Hello! I was happy to see that my ideas had been heavily drawn from for Eranshahr's final set, but having thought about the final modifiers they were given, there are a few things that I-- and, it seems, the community at large-- would appreciate being retuned.
While Eranshahr's ideas aren't particularly weak, they also aren't particularly strong-- they do a lot of things, but none of them all that well, leaving the set, per @Greeny3x3's estimate (which I agree with), around the bottom of the B-tier. This is unfortunate for any endgame tag, but it is especially problematic when contrasting it to Persia's ideas, which are all-around stellar. When you form Eranshahr, you should face a real decision: do you keep Persian ideas, or take the new set? As it stands, though, the universal consensus among players here, on the forum, and on Reddit is that they will always keep Persian ideas because they're so much better.
What, then, should be done? I have a few suggestions. First, let's take a look at the current Eranshahr idea set:
My thoughts on each idea follow...
The traditions are fine, starting the tag off with strong diplomacy and a reasonable military.
The first idea, too, is good, both lessening unrest across your realm (while flavorfully encouraging you to convert it) and interacting nicely with Eranshahr’s cool new government.
The second, though, is quite weak: even if unlocked as early as admin tech 5 (unlikely for any tag other than the Timurids), the player will only save an average of 7 mana a year— or about half of what a level 1 advisor will provide. This is mediocre by almost any metric; when compared with Persia’s second idea of +10% goods produced modifier, it’s downright laughable. I suggest that it be raised to -10% tech cost, possibly with an additional +10% institution spread, to reflect the enormous intellectual influence of Gondishapur on the Sassanian golden age.
The third idea is okay, but again unimpressive for an endgame tag: -20% cost of advisors with ruler’s religion again conveniently promotes a focus on religious conversion, but is quite weak when compared to Persia’s third idea of +5% discipline and +1 Ghilman max privileges. In its place, I suggest either +5% administrative efficiency or -25% states governing cost to reflect the great hereditary governing expertise of the Wuzurgan, who gave the Sassanid imperial bureaucracy much of its legendary efficiency.
The fourth idea of +20% cavalry combat ability is moving in a good direction, but it falls sadly short, and of these ideas it’s the one I’d most fervently request buffing. The cavalry of the Sassanid empire were the greatest in the world, so decisive on the battlefield that European cavalry would follow their model for the next thousand years. Poland gets +30% cavalry combat ability and winged hussars (not to mention the Cossack estate), while their cavalry held barely a fraction of the dominance enjoyed by the Sasanians— to say nothing of the shattering power of the Sassanid Elephant Corps. Here, I would lower the +20% cavalry combat ability to +15%, but supplement it with +1 cavalry shock, leaving Eranshahr with an idea comparable to Siam’s idea of +15% cavalry combat ability and +1 cavalry fire. +20% cavalry combat ability isn’t nearly enough to justify running cavalry armies; the relative cost to infantry is still far too high to justify. With +15% CCA and +1 cav shock, this is rectified.
The fifth idea of +20% caravan power is certainly apt for any Iranian power. Considering the fact that Persia has exactly the same idea in its fourth slot (even the same name), I might suggest giving it something more unique/distinctive, but this isn’t a priority.
The sixth idea is quite good— nothing here needs to be changed. If we wanted to go for something a little more unique, I might suggest +2 fort level in mountains, but I wouldn’t complain if it’s left as is.
The seventh idea is the most confounding. +0.5 artillery levels contribution to siege is a fascinating modifier, but practically, it does almost nothing— there may be some marginal benefit in the very early game when you only have a handful of artillery regiments to siege with, but it is very quickly rendered useless. I would add +1 general siege or +15% siege ability, which would make it a very respectable idea.
Finally, I’m not sure what to make of the ambition. It does about one quarter of what administrative efficiency does, but it’s the least useful quarter: it doesn’t lower coring costs, aggressive expansion, or province warscore reduction, instead only lowering the effects of overextension by 20%. This is only relevant if you’re playing a seriously blobby game, and even then only in the two years out of every dozen or so in which you’re coring things you conquered. This idea is interesting and unique, but could be replaced by almost anything else that would be more relevant. In keeping with the cavalry theme of Eranshahr, I’d instead suggest -15% fire damage taken, which would stack with Baku Ateshgah for a neat 25% reduction of fire damage taken. This would ensure the relevance of Eranshahr’s cavalry even into the late game, where it would otherwise be totally outclassed by infantry and artillery.
Thank you for reading this far— and thank you for, I hope, taking some of these thoughts into account. I was gratified when my ideas were used for Eranshahr’s ideas; I just hope that the final set is a little closer in power level. Ultimately, my goal is to make a set equalling that of Persia, and adequately honoring the magnificent legacy of the Sasanian Empire.
While Eranshahr's ideas aren't particularly weak, they also aren't particularly strong-- they do a lot of things, but none of them all that well, leaving the set, per @Greeny3x3's estimate (which I agree with), around the bottom of the B-tier. This is unfortunate for any endgame tag, but it is especially problematic when contrasting it to Persia's ideas, which are all-around stellar. When you form Eranshahr, you should face a real decision: do you keep Persian ideas, or take the new set? As it stands, though, the universal consensus among players here, on the forum, and on Reddit is that they will always keep Persian ideas because they're so much better.
