The Persians

Ision

Master
Joined
Mar 8, 2003
Messages
452
I have decided to do a review on each CIV. My intention is to encourage debate and hopefully to help others (and myself) in their game play.

The Persians

Industrious and scientific, the Persians are a strong production and research workhorse. Persia, along with Egypt has been a perennial ‘newbie’ favorite since the inception of CIV III. New players often struggle with proper worker management, tech research, and combat. Persia has the built in traits and Unique Unit that help mask a new players weaknesses in these areas. This masking has often-lead ‘newbies’ to crown Persia the title of THE best Civ. Experienced players know that there is no ‘best’ Civ, and yet they often rate Persia among their personal favorites. The reason for this is simple; played correctly Persia can dominate a game from beginning to end in a manner that few others can rival. Few AI Civs present as frightening an Ancient Age neighbor as the Persians, and for good reason!

For the peaceful builder Persia offers many advantages. The dynamics of the Ind/Sci combo make Persia a quality builder Civ. Those faster workers, work to Persia’s advantage well into the Industrial Age. This is a 2-fold boost for the builder. Faster workers equals higher shield production and quickly built commerce producing roads. Those shields and extra money usually translate out to faster build times. In tandem with this is a scientific boost that speeds research times, gives half priced libraries and universities, and even provides a free tech at the beginning of each age. Once the Persian infrastructure is up, few Civs can compete with their rate of researching techs. A Persian strategy that prioritizes researching ‘Literature’ will give them early access to those half priced libraries and the resulting cultural and scientific benefits. Persia quite often finds itself as the first to research a tech. The advantages they gain from this are significant. It allows them a head start on those Great Wonders (a head start compounded by their high shield production), a higher chance at a SGL, and the ability to become quite rich playing tech ‘broker’. While not the best of the builder Civs, they can more than hold their own. The player seeking a cultural or space race victory will be well served by Persia.

As a warmonger Civ Persia can be an absolute terror. Those industrious workers quickly laying roads right up to their neighbor’s front door, high shield towns/cities boosting combat unit production, and a science boost that provides the tech parity or tech lead that ensures an up to date military. All of these work in Persia’s favor, but nothing, and I mean NOTHING, makes Persia such a battlefield nightmare as their UU – the Immortal. Every UU is useful, albeit to varying degrees. The impact of most UUs is slight, their greatest value being the ability to initiate a Golden Age. This is not the case with the Persian Immortal. A 30-shield 4-2-1 swordsman level unit, the Immortal presents the single most powerful offensive unit of the Ancient Age. Nothing in the Ancient Age packs the punch of the Immortal (not even ancient cavalry), and it will continue to dominate until the advent of Knights. Defensively even the Greek Hoplite will take a deep breath when confronted by this unit. A common Persian strategy is the beeline to Iron Working, without actually connecting the discovered iron. The Persian can then mass-produce low cost 10-shield warriors while amassing enough gold for a mass upgrade. In large numbers those Immortals can unleash a fury that no Civ can withstand. The ease in which Immortals rip apart neighbor after neighbor can quickly spoil a warmonger. Yet another upside to this UU is that its 4-2-1 stats are competitive well into the Middle Ages, and are not truly outclassed until the advent of Cavalry! While not a Militaristic Civ, Persia can certainly play like one – and outperform most of them.

On the downside, C3C has seen the toning down of the Industrious trait. While still an excellent trait it does not dominate as it once did. However, this is somewhat mitigated in Persia’s case from the boost ‘scientific’ received in C3C. Another downside is their average at best performance when playing island maps. One is hard pressed to find another significant downside.

Summary: The excellent all around qualities of the Persians will see them continue to be among the favored Civs. Their UU alone will draw players to them with regularity. Name the category - culture, space race, war, UU, expansion…- and the Persians, while perhaps not THE best, are better than average. Their greatest strength is a lack of any significant weakness. Persia remains an undisputable top tier Civ that can compete with any Civ – on any level – in any style.

Below is the link to my other Civ reviews:

other CIV Reviews by Ision
 
Ision,

This is a great write up. I hope when you are done you will submit a strategy article thread with links to all the civs. This will be quite helpful for something thinking about playing different civs.

I do have a few observations about the Persians that I would like to add:

As Ision said, I found the Persians early in my quest to master Civ 3 – thanks to this website. Scientific and Industrious are powerful traits to help newer players get by through monarch level. The UU is good, because it can be effective for a long time, so even a builder can use it later in the game to get a win and start a golden age. I think they are still my favorite civ, because they were the first civ I changed to for the purpose of improving my game play.

