No Persian Civ!?!?!

[magha77]

Who else is as disappointed as I am about the choices for the base game? Scythia, Gorgo, Kongo over Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great? 2 Greek choices without a Persia!?! I'm just unbelievably let down by this. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot to the extreme.

 

[anandus]

Who else is as disappointed as I am about the choices for the base game? Scythia, Gorgo, Kongo over Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great? 2 Greek choices without a Persia!?! I'm just unbelievably let down by this. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot to the extreme.

Yes, there are also no Ottomans, north American Indigenous civs, south east Asian civs, etc. Many are disappointed (you can join them in one of the many complaining topics).
But there are plenty of civs to come in DLC or expansions, so without a doubt a Persian civ of one form or another will come to the game, don't worry.

 

[qwerty25]

Not really surprised nor disappointed...

 

[Sobornost]

Who else is as disappointed as I am about the choices for the base game? Scythia, Gorgo, Kongo over Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great? 2 Greek choices without a Persia!?! I'm just unbelievably let down by this. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot to the extreme.

Yeah, part of Civ is having those familiar favorites you go back to, and for me Persia has always been that civ, since Civ 3 they've been the first one I've beaten the game with each time.

The game is still fun, just like it is still fun with 1UPT (I don't care for 1UPT as a mechanic), but it becomes less fun and interesting for me, for sure. That's I think the honest reality, it's not like a civ makes or breaks the game, but a well-loved civ being missing makes even a fun game kind of bittersweet, like something just isn't the same. I know how you feel right now.

Part of the pain too is that I was kind of accepting of at least having the Ottomans, an auxiliary favorite, to rely on in the meantime. But nope, no Ottomans either! Turkish and Persian civilization are a big interest for me and it feels like an especially big hole without both of those.

Like I mentioned elsewhere the omission of Persia maybe will be justified by some awesome mechanic tailor-made for them to showcase being introduced in an expansion. One can hope.

Russia is the final of my go-to civs. If they seem really interesting to play when revealed I think I'll be more at peace with how things are.

 

[Sobornost]

This same type of thread again?! Oh come on!

Hey now, if Germany or France was dropped for Persia there would naturally be a few people stung by the decision, no?

The reality is between the extremes, the game is not a disaster because of it, but it's not like it's irrelevant, either. We all have favorites and without that favorite thing there something just doesn't sit the same.

Why not let people get it off their chest?

 

[VermelhoRed]

Weren't there a thousand other threads for them to do that? Because that's all I see! In the leader portraits thread, in the leaders revealed thread, in the Harald Hadrada thread...

Persia will be made available in a DLC or Expansion later, anyway, and it will probably be awesome, as generally Expansion civs are more well-thought-out than base game civs, in my opinion.

 

[Sobornost]

Weren't there a thousand other threads for them to do that? Because that's all I see! In the leader portraits thread, in the leaders revealed thread, in the Harald Hadrada thread...

Persia will be made available in a DLC or Expansion later, anyway, and it will probably be awesome, as generally Expansion civs are more well-thought-out than base game civs, in my opinion.

I agree with your optimism about it being as DLC or expansion. That's not a bad place to be. Base game civs can kind of get stale and left behind with later mechanics.

You have to note though, all those threads are talking about civ leaders, and it was just recently revealed that Norway was in the game, and Persia wasn't. That's kind of the place to talk about what we think are bad/unfun choices, no?

 

[Civciv5]

I am too very frustrated about this. I mean Persia is more important than Brazil and Poland COMBINED! Where is Persia?

If you don't like it, then don't read it.

THIS!

 

[magha77]

First, I don't care for the undertones on "political correctness " or "eurocentrism" being thrown around in the other threads. My gripe has to do with the concept of the game from its inception. It's called Civilization for a reason!?! The inclusion of Scythia and addition of a second Greek leader over Persia is just insulting. Unless Ardishir or Xerxes was just not seen on that clip exposing most of the leaders. then I will be very disappointed. Just having that rivalry between Persia and Greece or Arabia as a potential for leader agendas would have been so neat to have from the start. And as for the whole DLC argument, DLC civs should be the civilizations that had lower impact on world history than than the base or vanilla civs.

 

[VermelhoRed]

magha77, I just saw that you commented on the "Leaders revealed" thread, saying you're fuming and that you would not buy this game. You had the perfect platform. And yet, you felt the need to make another thread and clutter the page, congratulations.

And as for the whole DLC argument, DLC civs should be the civilizations that had lower impact on world history than than the base or vanilla civs.

Says who?

 

[Brackenspore]

Where is Persia?

 

[Morningcalm]

It is really strange to have two Greeces without a Persia. After all, Greece and Persia had the most famous war in ancient antiquity. Only Rome and Carthage's rivalry (in the later classical age) came close to that level of fame. It's a strange oversight that I hope is remedied by DLC soon.

 

[Xen]

Im similarly disappointed with the lack of Persia. Seriously, Vikings instead of Persia?

 

[magha77]

It is really strange to have two Greeces without a Persia. After all, Greece and Persia had the most famous war in ancient antiquity. Only Rome and Carthage's rivalry (in the later classical age) came close to that level of fame. It's a strange oversight that I hope is remedied by DLC soon.

That's what's so surprising about the omission. Particularly how leader agendas could have been used in regards to rivalries among civs. Persia with Greece. Persia with Arabia.

 

[Xen]

That said, I woukd have LOVED Scythians, Greeks and Persians all in the same map.

 

[isau]

Hey now, if Germany or France was dropped for Persia there would naturally be a few people stung by the decision, no?

Four words.

Spain in Civ V.

 

[dagriggstar]

Here's the thing about Persia's omission

I bet somewhere, potentially in the dawn of man thingy at the start of the game or in the civilpedia, there will be multiple civs talking about how they faced the mighty Persian empire. In fact, Persia will probably have more mentions in other civs civilpedia sections than any other civ.....

 

[dapperbandit]

Bit of a shame. Hopefully we get Persia in DLC, it'd be nice to get Cyrus instead of Xerxes or Darius again.

 

[Sync]

More surprised that the Zulus aren't in tbh. They've been in every Civ since the first (Shaka too).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

im so frustrated by this. Change is good. Persia will inevitably be added eventually so just a little patience is required, it's not the end of the world. Im incredibly happy with the fact that we have had some regulars drop out of base game, cos it means we have new interesting ones crop up in their place like Scythia, that otherwise would be unlikely additions.

Realistically the only way new or less well known Civs can be added is as part of base game or major expansions, so people get access to them alongside other features they want. Big favourites like Persia will be more than capable of selling enough to justify an individual dlc pack just for them.

And looking into the historical side of things, everyone's basically on a level playing field and it's only our arbitrary notions of whether one thing is better than another that give us these ideas of what should appear. Persia isn't one contiguous empire. Equally it hasn't just disappeared then reappeared in its old form again later. The Safavids are completely different and unrelated to the archaemenids, but we label them the same and legitimise their claims to land by eating up state propaganda that promotes them as continuations. We separate out Rome and Italy as being different, but it's literally the same scenario as Persia. You could have five different Civs based on the history of The land in Iran.

Basically what I'm trying to say is any empire that has had success has a place in civ, and none more than any other because they all basically just last a dynasty then their remains are mopped up and rebranded.