Humankind - Persians discussion thread

[Siptah]

Good to have confirmation that the city we already saw in a screenshot was indeed Persian, as speculated.

The satrapy is an obvious choice, and a very good one thematically. There is hopefully a synergy with the - very fitting - expansionist focus of Persia. I assume that the classical age will be a rather expansion focused one anyway, so Persia could be a "standard" pick for me.

I can fully comprehend @Catoninetales_Amplitude argumentation why Persia is chosen over Achaemenids and why immortals are chosen as EQ - yet, it is also a circle argument, and someone at some point will have to end the "Persia = Achaemenids equation and immortals are their most famous unit" dogma of video games. I can understand shying away from it, but I still would have wished for it - after all, who else would do it? We won't see a Persia focused game in the near future, sadly. The whole thing is especially sad since the image of Persia, similar to that of Carthage (see Elephants), is in many people's minds (also those with interest in history) shaped by foreign texts instead by the archeological findings and their own writings and thinking. I remember reading translations of achaemenid texts a few years ago which equal getting a bow to becoming a man, so it would have been a chance to educate gamers about the importance of archers for the Persians. Eventually, hopefully, someone will approach these cultures differently - even without the large lobby that some others cultures have nowadays.

In contrast to that, it is very nice to see that hope is nurtured that the use of the name "Persia" does not rule out later cultures of this geographical domain. Iran is easily the most interesting and important region of world history, just as a several other places are as well. It could eventually appear in any era without feeling wrong. Even with just one Persia available (looking at you, civ VI), I would have wished for the Safavids just once... I do not intend to downplay the Achaemenids though, so Humankinds concepts seem to be begging for more iterations here - vanilla or DLC ;-)

 

[Jkchart]

Good to have confirmation that the city we already saw in a screenshot was indeed Persian, as speculated.

The satrapy is an obvious choice, and a very good one thematically. There is hopefully a synergy with the - very fitting - expansionist focus of Persia. I assume that the classical age will be a rather expansion focused one anyway, so Persia could be a "standard" pick for me.

I can fully comprehend @Catoninetales_Amplitude argumentation why Persia is chosen over Achaemenids and why immortals are chosen as EQ - yet, it is also a circle argument, and someone at some point will have to end the "Persia = Achaemenids equation and immortals are their most famous unit" dogma of video games. I can understand shying away from it, but I still would have wished for it - after all, who else would do it? We won't see a Persia focused game in the near future, sadly. The whole thing is especially sad since the image of Persia, similar to that of Carthage (see Elephants), is in many people's minds (also those with interest in history) shaped by foreign texts instead by the archeological findings and their own writings and thinking. I remember reading translations of achaemenid texts a few years ago which equal getting a bow to becoming a man, so it would have been a chance to educate gamers about the importance of archers for the Persians. Eventually, hopefully, someone will approach these cultures differently - even without the large lobby that some others cultures have nowadays.

In contrast to that, it is very nice to see that hope is nurtured that the use of the name "Persia" does not rule out later cultures of this geographical domain. Iran is easily the most interesting and important region of world history, just as a several other places are as well. Even with just one Persia available (looking at you, civ VI), I would have wished for the Safavids just once... I do not intend to downplay the Achaemenids though, so Humankinds concepts seem to be begging for more iterations here - vanilla or DLC ;-)

See, this is also how I feel. This game is SCREAMING for there to eventually be proper chains of culture introduced through xpacks and DLC for virtually every geographic area, most close enough to be accuratish or even direct lines. Certainly we will get 6 Chinese cultures in the future, same for Indian subcontinent, and I'm sure Persia/Iranian civilization will have a full 6. There's potentially hundreds of playable cultures, and I don't think and 4x game (sans Paradox) has ever given us this much opportunity for so many different cultures to play.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

I can fully comprehend @Catoninetales_Amplitude argumentation why Persia is chosen over Achaemenids and why immortals are chosen as EQ - yet, it is also a circle argument, and someone at some point will have to end the "Persia = Achaemenids equation and immortals are their most famous unit" dogma of video games.

I'm afraid video games do no operate in a vacuum there, for Persia, Carthage, and many others. At least with "Persia=Achaemenid" we can provide the additional information that we are talking about a specific dynasty here (is dynasty the right word?).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

See, this is also how I feel. This game is SCREAMING for there to eventually be proper chains of culture introduced through xpacks and DLC for virtually every geographic area, most close enough to be accuratish or even direct lines. Certainly we will get 6 Chinese cultures in the future, same for Indian subcontinent, and I'm sure Persia/Iranian civilization will have a full 6. There's potentially hundreds of playable cultures, and I don't think and 4x game (sans Paradox) has ever given us this much opportunity for so many different cultures to play.