With that said, I believe the Persians have some limitations:

First, if there is no iron then there are no immortals. No immortals makes it hard to have a golden age. Any civ will struggle without iron, but lack of iron is a significant setback for the Persians, who are geared to benefit from it. I have used this weakness against the Persian AI with good success.

Second, Persia is more likely to struggle when the expansion phase of the game is short. Expansionist civs or any civ on emperor or deity level will grow very fast early in the game and grab up precious land. Unless Persia gets the right resource for a settler factory, it will lose the land grab and face a long uphill battle to succeed. The land grab phase can be extended by increasing map size or by reducing number of rivals.

At emperor level I abandoned the Persians in favor of the Zulu, whose expansionist trait and early GA helped me keep up with the AI in territory and tech (standard map size, 70% water, continents, 7 AI rivals, roaming barbs). Again strategy articles on this website helped me make the switch.

BTW - these comments are based on playing some vanilla Civ3 but mostly PTW.
 
Persia does have a few weaknesses that need to be compensated for. First is not being religious and not having a 1-turn anarchy. This becomes more of a problem if you want to build a wonder and get a new government type. The second weakness is the lack of cheap happiness buildings. Persia has to compensate by controlling luxuries or consuming cash luxuries.

Their UU in ptw is not as effect as with vanilla ptw. The immortal used to be the only 4-attack foot unit up to infantry. Also, at higher levels, I tend to not fight until latter ages on which make immortals less effective.
 
The Persians are a better civ for monarch than emperor, and I can sum up why in one word. Happiness. It's just that much tougher to keep up early in the game because you really need to build temples, and they're expensive. Plus, you're not expansionist, so it's hard to find the luxuries without the scout. For me, it's difficult to win at emperor when I'm neither religious nor expansionist, because I have to devote so many resources to happiness that it interferes with my ability to excel in the "land-grab."

Persians are still a great civ, tho. PS...I tweaked my game to have slightly more iron then standard, because I found too many games were determined by who had iron and who didn't. It was only a slight change, but now, it's unlikely for a civ to get shut out of iron unless it gets distracted during the landgrab. With iron being necessary for swordsmen AND pikemen AND knights AND railroads...before my change, the whole game, every game, revolved around getting iron. Now it's important, but it's not like the game should be re-named "Iron Acquisition 3."
 
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their kind remarks (and even for their criticisms -lol-)

Let me respond to some of the issues raised:

"if there is no iron then there are no immortals"

yes very true, but this is also true of virtually every CIV - no horses = means no chinese riders, no iron = no legion, no saltpeter = no muskekteer... However, that this especially effects the Persians more than most IS an accurate statement. Excellent comment.

"Persia is more likely to struggle when the expansion phase of the game is short".

I respectfully disagree. Naturally agricultural and expnasionist CIVs have the upper hand in early expansion - no one can argue that. However, the Indusitrious trait IS a strong trait for early expansion. Better workers = fewer workers needed = more settlers from higher pop. More roads = better commerce = more money to 'hurry' once in Rep/Mon governemnts. Yes, Persia is outclassed by many in this area, however they outclass many others in this area. To be 'average' (2nd tier) in a given area is not the same as being weak in that area.

"The Persians are a better civ for monarch than emperor, and I can sum up why in one word. Happiness."

Absolutley true. The higher the level, the greater the value of Expansionist, and the more problematic happiness becomes. However, the VAST majority of players are Regent/Monarch players, followed by the Cheif/Warlord players. The Emp/Diety players are in the smallest minority. The reviews are short and designed as 'overviews' of the Civs - as such the very broad and general statements I make need to reflect what is true the majority of the time. For 80 to 90% of people playing - my statement is accurate.

once again, many thanks to everyone

Ision
 
One thing to note - in C3C, the upgrade cost has been increased. So, no more 40-warrior upgrade cheese.
 
Ision what Civ is up next?

I hope you'll eventually get around to China because presently im busy with non civ stuff and I have not yet once played China but I've noticed the Rider is a powerful UU and I'd like to try them eventually. If you could only do a review on them that'd be excellent.
 
is japan next or china?
 
America is next........

Ision
 
ahh yes, the america love the traits...or hate the UU, one of those civs that arouses such debate as to whether good or bad, we'll be able to tell a lot about your playing style by your review of america, personaly i hate america (the civ one, not the real one...my country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty......)
 
