Humankind - Persians discussion thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1247562339920027649?s=19

Emblematic Quarter: Satrap Palace
Emblematic Unit: Immortal

Classification: Expansionist

 

[drakula15]

Well, I guess no Nazca like people were hoping for

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Sad they din't go with some kind of shock cavalry but oh well the unique building looks good!

 

[Krajzen]

Goddamnit, once again Persians get that immortal unique unit... It really annoys me, as if Western video games never cared about any incarnation of Persia other than this from Greek-Persian wars (coincidentally, the most victorious incidence of West vs Persia). As if Persia was a word applying only to Achaemenid empire - not to Parthia with its horse archers, not to Sassanids with its cataphracts (and much more detailed history), not to glorious Persian Islamic civilizations with their enormous scientific output, not to Safavid empire fighting Ottomans like equal, not to the entire history of Iran in general, no, always Achaemenids and that Immortal unit.

Moderator Action: Anger and disappointment are fine. However, please express it with civility. leif

Which is overrated as hell anyway. By all accounts, Immortal was still much worse in combat than regular Greek hoplite - the real strength of Persian army lied in archers and cavalry (that's also why did it lose to Greeks so badly - its usual tactics were great when dealing with every other enemy and perfectly countered by the hoplite formation, too heavily armoured for archers and too strong for early cavalry). And yet in every video game ever it's this immortal time and time again. What about Parthian horse archer+cataphract cavalry armies which were actually capable of annihilating Seleucids and fighting Roman legions like equal for centuries, or about super heavy Sassanid cavalry with its epic duels with Byzantine counterparts?

Nah, Iranian history in Western consciousness doesn't exist beyond Greek-Persian wars and Immortal infantry which wasn't even main Persian military formation in antiquity.

What is really irritating me is that Humankind's format would be perfect for introducing more than one incarnation of Iranian history such as Achaemenids or Elam in the first era, Sasanians or Parthia in second, whatever dynasty in medieval, Safavids in renaissance, Qajar in industrial, Republic in modern (of course it would be unreasonably from me to expect so many, at this point I like West leaving any stereotype of Iran behind )

I bet "Arab" medieval civilization once again has very, very not-Arab Iranian cities on its list, Civ is unable to stop making this mistake for decades Because everybody knows medieval Muslim achievements are apparently synonymous with "Arabian" achievements.

 

[conorbebe]

The 10th culture must be Silla then, surely? I can't really think of any other cultures in the P-Z range that would make sense?

 

[pokiehl]

Love to see the Persians. Immortals are classic and as integral as Hoplites and the Satrap's Palace is a great choice.

 

[mitsho]

(Entertaining, but true rant)

Just wait, they will do Sasanids or Parthians as a medieval culture I see your point, but for a classical persian civ, Immortals do seem like the logical choice. Maybe we now have quite a few infantry emblematic units, but okay. This just convinces me more that we need early and late classical era. Carthage, Persia, Greece, Celts all belong to the first, while Goths, Huns, Sasanids and Hellenes belong to the latter.

 

[Cerilis]

The 10th culture must be Silla then, surely. I can't really think of any other cultures in the P-Z range that would make sense?

Weird guess, but maybe Yamato? ^^"

 

[conorbebe]

Just wait, they will do Sasanids or Parthians as a medieval culture I see your point, but for a classical persian civ, Immortals do seem like the logical choice. Maybe we now have quite a few infantry emblematic units, but okay. This just convinces me more that we need early and late classical era. Carthage, Persia, Greece, Celts all belong to the first, while Goths, Huns, Sasanids and Hellenes belong to the latter.

Judging by the fact they've called the culture "Persians" and not "Achaemenids", I wouldn't get your hopes up. I can definitely see the Persians being split-up down the line post-launch though.

 

[BuchiTaton]

For me Silla or Yayoi/Yamato are the best options, since Far East lack any Classical Era representative while all the other regions have at least someone.

 

[ehecatzin]

I think so too, Silla or Yamato to keep East Asia represented.

 

[j51]

Judging by the fact they've called the culture "Persians" and not "Achaemenids", I wouldn't get your hopes up. I can definitely see the Persians being split-up down the line post-launch though.