What, then, should be done? I have a few suggestions. First, let's take a look at the current Eranshahr idea set:
- Traditions:
- Morale of Armies: +15.0% & Diplomatic Reputation: +2.00
- Guardians of the Sacred Fire:
- Tolerance of the True Faith: +2.00 & Yearly Government Power: +1.00
- Refound the Academy of Gondishapur:
- Technology Cost: -5.0%
- Wuzurg Framadar:
- Cost of Advisors with Ruler's Religion: -20.0%
- Reform the Savaran Cavalry:
- Cavalry Combat Ability: +20.0%
- Improve the Silk Road:
- Caravan Power:+20.0%
- Rebuild the Caspian Gates:
- Fort Defense: +20.0% & Garrison Size: +20.0%
- Sasanian Siege Warfare:
- Artillery Levels Contribution to Siege: +0.50
- Ambition:
- Overextension Impact Modifier: -20%
My thoughts on each idea follow...
The traditions are fine, starting the tag off with strong diplomacy and a reasonable military.
The first idea, too, is good, both lessening unrest across your realm (while flavorfully encouraging you to convert it) and interacting nicely with Eranshahr’s cool new government.
The second, though, is quite weak: even if unlocked as early as admin tech 5 (unlikely for any tag other than the Timurids), the player will only save an average of 7 mana a year— or about half of what a level 1 advisor will provide. This is mediocre by almost any metric; when compared with Persia’s second idea of +10% goods produced modifier, it’s downright laughable. I suggest that it be raised to -10% tech cost, possibly with an additional +10% institution spread, to reflect the enormous intellectual influence of Gondishapur on the Sassanian golden age.
The third idea is okay, but again unimpressive for an endgame tag: -20% cost of advisors with ruler’s religion again conveniently promotes a focus on religious conversion, but is quite weak when compared to Persia’s third idea of +5% discipline and +1 Ghilman max privileges. In its place, I suggest either +5% administrative efficiency or -25% states governing cost to reflect the great hereditary governing expertise of the Wuzurgan, who gave the Sassanid imperial bureaucracy much of its legendary efficiency.
The fourth idea of +20% cavalry combat ability is moving in a good direction, but it falls sadly short, and of these ideas it’s the one I’d most fervently request buffing. The cavalry of the Sassanid empire were the greatest in the world, so decisive on the battlefield that European cavalry would follow their model for the next thousand years. Poland gets +30% cavalry combat ability and winged hussars (not to mention the Cossack estate), while their cavalry held barely a fraction of the dominance enjoyed by the Sasanians— to say nothing of the shattering power of the Sassanid Elephant Corps. Here, I would lower the +20% cavalry combat ability to +15%, but supplement it with +1 cavalry shock, leaving Eranshahr with an idea comparable to Siam’s idea of +15% cavalry combat ability and +1 cavalry fire. +20% cavalry combat ability isn’t nearly enough to justify running cavalry armies; the relative cost to infantry is still far too high to justify. With +15% CCA and +1 cav shock, this is rectified.
The fifth idea of +20% caravan power is certainly apt for any Iranian power. Considering the fact that Persia has exactly the same idea in its fourth slot (even the same name), I might suggest giving it something more unique/distinctive, but this isn’t a priority.
The sixth idea is quite good— nothing here needs to be changed. If we wanted to go for something a little more unique, I might suggest +2 fort level in mountains, but I wouldn’t complain if it’s left as is.
The seventh idea is the most confounding. +0.5 artillery levels contribution to siege is a fascinating modifier, but practically, it does almost nothing— there may be some marginal benefit in the very early game when you only have a handful of artillery regiments to siege with, but it is very quickly rendered useless. I would add +1 general siege or +15% siege ability, which would make it a very respectable idea.
Finally, I’m not sure what to make of the ambition. It does about one quarter of what administrative efficiency does, but it’s the least useful quarter: it doesn’t lower coring costs, aggressive expansion, or province warscore reduction, instead only lowering the effects of overextension by 20%. This is only relevant if you’re playing a seriously blobby game, and even then only in the two years out of every dozen or so in which you’re coring things you conquered. This idea is interesting and unique, but could be replaced by almost anything else that would be more relevant. In keeping with the cavalry theme of Eranshahr, I’d instead suggest -15% fire damage taken, which would stack with Baku Ateshgah for a neat 25% reduction of fire damage taken. This would ensure the relevance of Eranshahr’s cavalry even into the late game, where it would otherwise be totally outclassed by infantry and artillery.
Thank you for reading this far— and thank you for, I hope, taking some of these thoughts into account. I was gratified when my ideas were used for Eranshahr’s ideas; I just hope that the final set is a little closer in power level. Ultimately, my goal is to make a set equalling that of Persia, and adequately honoring the magnificent legacy of the Sasanian Empire.
Upvote
0