Ision thanks so much for these reviews of the Civs you've been doing. They have all been excellent, and really helpful.
I've recently moved up from monarch and am currently playing my second Emperor game (lost the first). I chose the Persans because the Immortal is so powerful. I've managed to kill of the Chinese pre-Chivalry before turning my attentions to the Babylonians, I'm keeping up so I reckon all being well I'll have a good chance to win..
The Immortal is so powerful, a veteran immortal has slightly better than evens chance of beating fortified regular muskets (you lose a few making this bet though!) The first unit that really stops the Immortals is riflemen!
While you're absolutely right that there is no 'best' civ i reckon the Immortal can give a big advantage when you're trying out a new higher level.
Also I play Civ 3 1.29 so still get the full power industrious trait.
 
immortal armies with 4 units can even take on dug in infantry!

however i strongly recommend heavy artillery bombardment before hand

in my games i disband the swordsmen armies for shields that usually go into building new armies in my city with the military academy,but not immortal armies!

not until MA and MI
 
persia ROCKS. if ur having trouble expanding, start over. if theres no iron, start over regardless of the civ. never tried the warrior upgrade actually. usually go expand, get literature, get iron working, build immortals, smite and use golden age to build libraries
 
It is interesting that no one mentioned the Immortals weakness, which is, if u sentry, u will see a stack approaching...that means horse or archers or whatever is available can hit that stack...i suggest too that the main weakness (not much of one) of this Civ is having to wait on that later ancient age UU. Any other Civ that has an early ancient offensive UU (and i would include the Incan and Aztec UU's on this even tho their stats are 1-1-2 ) (and the Zulu Impi too-i have tried Impi mass attacks -like to see an ol Zulu review) or horse should be able to contend with Immortals if u give urself first strike capability. But, like Legions, if these things start getting built quickly they can be unstoppable-wonder if they should be coupled with catapults like legions do well with-as defense . I would like to try the Persians in a game where u gear for an Immortal sea borne attack- something not really mentioned as a tactical matter with Persia. One old complaint of this game is the absence of Naval power being more important. And i agree with that complaint -(that and the fact that Greece is not Seafaring-and that Scandanavia doesn't have the Longboat as a UU) Seems like if u landed a stack of six Immortals maybe an archer and a catapult u could take any port. (Emperor/Huge/Continent)
 
Immortals are offensive units - their best form of defense is to attack! Approaching enemy units should be hit first, from the Immortals position on a hill/mountain/city sqaure. 30 shield 2-1-2 Horsemen taking on 30 shield 4-2-1 Immortals (even injured ones) is a recipe for disaster and quick bankruptcy. A Persian on the defense should continue to use these units in an offensive manner. Sentry duty for Persians should be for spearmen or injured Immortals only (naturally during peace time Immortals will be on sentry).

Roman Legion units are good solid units - do not misunderstand me - and are a great value to any player, and especially the more inexpierenced player. That said, they are NOT in the same class as a Persian Immortal. That single extra attack factor is far more profound an influence than most people assume at first glance. While the Roman Civs greatest strength is at warmongering - the dynamics of the civs traits along with their typical start compared to other civs makes them easily outclassed by many a non-milataristic civ at warmongering.

and the Zulu Impi too-i have tried Impi mass attacks -

Impi's are NOT designed to be used in 'human wave attacks' - using them in this fashion negates their real natural advantage of speed, and is severely cost in-efficient. The Impi is a mega-scout and 'indirect approach' offensive unit.

Ision
 
posted in error
 
What exactly do you mean by that?

Great review, by the way.

:goodjob:
 
If I were playing as Persia, I would have choose small map, pangea 60 - 70% ocean, and 4 million years old to see if I have chance of getting iron after researching iron working which is one tech away from bronze working. If there's an iron nearby my territory, I'll hook it later to build warriors to upgrade to Immortals to wreck havoc on any annoying weak neighbors who stand in my way. Most people admit it that immortal is the terror infantry of ancient age, or even balanced during middle age since Persians doesn't have to build Medival Infantry which costs 10 more shields than their UUs. If they form an military army and stack 3 or 4 immortals, they move like Mongolian Keshik except Immortals can't ignore hills and mountain movements.
 
Ision said:
"The Persians are a better civ for monarch than emperor, and I can sum up why in one word. Happiness."

Absolutley true. The higher the level, the greater the value of Expansionist, and the more problematic happiness becomes. However, the VAST majority of players are Regent/Monarch players, followed by the Cheif/Warlord players. The Emp/Diety players are in the smallest minority. The reviews are short and designed as 'overviews' of the Civs - as such the very broad and general statements I make need to reflect what is true the majority of the time. For 80 to 90% of people playing - my statement is accurate.

once again, many thanks to everyone

Ision

did not get that????
how is expansionist related to happiness........the only benefit of expansionist is a scout..i believe.
i have won till emperor lvl without persia but unable to win on deity lvl as i started playing with persia(because a friend of mine told me tht it is the strongest civ).if u r correct i think i am losing as i am playing with persia....
plz explain how happiness is related to expansionist and which CIV do u think is best for deity...
 
Top Bottom