Anyone got any advice for team games(2v2) vs the spaniards, (or possibly any cav archer race while we’re at it) when playing a map like hill fort?
It seems pretty easy for the spanish to castle drop and then harass with conquistadors, and without camels, and poor skirms, it feels like burma has a tough time fighting these guys, specifically in castle age. More so for spanish due to the high pierce on the conquista, but other cav archer races are also tough…
I find burma is pretty tough to play with in general and these match ups are harder.
Arambai do fine vs conq. In higher numbers, when alot of their projectiles hit they are even better. Plus they dont cost food so are easier on the eco. Vs normal CA in low numbers arambai are good, with mangonels added also vs higher numbers.
skirms should still do fine, other than armor Burmese skirms are only missing thumb ring. Its not like missing 3 pierce armor (1 missing in castle age) is going to matter much against 16 attack, the HP is the bottleneck
thanks guys, (remember castle age) but can you please explain how an arambai with 5 range, and 2 pierce armour total, is going to work vs range 6, 4 pierce, higher hp with higher accuracy (even if we ignore the castle)
ill try run some tests in the editor… the wood vs food thing i guess is an advantage if you’re teching… but on hillfort if ur getting so much wood in castle age it means your vils are likely exposed
@JoJo9942 yeah i guess you’re right… ill try them anyway, just shied away from that low pierce armour…
most of my opponents can micro CA out of the way of a mangonel with relative ease, so the skirms might handle the conquistadors, but might struggle vs cav archers with their low PA…
maybe to add… when im not burma, i like fighting against arambai with my own CA… we outrange them, and snipe them, and out run them, especially in castle when the numbers are low… maybe its because people struggle to use them in general?
Good point by JoJo that skirm armor vs conqs doesnt really matter.
As for the Arambai vs Conqs: There is a huge difference in fire rate 2.0 vs 2.9 in favour of arambai. Other than that i can just tell you from experience that arambai feel good vs conqs once you reach a certain number. And for low numbers you just micro around wihtout anyone hitting anything or even add monks with cheap techs.
I very like how your topic is constructed. You’re not jumping into any conclusions.
Since it’s Hill Fort you cannot convincingly punish your enemy for fc-ing into UU. You could consider tower rush to delay enemy going for UU.
Conquistadors have advantage over Arambai in terms of range and accuracy.
At the same Arambai has higher damage output.
Micromanaging Arambai involves diving literally into Conquistadors. Because of that conquistadors always have to keep their range. In perfectly micro-ed battles (involving positioning and micromanagment of armies, few hills around the map and assuming there’s no “must take engagement situations” e.g. economy that has to be defended) neither of those units wins decisively. So in this kind of fight (with high damage output units) the player that has better micro has a higher advantage than normally.
Regarding economy - here Arambai have advantage over Conquistadors since they cost W and G, when conqs cost F and G. That matters because normally you need your food to be spent on upgrades and most importantly advancing to imp.
Apart from that in castle age you can go archers against conqs (ballistic and micro is very important) despite the fact that you lack armor. I’d recommend skirmishers if you keep an eye on enemy transitions. If he hides a switch into knights you might get owned. If you scout enemy going knights then you want to add monks to your skirmishers (in case of fighting against both conquistadors and knights).
Archers would be a safer option in castle age.
If your enemy is going Cons and Light Cav in Imperial age you want to go halbs and Skirmishers against that.
Going back to the topic - against cav archers you never want to go Arambai because of ballistics and accuracy they have compared to conqs. Playing against Tatars I would try to go for a tower rush into knights.
Thanks I forgot the arambai had a higher ROF… and i guess thats where the micro comes in… if a spaniard is firing, and then moving, and only stopping when its time to fire again, the RoF wont make a difference, but if they stand still then the arambai might win, but because of this i do wonder why the other guys recommended them? unless they’re fighting people that dont move around?
the big disaster comes, when the enemy drops that castle though… because now the arambai needs to close with the conquista, right into the firing range of the caslte, and now their low PA, leads to their decimation… similarily with the skirms due to their low PA… but i see where the monks could help to try draw the conquistas forward if anything…
i never thought of a tower rush on hill fort… that might work… to slow them down…
im very surprised about this one though…conqs have high speed and higher projectile speed as well as inherent 2PA(meaning 19 xbow shots per conq vs 3 per xbow), meaning they can dodge doubly so the archer shots , as well as no thumb ring and low pierce armour being counter intuitive to the build… i guess its something to think about…
after ballistics, conqs can’t dodge. And the most important thing is 25-30 xbows are easy to mass for most civs if you start production in feudal but conqs you can’t produce many with the castle production and high food cost being a bottleneck, so conqs never tend to take engagement with xbows without mangonel support
It all depends on micro of you and your enemy can deliver. What I mentioned stands when you control your army practically all the time. If not I would suggest going skirmishers.
There’s one thing I forgot to say. Spanish other than adding knights or light cav to his conqs can add mangonels instead - which is much cheaper and requires W (Spanish wants to save as much food as they can).
When facing mangonels crossbow is much better (ofc it’s not ideal). I like archers cause you can do damage in early castle when your enemy is still gathering conqs and has small eco (again you need ballistics to snipe conqs).
Most people recommend that you do not stay in castle age for too long when facing Conquistadors from Spanish. Get to imp with a solid eco and spam trash units.
Btw I was talking about 1v1 situation - not 2v2 as you suggested in the topic.
In 2v2 it’s much more about providing the best units from each civilizations and potential counters. Most likely in 2v2s on hill fort Arambai into elephants or cavaliers is the best option (rarely knights into cavaliers, even less often knights into elephants). It depends on civs from other players.
As well I assume you and your ally are communicating through discord or teamspeak or zoom, you can depend on each other and you are the same level.
Taking a message out of context and then interpreting it to ridicule someone leave for media.
It seems like you selected one sentence out of over 500 words.
What I’m saying there is that you shouldn’t be going 1 TC push against Spanish with conqs.
The same goes for fast Imp. Generally, I don’t recommend it if you don’t get Arbalests.
what Jewel said makes sense, some factions or matchups its fine to give as much pressure as possible, meaning spending that food and gold on troops or immediate upgrades, as opposed to saving it up to get into imperial age sooner…
like the difference between rushing troops in feudal, or going fast castle…
its 2v2 ranked, so all the other variables change… spain is incredibly common in hill forts… and if i choose to play burma on hill fort its 90% chance there will be a spanish enemy… so its good to know what to do vs them… i havent been playing burma much, and i kind of know what to do in maps where you can give early pressure (unlike hill fort where it isnt easy to deny the spanish their castle due to the nature of the map)
