Persia/Iran in civ7

[pineappledan]

After actually trying to form a list of civs and leaders I understand more why we only ever get the Achaemenids. Because of history’s recency bias — there is more history closer to our own time — there are actually very few civs you can put as early as Persia. Also, the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon is not in Iran, but in Mesopotamia. So from a geographic and chronological diversity standpoint the Achaemenids offer more diversity to the roster overall.

Also, the later you go, the harder it becomes to build a kit that feels unique. Structurally, the Safavids are pretty similar to other gunpowder empires like the Ottomans or the Gurkanis, so it’s relatively more difficult to make each of them stand out. Qizilbash were comparable to Sipahi, their later use of Caucasian Ghilman is basically identical to (also predominantly Caucasian) Mamluks, and both the Safavids and Gurkani made use of zamburaks.

 

[pecheneg]

. Structurally, the Safavids are pretty similar to other gunpowder empires like the Ottomans or the Gurkanis, so it’s relatively more difficult to make each of them stand out.

The problem is that,in the same way, there are no huge differences between the gunpowder Western Europeans, and in the 18th century relative uniformity spreads to the Pacific Ocean and becomes even deeper.
At the same time, yes, the same Safavids and Co. deliberately cosplay the Turks, but their army differs from the Turkish even structurally – a strong bias in cavalry with chronically emerging neglect of heavy and medium artillery. That is, Iranian janissaries-gulyams – mounted, musketeers-tufengchi – dragoons. What does the exclusive unit of the French look like there?
Zamburki is not an exotic application to standard artillery, but at least at Nadir - the main artillery unit. At the same time, the matter is not limited to them – Iran is a region of distribution of another mobile substitute for artillery – superheavy or gingals rifles. (On camels and without). + classic jeziles.
There are also a lot of technical and external differences between Iranian and Turkish weapons. These are two different regions, the Persians are part of the Indo-Iranian cluster.
But inside this cluster of differences, too... a wagon and a small cart. The Mughals did not have dragoons, at least as a systemic phenomenon. Horses were expensive in India, giving them to the despicable infantry was a bad thing. At the same time, there was an impressive bunch of its own features – from two-handed swords and rapiers, to horse artillery.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Structurally, the Safavids are pretty similar to other gunpowder empires like the Ottomans or the Gurkanis, so it’s relatively more difficult to make each of them stand out.

I mean, the game includes, and manages to differentiate, Portugal and Spain - Iberian civs born out of the Reconquista, that are both maritime, colonial powers with significant territory in the Americas, both are Catholic with a strong streak of Crusading ideology, and where actually ruled in a personal union for a time. I'm sure Firaxis can do the same for the Safavids, Ottomans, and Timurids.

 

[pineappledan]

You will get no disagreement from me. European armies all start to merge together. As a result European kits all merge together too, and they all collectively suffer from far too many of them in any single civ instalment. European UUs often have to contend with being tiny modifications of default units, which are all modelled on European armies already.
Victoria's UU is a standard European line infantry, but in a Red coat, while the base line infantry wears a Blue coat. And the French one has some brooms on his shoulders!

The game already bends over backwards to get every european imaginable into the game, and goes to absurd lengths to try to emphasize that they are super unique and historically important, even when that’s patently false.

My point was that if we are going to have Ottomans, Mamluks, Mughals, Persians in a game, they cover a lot of the same ground, but the Persians have the unique advantage that their culture can be brought much earlier, into a time period where there are only a handful of civs that can even have unique components in those eras.

 

[InsidiousMage]

My point was that if we are going to have Ottomans, Mamluks, Mughals, Persians in a game, they cover a lot of the same ground

Broadly sure, but there are ways to differentiate them. Like, the Safavids can obviously have a more religion focus while, if Firaxis wanted to be adventurous, they could give the Ottomans a cultural focus. The Timurids and Mughals could easily have a wonder and building focus. The problem only really comes when you view those civs strictly through a domination lens. Like, the Ottomans can be your classic, expansionist gunpowder empire but then the Timurids/Mughals have discounts on wonder and district construction and then, say, Timur has something like Macedon's civ ability and now the civs have enough distinction to merit the inclusion of both.