I'm thinking they went with "Persians" because their definition of the Classical Era covers both the Achaemenid and Sasanian dynasties. Using the name "Persian," in that case makes sense and doesn't exclude having the Safavids in the Early Modern (please! ), either in the base game or DLC, and/or simply "Iran" for Industrial or Contemporary.

 

[mitsho]

Judging by the fact they've called the culture "Persians" and not "Achaemenids", I wouldn't get your hopes up. I can definitely see the Persians being split-up down the line post-launch though.

I have no hopes or not-hopes, but imagine...

I should have put a winking smilie at the end of my sentence.

 

[j51]

This just convinces me more that we need early and late classical era. Carthage, Persia, Greece, Celts all belong to the first, while Goths, Huns, Sasanids and Hellenes belong to the latter.

Yeah! I do hope they later add a seventh "Late Antique" "Post-Classical" era with those cultures moved to it (by "Hellenes" I'm assuming you mean "Byzantines") as well as Axum, an early Islamic Caliphate, the Franks, and the Tang. Then the Middle Era could be narrowed to something like 1000-1500.

 

[ehecatzin]

I still hold some hope for the Sassanids to make it in along with Byzantium on medieval.

 

[LeroyChenkins]

Has it been established what the difference between expansionist vs militaristic civs is? Seems like to me those two traits go hand in hand.

 

[Elhoim]

Has it been established what the difference between expansionist vs militaristic civs is? Seems like to me those two traits go hand in hand.

I think it depends on how fast the map is filled up with other civs, and it might represent how easy would be to absorb new territories, not the fight for them itself.

 

[mitsho]

Expansionist is adding new regions/tiles to your Empire while Militarist is building units and killing them. Expansionist thus is more directed against "smaller" "indigenous" people while militarist is about big wars. Ideally in Humankind, a big war that doesn't result in a complete conquest of the other side may still be worth it for your victory / as spoils.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

(Opinions regarding Classical Persia)

Let me try to give you some insight into why this Culture shaped up the way it is in the game:

• Why call them Persians instead of Achaemenids? This is a matter of communicating to the audience. Please remember that most of you here are the most dedicated of fans (As if the name CivFanatics wasn't a dead giveaway) and many of you already have a vested interest in history. While you may be familiar with the Achaemenids, to many (if not most) of our potential players that name will mean very little. To them, the Achaemenids and the name "Persians" are synonymous, so for the sake of concise communication and accessibility we opted for the name "Persians."
• Why use Immortals instead of the archers so widely used by the Achaemenids? As I have explained in other places before, and Emblematic Unit does not have to be the mainstay of that Culture's army or even their most effective or successful unit. Emblematic Units (just like Emblematic Quarters) need to be evocative while staying authentic to history, as they serve as a touchpoint for the player to interact with the culture. Most people would probably not immediately think of archers when Classical Persia comes up, nor think of Classical Persia when archery comes up (The English longbows would probably steal the spotlight there...), but this association works with Immortals.
• (From our Discord) Why are the Immortals not armed with bows in addition to their spears? Our historian has told me that there is no definite evidence that the reliefs showing spearmen armed with bows are indeed Immortals ready for combat, which is why we stuck to giving them only spears. Furthermore, production constraints kick in again here, as arming them with both spears and bows would require additional animation and choreography.
• What about later Persian realms? Please wait for us to start revealing the Cultures of the later eras before passing judgment on them.

Has it been established what the difference between expansionist vs militaristic civs is? Seems like to me those two traits go hand in hand.

Cheeky answer: Expansionists are good at expanding, Militarists are good at military.
Proper answer: Expansion does not have to happen through conquest, and fighting does not have to lead to expansion

 

[shaglio]

Cheeky answer: Expansionists are good at expanding, Militarists are good at military.
Proper answer: Expansion does not have to happen through conquest, and fighting does not have to lead to expansion

You beat me to it. I was going to say that Expansionists like to grown their empires, either by conquering cities or by building new ones. Militarists like to build a large army, whether to use it to conquer cities, or to fight battles in open ground between cities, or just to park or their border to look menacing.