Some strategic thoughts on Persia

[Solver]

I have played many civilizations thus far, and from my strategical viewpoint it seems, currently, that Persia is the best civilization in the game (yes, not the Iroqouis).

Now, here's the reasoning:

First, Persian special abilities. Those are Industrious&Scientifical. Industrial bonus has proved itself to be a real bonus in the Anicent times, when I can get along with less workers than the others, and thus produce more Settlers in the same amount of time. My free worker does very well, and I build less workers with Persia than with other civs, because I will still terraform whatever I need, and build the Settlers at size 3 or 4 cities.

Later in the game this bonus is less important, but the extra productivity is still nice. When I am Persian Democracy, my Workers run out of work to do on smaller islands.

Scientifical. My playing style is Scientifical (why Zakharov was by far my favorite in SMAC), and that makes me value this bonus a lot. But look, it's really that good. First of all, the cheap Libraries. Obviously, Writing and Literature are early game technologies, and I thus research them early enough. When I have my first cities in place and attent to matters other than building Settlers and Wokers, Library is the first thing I do. Temples are already in place usually, because I try to have the highest culture in the game, that does really improve results of my diplomatic sessions, and having a wide border is great, too. I always try to get the Great Library, it's possibly the most important wonder in the game. Great Library lets me get those technologies I decide to ignore for free, and in case I get unlucky with my research ambitions and start losing the speed at which I gain my technology, the Great Library will keep me on par with the others.

For the Persians, thusly, Education is a very interesting advance. If you got a bad day and somebody else beat you to the Great Library, get Education to make them forget that benefit. If you are owner of the Great Library, it will be a shame to part with it, but you probably lead the tech race by now and anyway rarely get a new technology. Now, put Universities in your cities.

By the time I get Education, I normally have the improvements like Temple, Library and Marketplace in my cities, so I then throw in another expansion and make defensive units. As soon as I get Education, each city that's not too busy starts making a University, and with the Scientifical ability even cities that are pretty slow will get the University in nice time, dramatically boosting your research output.

And finally, the Immortals. I am a peaceful player, but there are occasions when I want Ancient time wars. Once from my last game:
I was on a small continent, and to the very south of it there were the Zulu. A Jungle split us. As foreign ministry indicated, the Zulu were technologically backwards, and due to the Jungle spitting us they had a tough time expanding. Knowing that the Zulu are a blood-thirsty nation, I started making up Immortals, just in case of trouble. Later I realized that the Zulu are too busy trying to catch up with the others, they'll just have no time to attack me.

I hate sharing a continent with somebody when the continent is small, so I built more Immortals and soon declared war on the Zulus. Immortals went to their Impi, clashed and were victorious. I triggered a Golden Age because of that, and it lasted for a *very* long time, possibly it didn't end just because my Immortals kept defeating their Impi.

The only bad moment for me in that war was when I was ready to quit the Jungle and be where the Zulu began. They hid quite some Archers at their end of the Jungle, and killed several Immortals. But they had no Iron, I killed off their attack force the next turn, and anyway reinforcements were near. Thus, I crushed the Zulu.

Point is, there's absolutely no way Spearmen can compete with Immortals, the Immortal is just much superior. Greeks are in a better position here, with their Hoplites, though.

And Immortals remains a strong unit during the Middle Ages! There comes the Knight with speed and mobility, but it's pretty expensive. Then there's also Longbowman, with defense of only 1 and attack of a Knight, the Longbowman usually servers the role of a cheapened Knight, being built in cities unable to build Knights. But, I say, the Immortal does better than the Longbowman, most of the time! First, it's very cheap, second it has the same attack as Knights&Longbowmen, third, it has a better defense that the Longbowman and won't get beaten by a Spearmen usually.

The only bad situation, of course, is when you lack Iron during the Middle Ages. Then you have to rely only on Longbowman, but if you lack Iron in the Middle Ages, I strongly suggest you try to stay at peace and get some Iron through trade then.

Well, that's something about the Persians. I have some other strategy thoughts here, but am yet not posting them.

[Arrian]

There is a "best civ in the game" for each playstyle. I fully appreciate what you say about the Persians, and have had great success with them. The immortal cuts through spearmen like a knife through butter (if the AI peppered them with horsies, it might not be so easy, but that's another matter).