The continuity of 'Persia' as a cultural/political concept is hard to understand from the outside, but I got it drilled home personally. Back in the 1960s, while I was in High School, my school took part in a Model United Nations exercise held in the neighboring state. My school was picked to represent Iran (at that time under the Shah). Since we were in a university town, we invited an Iranian graduate student to come down from campus and brief us on Background.

The first sentence out of his mouth was:
"We are not Arabs".
The second sentence was:
"We are Persians".

Nothing I have read or studied in almost 60 years since has changed my view that these two statements define Iran/Persia, at least to the Iranians/Persians, even of today.

Second observation, Expansionist Persia: Cyrus' Empire was the first great muti-national political entity in the world that lasted any length of time. His conception of the Satrapy system of 'pay your taxes, get left alone by the government' , was one of the single most brilliant concepts in human history, and made possible, to varying degrees, every large political unit since.

Third Observation: Immortals. As stated, there is no certain depiction of an Immortal with a bow. In fact, the only depictions of Persian bowmen show unarmored infantry without any other weapons except (possibly, from written descriptions only) a large wicker 'shield' carried by one man to cover both himself and an archer-partner.
At Gaugamela, the battle that effectively ended the Achaemenids, there were only 2000 Immortals, armed only with spears. They were guarding Darius, and got hit in the flank by Alexander and the Companion Cavalry and in the front by the Hypaspists. It is unlikely that many of them left the battlefield alive, since the unit is never mentioned again.

Gaugamela is a good example of the strength of the Persian Empire, even in decline: the Persian battleline included Persian Immortals, Greek and Indian infantry (2000 each), heavy cavalry (armored) from Persia, Babylon-Syria, Anatolia and the Scythians (Massagetae armored 'cataphracts' on armored horses - first mention of them anywhere), light cavalry from Mesopotamia, Syria, Bactria, Persia and India, and Scythian horse-archers (over 5000 of them!). In addition they also fielded some 200 'scythed chariots' that, despite Curtius' dramatic rhetorically inventive descriptions, were an unmitigated Disaster, and had some elephants that got left behind because they would have stampeded most of the cavalry in the army, none of which were used to the sight and sound of elephants (only the 2000 Indian cavalry might have qualified)

Which means an accurate Achaemenid force could potentially include units from at least 3 other Factions (Babylon, Greece, India) and at least one 'minor' Faction (Scythia) if the horse-archer Factions aren't going to be represented as a Major Faction until the Huns.
And, of course, that's only the Initial Persian Faction that the game could (potentially) include.

Bring on the Sasanids, Safavids, Afsharids, Qajaris, Pahlevis!

 

[Zaarin]

I completely understand it, but I'm a little sad to see Achaemenid/Arsacid/Sassanid Persia merged--all three were so different, and I just want to see a more cultural/religious Persia (which the Safavids would fit, but I meant Zoroastrian/Manichaean/Church of the East Persia ).

 

[Krajzen]

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.

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

Thank you for your response
Yeah it makes sense for Persia instead of such obscure name as "Achaemenids", and it means dynasty not people... I was just wondering how could you implement, for example, different incarnations of the same country when no elegant names are available, and figured out "France - Napoleonic" or "Persia - Achaemenid" or "Persia - Safavid" would be some way to achieve that.

If Persia has more incarnations I am going to be happy, if it doesn't it's fine - cannot please everybody.

 

[conorbebe]

I'd still be shocked to see no East Asian representation at all in the Classical Era, but what if the 10th mystery culture is the Tiwanaku?

They're an important pre-Inca Andean civilisation which had an extremely effective field farming technique known as "suka qullu", which is still used today. Admittedly, they rose to prominence right at the end of Classical Antiquity, but they'd fit the bill for an obscure Agrarian culture. Plus, they've got plenty of distinctive architecture that could be taken from for the Emblematic Quarter. The only issue would be finding a suitable Emblematic Unit.

 

[VermelhoRed]

To add my 2 cents on this "Persia" vs "Achaemenid" discussion, I'd like to add that it was the Achaemenids themselves who were responsible for the Western world generally naming Iran "Persia". They were based on Pars after all, and they conquered the whole Iran. Meanwhile, the Arsacid dynasty in particular, was NOT, strictly saying, Persian. They originated in the region of Parthia, which is why their empire is also called Parthian Empíre. By the time they conquered all of Iran and Mesopotamia though, the West already called it all "Persia", solely due to the huge impact (Fame?) the Achaemenid dynasty had in the world. I think it's fair that Achaemenids get to own the name "Persians", while later dynasties could use their own names.

 

[IPERSIAN]

Finally some healthy competition firaxis really needed to step their game up!