 

[pineappledan]

Yes, and this is what they have done to European civs in the past as well. For instance the series Emphasizes France's cultural achievements and downplays their militarism while emphasizing German industry and militarism while downplaying their culture, when the reality is that both continental western European powers are quite comparable in military and cultural prowess. In order to differentiate two things which are similar in more ways than they are distinct, they decided to negate something in each of them. If they picked civilizations that are further apart they wouldn't have to do that so much, and they would open up more design space for devs to craft more well-rounded and representative civs.

 

[pecheneg]

I mean, the game includes, and manages to differentiate, Portugal and Spain

The humor is that the Portuguese "Renaissance" looked something like this: 1. the formation of a regular army, that is... tercios, 2. submission to Spain 3. independence with the same tercios and ... a huge crowd of mercenaries (in the middle of the 17th century, mostly the best "friends" of the Spaniards - the French). Probably, experts will find specifics, but...

 

[pineappledan]

I mean, the game includes, and manages to differentiate, Portugal and Spain

I mean, do they though? Do they actually manage it? I don't think so, personally.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I mean, do they though? Do they actually manage it? I don't think so, personally.

I would say they are differentiated enough, especially once you take the leader abilities into account. Portugal is more naval and trade focused while Spain is more religion and expansionist focused. The changes to Spain at the end of NFP certainly help as they get the bonuses to inter-continental trade routes and have some bonuses to aggressive expansion backed up their religion. I wouldn't argue about the trade overlapping some there are some differences between them and I do think those differences count, i.e. Portugal only gets bonuses to international trade routes whereas Spain can bonuses to both national and international trade routes. Spain's fleets and armada has no impact on the game whereas the Nau and Feitoria combined with the Naval School do encourage you to at least pay attention to your navy. They do overlap more than they should probably but I think there are enough differences to warrant the inclusion of both though I think if both are going to be in Civ7 then I think one should be the Reconquista civ and one should be the colonial and exploration civ.

 

[pecheneg]

Portugal is more naval and trade focused while Spain is more religion and expansionist focused.

This has a particularly humorous context, if you know that the naval expansion of Portugal was backed by knightly orders created to fight the infidels, and the dynasty of the "sea kings" of Portugal was started by the grand master of one of the orders. The well-known red cross on the sails is the Tomar Order. Who was the more desperate Catholic there is a very separate question.

the Nau

There was a fundamentally different unit in Spain - naо. In fact, just the Spanish and Portuguese fleets differ quite noticeably, because Spain still have the Mediterranean and galleys / shebeks. But the ocean fleet of Spain and Portugal have to be distinguished by nuances.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

After actually trying to form a list of civs and leaders I understand more why we only ever get the Achaemenids. Because of history’s recency bias — there is more history closer to our own time — there are actually very few civs you can put as early as Persia. Also, the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon is not in Iran, but in Mesopotamia. So from a geographic and chronological diversity standpoint the Achaemenids offer more diversity to the roster overall.

Also, the later you go, the harder it becomes to build a kit that feels unique. Structurally, the Safavids are pretty similar to other gunpowder empires like the Ottomans or the Gurkanis, so it’s relatively more difficult to make each of them stand out. Qizilbash were comparable to Sipahi, their later use of Caucasian Ghilman is basically identical to (also predominantly Caucasian) Mamluks, and both the Safavids and Gurkani made use of zamburaks.

I'm sure no matter if they have an Achaemenid, Sassanid or a Safavid etc. as leader they will always fall under the banner under a single Persian civ, and will have uniques that might span across Persian history. In that case I don't think there's any worry about overlap in playstyle with the later gunpowder empires. Besides the Immortal will forever be an immortal unit for them, at least, no matter if it's the civ UU or a leaders UU.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Not unsurprised to see no one's mentioned Karim Khan Zand as a leader for Persia/Iran; he was probably Iran's nicest leader, and the contrast with both his predecessors (Nader Shah) and successors (Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar) was especially stark. He ruled over Iran for 4 decades and helped the country recover from the devastation of civil war. And in a time when everyone was after the Iranian crown, he never referred to himself as 'Shah' or 'Padishah', instead preferring the title 'Vakil-e-Ra'aya' (Deputy of the People).