My favorite, however, are the Babylonians (I, too, play relatively peacefully, at least in the beginning). Religious is a HUGELY benificial trait, not just for the temples/cathedrals, but for the 1 turn of anarchy when switching gov'ts. Sure, the bowmen suck, but the religious/scientific combo makes up for that easily. My most dominant games (in terms of power, culture and tech) have been as the Babs. These have been Regent and Monarch games on Normal maps w/8 civs.

The Iroquois are ok... their Mounted Warrior is awesome, but expansionist is really, really hit-or-miss, and often it misses. They are solid, though. Ask Vel about the Aztecs someday, he'll go on for a while.

-Arrian

[pcasey]

I like the persians as well. I'm tempramentally a builder in these sorts of games, and the immortal lets me spread out in the ancient era, while their other traits let me build up a solid empire.

From a pure powergaming standpoint though, I'd take a pack of war charriots or mounted riders over a pack of immortals. Immortals die like flies unlike fast units, and they're relatively expensive.

Still, I *enjoy* building big empires on regeant a lot more than I *enjoy* running a horseman rush on monarch. Most of the powergaming strats aren't as much fun to me and just plain building stuff, and from a fun standpoint, the persians score pretty well in my book.

[jgflg]

I really liked playing the Persians a lot, the Industrious bonus is very nice and Immortals are one of the best UU unit. I think it's probably a toss-up for me between them and the Iroquis. The Expansionist trait is useful on higher level games where you don't get a barbarian combat bonus and you need all the help you can get from huts. It seems as though every single hut has barbarians or is empty if you aren't playing an expansionist civ. And having a Mounted Warrior with that two movement is very nice. One of my recent games I was playing against the Persians and was able to win my first war against them even though they had many more Immortals, hordes more, than I had horses. My ability to move my units quickly and retreat enabled me to chip away at his armies marching on my cities as well as take his cities before he could respond.

[FalloutBoy]

Immortals are awesome, but they are susceptible to fast units. I was dominating until I began to be attacked by a constant stream of plain ole' horsemen. I had to build some knights to help out and eventually had to deny that civ of their horse resource before I could conquer them.

Fast units seems to be the only way to counter Immortals, although probability suggests that Legions should have success against them as well. Although I haven't played all the civ's yet, I think Immortal is the best UU overall. They are discovered early on and their cheap cost keeps them useful until Cavalry. The Mounted Warrior is obsolete with Knights and the Legion becomes a defense-only unit with the discovery of Longbowmen.

[DrSpike]

The rating of each civ changes will your gameplay style, as mentioned above, but also with the difficulty level. IMO on the higher levels a civ with a UU that is useful for an early game war is indispenable. For a peaceful game on monarch or below the babylonians are killer (if that isn't an oxymoron ); IMO the persian's advantages are relatively wasted for this type of game . I do like the persians for the higher levels though, immortals really are awesome for grabbing some extra early territory.

[Aeson]

Immortals are very powerful early on, but for cost/effectiveness they lag behind 2 movement units. Immortals still require bombardment support to keep losses down, the retreat capable units don't have this problem. The Zulu scenario is one where Immortals certainly have the advantage though, as Impies defending cities can cause massive losses to horsemen armies.

The main drawback to Immortals is that they can never be upgraded. Upgrading costs so little in this game, it is always a shame to not have that option. That is one of the reasons why I dislike using the Chinese or the Japanese, as their UU's take away horsemen's ability to upgrade. A Horseman army upgraded to Knights gives an already effective force a huge boost in power instantly. Later on those Knights become Calvary, which are probably the most effective units in the game.

My favorite Civ to use is the Egyptians, as the Iroquois are too powerful to actually be fun to play with Industrious usually doesn't matter, as all my workers are captured anyways. It does help with the early expansion phase though, as all settlers will have roads to their city sites. Religious is great, more for the lack of anarchy than for cheap buildings. Also War Chariots are IMO the best looking units in the game, and give cheaper "horsemen" that much earlier. The only drawback is getting called Ms. all the time, even after changing my name and titles...