Hayasdan Reforms

[_Tartaros_]

Will there be the Hayasdan reform like in EB1 ?
This was a great feature and i loved playing hayasdan - even if it´s really hard to archive

[Prozn856]

What were the Hayasdan Reforms from EB1?

[Morrowgan]

@Tartaros
I am wondering too.

[Cohors_Evocata]

This.

[Total_Wallyer]

Oh goodness those reforms were so indepth, it was brilliant.

[dimnjacar]

yeah that was a great feature

[_Tartaros_]

maybe it´s not in the first release, but if not, this cries for a sudmod

[Frtigern]

How many people have achieved all the Hayasdan reforms?

[Sarkiss]

I have.

I’d be opposed to its reappearance in EBII though. It was Foot’s personal pet project, iirc. with Foot gone, I hope they won’t reintroduce it in its EB1 form. It unnecessarily places Hayastan player into a sort of a straightjacket imho: it’s too path dependent and Persia-centric, depriving Hayastan ruler of an ability to claim legitimacy in his own right. It is forcing very rigid expansion logic and directly linking new conqueror’s right to rule to his success in aping the practices of the defeated Persian rulers of old. It is dependent on evoking the latter’s legacy and adopting it as one’s own.

In short, I think it is too controversial to be presented as ‘a must’.

[Guidrion]

I have.

I’d be opposed to its reappearance in EBII though. It was Foot’s personal pet project, iirc. with Foot gone, I hope they won’t reintroduce it in its EB1 form. It unnecessarily places Hayastan player into a sort of a straightjacket imho: it’s too path dependent and Persia-centric, depriving Hayastan ruler of an ability to claim legitimacy in his own right. It is forcing very rigid expansion logic and directly linking new conqueror’s right to rule to his success in aping the practices of the defeated Persian rulers of old. It is dependent on evoking the latter’s legacy and adopting it as one’s own.

In short, I think it is too controversial to be presented as ‘a must’.

I get what you're saying. The short answer would be "yes, let's not have it". The better (and much longer) answer would be: alternatives! But that might just be asking for the butter and the butter's money.

[Morrowgan]

Maybe with a yes/no event.

[clone]

I have.

I’d be opposed to its reappearance in EBII though. It was Foot’s personal pet project, iirc. with Foot gone, I hope they won’t reintroduce it in its EB1 form. It unnecessarily places Hayastan player into a sort of a straightjacket imho: it’s too path dependent and Persia-centric, depriving Hayastan ruler of an ability to claim legitimacy in his own right. It is forcing very rigid expansion logic and directly linking new conqueror’s right to rule to his success in aping the practices of the defeated Persian rulers of old. It is dependent on evoking the latter’s legacy and adopting it as one’s own.

In short, I think it is too controversial to be presented as ‘a must’.

personaly i loved them. they were very accurate and had the player waiting for something in the game. plus your argument can be used for all reforms

[Gryphon Templar]

I have.

I’d be opposed to its reappearance in EBII though. It was Foot’s personal pet project, iirc. with Foot gone, I hope they won’t reintroduce it in its EB1 form. It unnecessarily places Hayastan player into a sort of a straightjacket imho: it’s too path dependent and Persia-centric, depriving Hayastan ruler of an ability to claim legitimacy in his own right. It is forcing very rigid expansion logic and directly linking new conqueror’s right to rule to his success in aping the practices of the defeated Persian rulers of old. It is dependent on evoking the latter’s legacy and adopting it as one’s own.

In short, I think it is too controversial to be presented as ‘a must’.

Even though I liked the reforms, I have to agree. Too much focus on (Achaemenid) Persia, while Hayasdans own culture fell into the background.

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

I loved the reform BUT I never saw the point of rebuilding the achaemenid empire with Hayasdan.

If we talk about Uchronia (because it clearly was) why not add an option for a real setteled parthian governement reform ? The EB1 one was good but when you fell of the historical frontiers, you just had to create pastoralism/nomadism again and it was quite a little sad. The only way to create a vast, settled persian government was through Hayasdan and it was a little frustrating.

Or, Hayasdan should then change it's language, come from Armenian to Persian. Because again : an revival Achaemenid empire with buildings names in Ancient Armenian, it was quite strange.

