First Look Persia

[Amrunril]

Having read the civ descriptions and later seeing the video, I notice that that the tooltips give a very different sense of Persia's UA than the narration. "Bonuses to internal trade routes" sounds like they simply get better at their standard role of providing food and production, but onscreen, the bonus instead appears to be gold and culture, doubling down on the same focus as the UI.

I'm also interested to know how long the bonus movement from the leader ability lasts. If it's a substantial duration, that sounds like a significant military bonus (somewhat reminiscent of Civ V Persia, actually), whereas if it's only the opening turn, it would seem more focused on manipulating the AI, which I don't think would be a good direction for the design to take.

 

[nzcamel]

To be fair, I was eleven at the time.

Just a young 'un

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

I didn't know that. Then, I haven't played as Egypt yet lol

 

[Morgawr]

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

Ah excellent point.. In that case I change my bet to immortal --> crossbow promo path

 

[Morgawr]

I'm also interested to know how long the bonus movement from the leader ability lasts. If it's a substantial duration, that sounds like a significant military bonus (somewhat reminiscent of Civ V Persia, actually), whereas if it's only the opening turn, it would seem more focused on manipulating the AI, which I don't think would be a good direction for the design to take.

I doubt it'd be as short as 1 turn. My guess is 10-20 turns

 

[ferretbacon]

I doubt it'd be as short as 1 turn. My guess is 10-20 turns

I'd think more like 5-10. Can't be too long since it's something you have control over.

Speaking of the movement increase, there's now a pattern of Persia having such a bonus, though they're activated differently. Civ V gave it for golden ages and here you get it for declaring surprise wars. I didn't think much of it in V, but now I have to wonder what the inspiration for it is; what about Persia, historically, would give their military units bonus movement?

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

From the video, the bonus to trade routes seems to be gold- and culture-related. I've seen those icons after they got Political Philosophy.

I think it's best to think of the Immortals as beefed Archers instead of ranged Swordsmen. I haven't seen them melee attacking in the video, and they always shot with them. I don't think we'll notice the lack of Swordsmen that much; we'll have Heavy Chariots and Horsemen filling that niche in Classical Era, and Knights in the Medieval Era.

All in all, Persia seems to be a civ that will heavily warmonger in the first couple of eras, then turtle to finish the game. They seem to be above-average in terms of power. Not A-tier as Poland and Australia, which should be good for balance.

---
On the Macedonia thing, has anybody thought of the possibility that the scenario mentioned should be centered in Greece, with Macedonia as a scenario-specific civ? Or am I speculating too much?

 

[Katakanja]

On the Macedonia thing, has anybody thought of the possibility that the scenario mentioned should be centered in Greece, with Macedonia as a scenario-specific civ? Or am I speculating too much?

It's not impossible, but the list that Macedonia originally appeared in to tip us off was a list of standard game civs. If Macedonia was there as a scenario-only civ, then we probably should have seen the other Scandinavian countries from the viking scenario named there too.

 

[Esperr]

All the unique things they could do with a civs bonuses and abilitys and we just get generic boosts.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I'd think more like 5-10. Can't be too long since it's something you have control over.

Speaking of the movement increase, there's now a pattern of Persia having such a bonus, though they're activated differently. Civ V gave it for golden ages and here you get it for declaring surprise wars. I didn't think much of it in V, but now I have to wonder what the inspiration for it is; what about Persia, historically, would give their military units bonus movement?

It is called the "Fall of Babylon" so it just in regards to that. While the actual events are in debate, one story is that Babylon was taken in a single night. To translate this into gameplay this is where the surprise war likely came from, the speed is just a way to make a surprise war bonus at least somewhat useful in terms of the game.

 

[Guandao]

Where's the Civfanatic member (sorry I forgot their name) who makes the gifs of the leader animations?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Where's the Civfanatic member (sorry I forgot their name) who makes the gifs of the leader animations?

ShyPiano. I was wondering that too.

 

[Siptah]

what about Persia, historically, would give their military units bonus movement?

They were the by far most organized empire before the Romans (actually, the Romans copied at lot from Persia considering infrastructure, and surpassed their organization by far with the Roman kind of law). The roads of the Persian Empire were famous all over the known world. Classical greek authors are often not too friendly towards Persia, but they recognize their infrastructure and flexibility. Also, Persia was very mobile due to the fact that the Army was stationed everywhere in the vast realms and not at one central place. The kingdom was also a traveling one, comparable to the early Holy Roman Empire, besides having incredible residences available. Alexander, for example, emphasized the capturing of Dareios III.'s tent palace, too. The also used a large amount of what is a strategos in greek, some rulers that 'fought' many wars are told to have never hold a sword or commanded an army because of this. So this all gives them a right to be fast in attacking and moving troops around imho.

 

[shaglio]

Unlikely, since they already use that for Zoasterism.

In Civ 5, both England and Confucianism shared the ship wheel symbol.

 

[Cerilis]

In Civ 5, both England and Confucianism shared the ship wheel symbol.

You mean, Buddhism?

 

[Katakanja]

In Civ 5, both England and Confucianism shared the ship wheel symbol.

It was Buddhism and it's the wheel of dharma iirc, but i get what you mean

 

[shaglio]

You mean, Buddhism?

Absolutely. That's what I get for hurriedly typing at work before my boss passes by my cubicle

 

[Leyrann]

Absolutely. That's what I get for hurriedly typing at work before my boss passes by my cubicle

Lucky you. I'm a student and have to do all the work myself... I've spent half my time today on the forums and the other half feeling bad and thinking "I should really get to work now".

 

[Zaarin]

In Civ 5, both England and Confucianism shared the ship wheel symbol.

I thought England had the Crown? But Spain and Catholicism shared the Maltese Cross and Byzantium and Orthodoxy shared the Byzantine Cross. I don't have a problem with civ symbols and religious symbols overlapping. I'm also fine with Persia having a Zoroastrian symbol, though that could cause complications if they ever wanted an Islamic Persian ruler...Unless they later added "Iran" like they've done with Macedon/Greece.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I thought England had the Crown? But Spain and Catholicism shared the Maltese Cross and Byzantium and Orthodoxy shared the Byzantine Cross. I don't have a problem with civ symbols and religious symbols overlapping. I'm also fine with Persia having a Zoroastrian symbol, though that could cause complications if they ever wanted an Islamic Persian ruler...Unless they later added "Iran" like they've done with Macedon/Greece.

It's the Ship of the Line that has the ship's wheel icon which is similar to the Buddhist symbol.

 

[Leyrann]

I thought England had the Crown? But Spain and Catholicism shared the Maltese Cross and Byzantium and Orthodoxy shared the Byzantine Cross. I don't have a problem with civ symbols and religious symbols overlapping. I'm also fine with Persia having a Zoroastrian symbol, though that could cause complications if they ever wanted an Islamic Persian ruler...Unless they later added "Iran" like they've done with Macedon/Greece.

Afaik the change from "Persia" to "Iran" was gradual (or is it before and after the Mongol conquest?), but aren't most, if not all, great rulers from the time when it was still called Persia? I mean, I get the "calling it Iran" if you want it to have other associations, but I know that in the west (Netherlands, at least), it was called Persia until more than halfway through the 20th century.