia feels like a different civilization. That being said, there's no reason we couldn't have an Achaemenid leader (Cyrus), a Sassanid leader like Shapur II or Khosrau I, and an Islamic leader like Abbas. If any civilization is worthy of three leaders, I'd say that Persia is one of them--especially since it's been a very flexible civilization over the course of its history, and I'd love to see a less militaristic leader for it in the future--like Darius II (unlikely due to his appearance in Civ5 and due to being Cyrus' direct successor) or Khosrau I.

If an Islamic Persian ruler is added at a future date, I wouldn't mind Sufism being added as a religion. If Christianity can be split, I don't see why Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism shouldn't also be split.

yeah after i made the comment, i started thinking we have Rome but not Italy, Sumer and Babylonia but not Iraq, Ottoman but not Turkey etc. But then again, which Russia, China or Japan is in the game? Could fall either way.

Surely the more obvious split is Sunni and Shia. Then they may not want to go there, given plenty of people still die from that divide today.

Yes, not sure Muslim sectarianism should be encouraged in the game, i guess the Sunni Kurd Salah al-Din leader of Arabia is Civilzation's compromise?

 

[CivLuvah]

A bit late in the game, here....

Bonus to internal trade routes (and even if it is just +1 production +1 food) is quite something.

How is that different from Poland's bonuses for local trade routes? From what I know Poland's is a production bonus.

This Immortal thing is confusing. Is it a melee unit or a ranged unit?

If melee, it should let warriors upgrade to it and get melee promotions, but then it still can't capture a city???

If ranged, it gets ranged promotions and turns into a crossbow?

Makes no sense.

....

If an Islamic Persian ruler is added at a future date, I wouldn't mind Sufism being added as a religion. If Christianity can be split, I don't see why Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism shouldn't also be split.

That was my #1 complaint of Civ5: BNW. They split Christianity into 3, and that if they're going to do that might as well split the other religions as well. But since it carried over to Civ6 I don't have any qualms with that anymore, mainly because it's... Civ6? I'll always have the Historical Religions mod anyway...

By the way, would anyone be able to figure out the theme of Persia from the First Look video?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

UUs that replace generics always stay in the promotion path of the generic unit they replace, correct? In that case it will be warrior -> immortal -> musket for sure. The immortal is basically an archer that's strong on defense and won't be insta-killed by strong city garrison attack so perfect for taking cities in classical era and into early medieval. Similar to the babylonian archers in Civ 5.

We only have one instance of a ranged units replacing a melee unit (Maryannu replacing Heavy Chariot) and it upgrades into the ranged line.

 

[Stringer1313]

To be fair, I was eleven at the time.

nearest ledge? thx

 

[Kwami]

Surely the more obvious split is Sunni and Shia. Then they may not want to go there, given plenty of people still die from that divide today.

Eh, EU4 does it and I don't think anyone's died as a result. It's fine.