Burmese are the worst civ in the game change my mind

I find it quite funny the forum censors seemingly random things at times, but then just lets a f-bomb through. Granted I don’t think that should get censored either, but… hah.

Anyway, I don’t even think Arambai are that bad, especially after getting Parthian Tactics. Then again, I just find them really fun to micro. It’s like your very own more durable Drill SO! Of course, that is a unit you won’t see often on open maps, but still…


Burmese is a good early game civ.
Free lumber tech means they dont need a lumber camp early on some maps, that’s 250 resources bonus in feudal age. It is above average.

This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.

This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.

So at pretty much every ELO level according to aoestats.io, Burmese are underperforming, but are certainly not the worst.

However I would say, that the civ design for Burmese really doesn’t click for me.

On paper it makes sense. No Leather Archer armor means their skirms are terrible, so you have to counter archers with something else. Manipur Cavalry cavalry are decent alternatives in late castle age onwards. Most of the other bonuses/UT are monk/elephant based.

Give the an eco bonus and extra atk on milita line for good measure.

On paper, it makes sense, but I don’t have the warm and fuzzies thinking about their design. Even one trick pony Goths, and nerfed to oblivion Sicilians, I like their design more. I get what they’re going for.

Even Koreans make more sense to me. I don’t like the fact they’re just an archer civ now, but I understand what they’re going for.

Burmese just don’t work for me for unknown qualitative reasons. Maybe it’s because they’re built around being BAD at something then compensating, not being GOOD at something then compensating??? IDK. Something doesn’t click for me with Burmese.

1 Like

Lets not feed the suspended troublemaker more time than they deserve