The buffs to Burmese we have seen so far include +1/+1 armor for their elephants and -3 seconds training time for Arambai, and I don’t understand this decision.
I guess the Arambai change is good because you can mass them easier, but apart from that, these changes make them better where they already shine and it does nothing against their main weakness: Arb + Halb + BBC.
I don’t think that’s really their weakness, it’s mostly just mid-game Archers.
I think the devs might just want people to go siege-monk-pikes with them, since your pikes will kill enemy pikes due to additional damage, and your cheap monk techs will mean very quick Redemption, so your siege (and converted siege) kill Archers instead.
That of course means good Siege micro, so if you don’t have that, good luck.
I think the logic behind elephant buff Is to potentially use them as a meat shield and place skirms/crossbows behind. It’s far from guaranteed that it’s going to work, but elephants are kinda hopeless without ranged units behind and lack of armor for ranged units can be somewhat hidden by a tanky units in front.
The huge issues that will still persist anyway Is going to be cav archers, in that regard I don’t think that elephants are going to be of any help due to lack of mobility
Yes and no. Burmese are amazing against melee civs (similar to Teutons) but they run into a brick wall if the opponent plays arbs + halbs and later adds bbc.
Burmese are in such a terrible spot because none of their bonuses syngergise. I think you can compare them to pre buff Turks because they never get picked in open map tournaments.
Also what’s the point of arambai if you have amazing infantry and good cavalry too? Again, they are good against melee but struggle against ranged
i think this has always been the issue. as reinforced by various polls. it seems the majority of the player base is reluctant to use siege for various reasons, relying on either xbows or knights to do the job.
we see that when people argue for or against something, without considering the difference siege makes in the discussion
that being said, xbows and knights do still dominate the meta for a reason (mobility/power), so a civ without any real advantage towards either of these lines, or missing important tech, will inherently be at a minor disadvantage, even if it has the tools to counter them
idk, what are you achieving with FC Conquistadors? Arambai are less strong than Conqs but their dmg output is nice, particularly at 0-2 tiles, they are solid, Knights can basically not chase them.
before BBC, you can go Scorps if Crossbows are THAT big of an issue for Burmese or do your own Crossbows. Scorps + Knights (which Burmese have FU) is a good comp and in general has at least even terms vs the other ‘classic’ pike + Crossbow comp.
The difference is that conqs are effective in low numbers. You only need 4 to one shot a villager. Good luck doing that with arambai that need constant baby sitting and can’t hit anything. Honestly I find them hard to read and I don’t think they are an early castle age unit.
I get your point with siege defense and that’s nice and all. But if it was only that, then surely pro players would be able to use them in tournaments wouldn’t they? The problem with Burmese is that none of their bonuses synergise and they don’t really get anything to make up for their archer armor design.
I don’t mind lacking the archer armor upgrade, it’s unique and I like that. What I don’t like is that they don’t get any compensation and +1 PA elephants won’t do anything to fix that