[Sarkiss]

personaly i loved them. they were very accurate and had the player waiting for something in the game. plus your argument can be used for all reforms

i disagree. they were neither 'very accurate' (please explain why you think they were, or what do you actually mean by 'accurate'?), nor do I see how my argument could be used for any other reform. Hayastan reform was largely based on a couter factual 'what if' scenario. it raises too many red flags and takes no account of the fact that with the defeat of the Achemenids the gravitation pole has shifted desicively from Persian to 'Greek world' with all the implications thereof.
I agree that it somewhat spiced up the gameplay. but having such highly speculative (and imho improbable) reform for a historically accurate mod such as EB is stretching things a bit too far.

Or, Hayasdan should then change it's language, come from Armenian to Persian. Because again : an revival Achaemenid empire with buildings names in Ancient Armenian, it was quite strange.

good point.

Even though I liked the reforms, I have to agree. Too much focus on (Achaemenid) Persia, while Hayasdans own culture fell into the background.

yep

[Iaius Statius Laurentius]

It was a counterfactual set of reforms, but given that the Persians were treated rather contemptuously by the Successors, I'd have to imagine that someone trying to invoke the Achaemenid heritage might be looked on with some favor by them. It's not like the Seleucid hold on power in Mesopotamia was iron-clad.

Although I agree that it would've been more interesting as a Parthian alternate reform path, a more settled way for them to assume the kingship with an alternate set of units. RTW just didn't have that kind of flexibility.

[athanaric]

I’d be opposed to its reappearance in EBII though. It was Foot’s personal pet project, iirc. with Foot gone, I hope they won’t reintroduce it in its EB1 form. It unnecessarily places Hayastan player into a sort of a straightjacket imho: it’s too path dependent and Persia-centric, depriving Hayastan ruler of an ability to claim legitimacy in his own right. It is forcing very rigid expansion logic and directly linking new conqueror’s right to rule to his success in aping the practices of the defeated Persian rulers of old. It is dependent on evoking the latter’s legacy and adopting it as one’s own.

In short, I think it is too controversial to be presented as ‘a must’.

IMO the best way to deal with this issue would be to allow for three alternative paths of reform: firstly the Persian one like in EB I, secondly an Armenian- (and/or Caucasian-)centric one, thirdly a Hellenistic direction, each with their own preferred geographical direction and tech advantages/disadvantages. Or maybe make the whole reform thing more optional (which it wasn't in EB I, because of the penalties involved in un- or half-reformed provinces).
The Armenian reforms in EB I really added some more depth and mid/late game motivation to the faction. The only weakness of these reforms were the inability to recruit cataphracts or other "modern" units in Persian(-ized) provinces.
But then again, we haven't tried EB II yet and hence don't know how the Armenian faction's economy and recruitment work.

i disagree. they were neither 'very accurate' (please explain why you think they were, or what do you actually mean by 'accurate'?), nor do I see how my argument could be used for any other reform. Hayastan reform was largely based on a couter factual 'what if' scenario. it raises too many red flags and takes no account of the fact that with the defeat of the Achemenids the gravitation pole has shifted desicively from Persian to 'Greek world' with all the implications thereof.

Their plausibility was supported by
a) the fact that non-Greek factions, which, although influenced by Greek culture, had a distinct character of their own, did rise to power, and that
b) there was a successful patriotic Persian revolt, albeit a few centuries later.

[Sarkiss]

Their plausibility was supported by
a) the fact that non-Greek factions, which, although influenced by Greek culture, had a distinct character of their own, did rise to power, and that
b) there was a successful patriotic Persian revolt, albeit a few centuries later.

a) yes, but their elites, Parthians aside, didnt ape Achemenids. even Pontus was more Persian than Armenia, so I do not see why such positive discrimination here
b) yes, which had nothing to do with Armenians.

[athanaric]

Well yeah, but then you could make the argument that Pontos would've deserved a Persian reform as well, which wasn't implemented because apparently there wasn't enough time to do so, or for some other reason.

[Sarkiss]

i think that Pontus is probably better suited for such a reform. the point im trying to make is exactly in line with your a) above: the fact that factions had a distinct character of their own. fundamentally, the reform doesnt reflect this assumption. rather, you start as a distinct faction and turn into a copy of someone else's image. not to mention that it is based, unlike Marian reform for instance, on highly speculative scenario.