Psilonemo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2022
- Messages
- 69
In my own playthroughs as well as the playthrough experience of various VP youtubers like Milae the consensus on Persian Immortals seem to be that gameplay wise they are very good as they are. You get a very tanky unit that is relatively cost-efficient and is spammable due to not requiring a strategic resource. Plus its unique promotions all carry over when they are upgraded, so you get to maintain tanky pikemen and tercios later into the game when there is a growing need for a tanky frontline. The Immortal alone lets Persia strong both as a defensive civ, as well as an offensive civ once their golden age bonuses kick in.
Personally though I think it's worth mentioning that historically speaking these bonuses don't truly capture what was distinct about the immortals. There is no historical source which emphasized the Immortals were a particularly better armored unit compared to their contemporaries. If anything, their Greek rivals were noted to have been the slightly better armored counterpart - though the by the late Acahemenid era Persian immortals and the average hoplite would have had more or less similar if not the same armor quality - some variation of linothorax or scale cuirass. What was distinct about the Immortals is that they were a unit meant to represent the best aspects of Persian martial traditions and its members were drawn only from the members of the landed gentry who were capable of both melee and ranged roles at the same time. In other words they were hybrid units that shot arrows first, then fought with their spears and axes later.
In my own games I changed the Immortals so they can "shoot" a ranged attack like Immortals can in civ 6, though without animations. And I replaced armor plating with march instead, so that there is greater emphasis on the fact that this unit gives the illusion of them being immortal, not because they are well armored but because they are being replenished constantly as soon as they suffer casualties. Also I think the slight defensive nerf which comes with march helps give them less power during defensive conflicts and more power during offensive conflicts since march synergises extremely well with Persia's golden age bonuses.
What does the community think? Does the unit warrant a small rework for historical immersion purposes or not really? I'm just brainstorming.
Here's a helpful illustration for reference ot what I'm getting at.
Hoplites : heavier bronze plate or linothorax with more coverage due to their greaves and large plated shields. Intended to excel not just as individual combatants but specifically in formation.
Immortals : decently armored but not as heavily as their Greek counterparts, their shields are also lighter of only wood and wicker, but make up for it by being able to serve as any kind of troop - archer, spearman, axeman, sowrdsman, shieldbearer.. etc.
This is how they appear in Civ 6. They are as basically tanky composite bowmen which can also perform in melee, and are VERY good with extra movement.
Personally though I think it's worth mentioning that historically speaking these bonuses don't truly capture what was distinct about the immortals. There is no historical source which emphasized the Immortals were a particularly better armored unit compared to their contemporaries. If anything, their Greek rivals were noted to have been the slightly better armored counterpart - though the by the late Acahemenid era Persian immortals and the average hoplite would have had more or less similar if not the same armor quality - some variation of linothorax or scale cuirass. What was distinct about the Immortals is that they were a unit meant to represent the best aspects of Persian martial traditions and its members were drawn only from the members of the landed gentry who were capable of both melee and ranged roles at the same time. In other words they were hybrid units that shot arrows first, then fought with their spears and axes later.
In my own games I changed the Immortals so they can "shoot" a ranged attack like Immortals can in civ 6, though without animations. And I replaced armor plating with march instead, so that there is greater emphasis on the fact that this unit gives the illusion of them being immortal, not because they are well armored but because they are being replenished constantly as soon as they suffer casualties. Also I think the slight defensive nerf which comes with march helps give them less power during defensive conflicts and more power during offensive conflicts since march synergises extremely well with Persia's golden age bonuses.
What does the community think? Does the unit warrant a small rework for historical immersion purposes or not really? I'm just brainstorming.
Here's a helpful illustration for reference ot what I'm getting at.
Hoplites : heavier bronze plate or linothorax with more coverage due to their greaves and large plated shields. Intended to excel not just as individual combatants but specifically in formation.
Immortals : decently armored but not as heavily as their Greek counterparts, their shields are also lighter of only wood and wicker, but make up for it by being able to serve as any kind of troop - archer, spearman, axeman, sowrdsman, shieldbearer.. etc.
This is how they appear in Civ 6. They are as basically tanky composite bowmen which can also perform in melee, and are VERY good with extra movement.
Last edited:
