Everyone needs to make atleast a few monks to gather relics. They can also be used against elephants.
By going for elephants, you are already behind in resources than the archer player even with the monk since monk still costs less than the elephant. Archer player’s military transitions smoothly from Feudal Age to Castle Age, Burmese military does not. Even if Burmese are even or slightly ahead in Feudal Age, they fall behind in Castle Age to the archer player.
Also, what is the “right unit” that the archer player cannot counter with equal or less resources that Burmese should make?
I am not opposed to your suggestions for BE. But, I think getting archer armor is important to help with the transitions. Even if it is not researched, just the availability of the tech makes them more unpredictable.
Daut, Viper and Jordan (2nd game of the video) all seem to think they are good.
I agree they are not good against a large mass of archers. But if Gurjaras are playing against archers in castle age, I think they should be able to do something to reduce the mass in late Feudal Age.
Don’t know why, since my proposed change does not affect elephants much. Gurjara EA will still have most melee armor and Burmese BE is not affected. Burmese getting a slightly broader tech tree will help them force the enemy into matchups where they can use their bonuses.
I would not mind Burmese getting EA, but that has been proposed in another discussion. It still would not help Burmese fight archers in Castle Age (too expensive, no food bonus for Burmese) which is when they need help. If anything, I think Gurjaras are in a better position to field EAs with their food bonus and UT.
This is not bad in itself. There are many one trick civs. But Gurjaras have a different trick than others. Gurjaras have excellent counter gold units for every situation (SR may need a change as others mentioned, but its role is clear), so I think their trash should be about as bad as Turks.
Also, Gurjaras will still be able to play xbow in early Castle age (as archer armor is usually the last upgrade xbow players research). They will just need to transition off of it a little sooner if they lacked 2nd archer armor.
Yes but they will lose -1/-1. They already the most useless EA among the 3.
EA with the free +1/+1 armor bonus will help a lot actually. And then Howdah can affect them as well.
But unlike Turks they don’t have any gold bonus. Food bonus is nice but hard to convert it into a gold bonus. Maybe sheep generate very little gold as well? 3.5 food/min → 3 food+1 gold/min.
My point is that losing the armor won’t change anything since they cannot be less useful than they already are.
True, but Burmese cannot afford enough EA in Castle Age to get to a point where the opponent cannot just counter with a few monks. Also, EA currently take too much damage from skirms and it is easier for archer player to add a few skirms than for Burmese to afford EA.
True, but I don’t think Gurjaras need a gold bonus. Gold is already much easier to collect than food (Farms require a lot of space as well as wood, gold mines have a faster collection rate than farms and require less resources and space) and Gurjara units don’t need so much gold that they require a bonus to keep up production. The fact that Gurjaras have a food bonus actually lets them make more gold units because all their gold units require food as well.
Arabia is actually just fine, after the “MembArabia” we had with no woodlines a few patches ago, this Arabia strikes a reasonable balance between forcing you to play open, and not being too oppressive in terms of finding wood or there being excessive hills. Maybe Tatars are a bit stronger than they deserve to be on current Arabia, given how they are supposed to be a Castle/Imperial Age civ, thus weak early game.
Even so, make Arabia “less deserted” and you instantly have a copy of Runestones where full Feudal eco into Castle age 3 TC boom or straight FC with minimal Skirmisher defense will be meta.
while I finally came to terms with agreeing that BE need buffs (I was long against any buffs given how they are good in TGs and in late game 1v1), I don’t see an easy solution around the 120f a piece problem. Unaffordable for early Castle age eco, and I see no easy way of buffing their main 2 problems (speed and high food cost) without making BEs OP in Imperial age.
Only solution I can see is make the EBE upgrade cheaper which would make them viable in Imperial age in 1v1s.
Shrivamsha Riders are most likely fine, good in small numbers vs small numbers battles but average otherwise. Basically a bit like Knights in early Castle age where just a few can feel powerful, but they don’t scale well at all. People who complain about Shrivamsha Riders most likely would like every game to be 15 Crossbow vs 15 Crossbow into fast Imp by whoever wins the micro war. While I respect the skill behind microing Crossbows, it should not be the ONLY viable strategy in early Castle age.
The site has the option to choose different time periods. If you check that you’ll see Burmese are underpowered because their stats are consistently low across several patches. However Gurjaras are new and seem to be an unconventional civ with multiple new units, against which previously used one-army meta strategies don’t work. So its an unfigured out civ at this point.
They’re strong but not OP. Win rates at 2k+ elo level is not top-5 (check www.aoepulse.com for arbitrary elo ranges). Remember new civs also should be strong enough so that players prefer to play and figure them out. Otherwise they’ll remain unplayed after a month or two from release like the first versions of RoR Vietnamese & Khmer, LotW Sicilians, AK Portugese till they get a good buff. (Dravidians and Bengalis will soon join this list mostly)
I think these are good and simple changes especially for Burmese. For Gurjaras I’d still recommend reducing mounted unit bonus damage to 40% or 35% and food cost of Kshatriyas to 400 food instead of nerfing their elite skirms since they already have a weak late game.
I think 33 % (or 1/3) is a good rate.
It’s also about their siege eles and also how their light cav counter monks (whith 1/3 atk bonus + 2 atk upgrades they still need 3 hits to kill a sanctity monk then). And their siege eles would take a bit longer to tear down defensive structures.
I think kshatriyas is fine. it’s kinda expensive for what it does. It’s like a “mini” szhlachta privileges with reduced effect and also less cost but affecting all units. But opposed to the polish tech it’s “only” food which doesn’t run out.
When you can afford that tech you should already have established a healthy eco and therefore the food reduction isn’t as impactful as it would be early castle.
We need to have a civ that lacks 2nd archer armor at the blacksmith (to preserve the uniqueness of it) and Gurjaras are in a far better position to bear this burden than Burmese. If it was upto me, I would not want to have any civ lacking the 2nd archer armor when the game is balanced around xbow.
Gurjara’s late game may not need to be nerfed, but it also won’t hurt them much if they were nerfed by losing this tech since their trash is already pretty bad. They are strong before late imp and after early dark age. They have plenty of time to win before gold starts running low. They would still be a well designed and balanced civ even without 2nd archer armor.
Imo when they reduce the bonus damage of the gurjara mounted units to 1/3, frontier guards could be buffed to 6 melee armor.
And then their eles would be strong vs melee heavy opponents (with some addtion vs halbs ofc).
Well losing the last armor would put their pierce armor at 3, which is beyond useless for a unit that costs 70 gold, which effectively means their tech tree would be even more limited to stable only.
Frontier Guards is already underwhelming, basically you only need it when you are against battle elephants in those post-imperial black forest games. For EAs it’s useless as it’s not their role to tank melee units, and the most probably melee units you’d face with them are those which do bonus damage (halbs, pikes), where the extra melee armor is useless.
I don’t know why most people want to nerf Gurjaras military options, they are already pretty bad, their tech tree is limited and full of mediocre units, their only advantage is the fastest aging up, so if Gurjaras are truly OP (which I don’t think), the most reasonable nerf is imho their mill garrison space, not their military options.
Right now a mill can garrison all the 8 starting sheeps, bring it down the garrison space to 5-6 and you’d nerf them.
Generally true, but at some point they will become strong vs melee units. I agree that the current +2+4 is a bit underwhealming, but +2+6 is probably much stronger. Currently they need 25 hits to be killed by a paladin, this would be increased to 30. In reverse they need 45 shots to kill a pala, so with high enough numbers they can possibly win vs palas, which is a huge deal in the situations you want to make them.
You only need some addition vs the counters then - shrivamsha, chakrams, maybe HC and BBC.
Would reduce their timings slightly yes… But not by that much.
But I like the idea of the “vegetarian” gurjaras… I would probably just dissalow to ungarrison the sheep actually. So you have to decide when you put them in the mill that you can’t eat them anymore at later stages.
And if the mill is destroyed the sheep die, too.
I would probably care more about the TG shenanigans we have seen. Sheep sling is just too OP with that civ and imo the amount of garrisoned sheep should not exceed 1000 food (hardcap of the income: maximum 35 food / minute).
That upgrade is quite valuable as it nerfs one of the most important units in mid game - crossbows. I agree that a super weak civ like Burmese shouldn’t lose this upgrade. So any civ that loses this upgrade should have super strong bonuses and full upgrades for the stable to compensate for it and have good siege to counter opponent ranged units & halbs - something like Franks.
Their win rate is high only in the 25-40 min range. If such a big nerf is given for that period, the game will definitely hit later stages where they fall apart and would end up becoming a mediocre mid-tier civ like many others that have gone through this nerf-buff cycles.
that’s not true. while its not a very superior upgrade like Hauberk for 1v1s, it certainly makes their Camels usable while fighting against gold infantry units without getting shredded for nothing.
Just out of curiosity when would you ever make Elephant archers with Gurjaras especially when you’re up against Paladin from opponent(s).
people just see 56% win rate over 2 weeks and feel a civ is OP without even considering that its new . Probably the only strong thing is the +50% bonus damage. Other than that the civ is fine. Obviously good but not OP.
It’s more about TG when you face paladin + ca or arbs.
Imo it’s only a TG unit really cause in 1v1 it has too many cheap counters. Maybe on maps with basically unlimited gold but even there it’s situational.
wouldn’t Frontier Camels and Elite Shrivamsha riders be ideal. EA in general is a questionable unit and why make it with a civ that lacks both +2 armor and parthian tactics.
Maybe Gurjaras can get Parthian Tactics as compensation (thanks to cactussteak for pointing it out).
I like their sheep bonus and don’t want to nerf it. It enables unique playstyles and consequences. There are other civs with bad military but great eco (such as Vikings), so the concept is precedented. In general, I don’t believe in nerfing what makes a civ unique, but prefer giving them weaknesses to compensate for their strength.
Also, Gurjaras should be weaker against infantry since they are a camel/cav civ. Currently, Gurjaras have a high win rate against infantry civs. So, nerfing their archers should help infantry civs perform better against them.
Well initially, I thought of this when thinking about Frank nerfs. But, even Franks don’t have a full stable (miss ing hussar). Currently, Gurjaras seem to have an even higher win rate for open maps than Franks, so I proposed it for Gurjaras. Definitely would not mind if this weakness is transferred from Burmese to Franks.
2nd archer armor is usually the last upgrade researched by archer players. It is more commonly used by skirm players. Gurjaras have good age up times due to food bonus and can do 19 pop Archer rush. They can then get to castle age and transition to xbow faster than most civs. So, Gurjaras will liikely be playing xbow and will have to transition to stable units at some point. If transitioning to stable units anyway, why waste resources on 2nd archer armor? Isn’t it better to spend the resources on an extra Shrivamsha Rider or Camel?
I have not seen Gurjaras researching 2nd archer armor in pro games, so I don’t think they will miss it. If you have seen high level games where Gurjaras research 2nd archer armor, please share links.
Is this really OP? To me, it sounds like players are laming themselves just so the Gurjaras teammate can get more food after 20 min. At most Gurjaras can store 2 sheep from their ally in the mill without investing more wood in another mill. So, it does not seem OP to me. Maybe sheep slinging is stronger with other civs like Britons, but no one has tried it out yet.