Yes, but I think that is not only okay, but good.
There are 35 civs in the game. Not every single one of them has to be good for weak mechanical players. It’s good for the game if there are some civs which are harder to play.
I didn’t say they have a bit of everything (and I think that’s not the case, their archery range sucks). I said they have more than one good option after OliveCereal4714 claimed they only had one (Arambai).
Siege Onager is not that important of an upgrade btw… Especially in 1v1 even civs who have don’t get it most of the time, because it’s too expensive. And onagers still do very well at demolishing groups of ranged units. So it’s good enough to fill the role that needs to be filled.
Their cav is actually pretty good.
Hussar is fully upgraded and stronger against buildings (basically a mini-tarkan trash unit).
Cavalier has everything, except Paladin, making it a good option for 1v1
Elephants are very strong for teamgames.
Nothing to complain here.
You don’t know that yet.
Wait until there is a few weeks of experience with the new patch
These two changes… PLEASE DEVS!
And howdah should definetly give +2/+2, dn’t mind if it’s cost is increased. The Burmese are way too weak against the Crossbow civs, and hence both changes should focus on Pierce Armor.
I do not want the Burmese to be in Auto-lose territory vs all of the 15 Archer spamming civs in high level play
I’ve got good news for you: They are not. They’re just more tricky to play.
Do you have any source where a high level player complains about Burmese being weak?
They might not yet be in Auto lose terirrtory, but they are close, especially vs the Xbow spamming Archer civs And the Burmese Elephants are too useless right now And Arambai do not get any better in Imperial Age,to the extent that Burmese players in pro games don’t even bother going upto imperial
It should be more like how all Meso civs have Eagle lines that hold their own, regardless if the meso civ is Archer civ or Infantry civ
I agree they have good cav, but most of the meta civs are meta because they have amazing stuff. An amazing CA, an amazing eco, an amazing eco + amazing siege, amazing archers, EW+ eco, amazing cavalry.
My point is the best civs don’t care about having simply “good”. Maybe it’s because i play more TGs where players generally focus on their strengths and let team mates cover weaknesses.
But the top civs in 1v1 still have the things i mentioned. Mongols, vikings, mayans, Franks, all have huge holes in their tech trees, but they have some thing very powerful which they can play towards. That’s why I’m saying “good” doesn’t cut it.
Indeed. Burmese have a generic Eco Bonus, and good situational units: Monks, infantry, elephants. Nothing to always relay on (like Kts, Archers, CA). That’s why they feel underwhelming. As it was stated before “good” won’t do it anymore
That’s wrong too. It’s just that Arambai are good enough in Castle Age and therefore it is not that much of a priority to get to imp. Just like it is the case for Spanish with Conqs.
Again, your opinion on how the game should be. It’s certainly up for debate if it should actually be like that - and the devs seem to think that’s not the case.
Yeah, teamgames make that effect a lot worse for sure.
Burmese cav is obviously not that amazing, that you always for gor it (like Franks for example). But it is certainly good enough that it can get the job done if cav is a good decision for the situation you’re in. Therefore it is a valid option Burmese have, even if it might not be a top 5 cav civ.
Their eco bonus is pretty decent. Certainly one of the better ones in the game (even if other civs like Vikings have an even better one).
Arambai + Mangonels should be something you can always rely on if you get to it.
They feel underwhelming because most players lack the skill to use them, not because there are no options avaliable.
They are a quite unique mid tier civ with a high skill cap. It’s perfectly fine to have such a civ in the game. Just play another civ if you don’t like that.
I think it would be okay to give them some kind of small QoL buff, if people really think that’s necessary. But making their elephants immune to arrows or buffing Arambai (which are a very good unit already!) is certainly not the way to go.
Not calling you crazy but tbh I don’t think Burmese have to focus as much on arambai as spanish on conqs, for instance. If your further buff arambai I guess it’s gonna be like arambai every time in castle age.
That’s indeed a way to put it. Furthermore, it feels like they are very map dependent. They aren’t only strong on arena but at the same time great on the more open arabia generations having one of the best men at arms into towers. Even maa into archers is super fine with them. You probably have to switch away from archers at some point, though. This is what it makes a bit awkward to play with them sometimes.
But you get a very strong early feudal and access to arambai to compensate. Imo they are fine and don’t necessarily need changes. If anything maybe something like replacing the UT by another and give them +1 pierce armor on elephants for free.
Viking, slavs, khmer, celts, indians, teutons, vietnamesse, Japanese, persians… Not one of the best eco bonuses, not by far.
If you is a big word (actually two 11).
I’m not denying it, im just saying they should have a more accessible plan, specially in castle age.
Of course, they require an skill cap, I agree on that. I love their m@a. I think is the best in the game.
100% agree on that. That why I think they should buff their elephants but in a different way. Either give them more blast radious and/or trample damage or maybe give them a discount to research EBE.
Second option for we would be give skirmishers +1 PA per age, starting in castle age. That way, m@a into archers would make more sense, because you will need skirmishers eventually, if you decide to change to kts/elephantos
Of course, it’s not a top eco bonus, but it’s coherent with the civ gameplay. You can go m@a, or also scout rush, or FC and use the auto wood upgrade to balance the economy slightly Better to go Castle Age. There, It Is possible go Knight rush, monk siege push or Castle + arambai.
Also skirms have all damage and range upgrade, so with something in front are good.
I’d like to see parthian tactics for arambai, because actually that tech is totally useless with burmese and also could help with arambai’s short range.
I like the idea of a buff for the BE but with the UT for armor and damage against Building they could be too powerfull in imp
They’re not too far behind most of those you mentioned though. Even if they’re not quite as good, it is still good enough to make the difference to those other civs not as big as it would be vs no eco bonus.
For example I am not convinced that Vietnamese or Japanese eco bonus is straight up better. Persians and Teutons are better in the long run, but need a bit of time to scale.
I think you’re exaggerating here. It’s not a “that civ is insane”-eco bonus, but it is a good one.
This is honestly a very good suggestion. It would make Skirms feel more like a viable option to counter archers, but their Skirms would still be worse than regular Skirms and not really a good long term choice.
Also it wouldn’t buff Arambai.
It would give Burmese more room to counter ranged units, but still keep their identity. I like it.
Nope, Arambai certainly don’t need any help. It is very good (and needed) that they’re weak to ranged units.
Burmese, like mostly every other civ, have a time in the game where they shine.
Generally, the true value of eco bonuses has less to do with their cost saved than their benefit in timing. One example:
Their wood upgrade free right when you hit feudal. THAT is one place where Burmese have an edge you can capitalize. Why? EVERYONE spends that 100f at that time. It’s the meta. What can a player do with the extra 100f at such a crucial moment? Extra maa or 2, go up at 19 vils and still produce scouts, earlier fletching… etc… these are advantages at a key time you can snowball.
Burmese also have a distinct strength in mid castle age with arambai. They lack top tier late game, sure. Not every game should be a late game. But that’s the point of a good balance is knowing and capitalizing on when your civ is strong and avoiding the weak points.
The best advantage of the free wood upgrade is avoiding the mental tilt of realizing you didn’t get bow saw by minute 30.
Arambai was OP unit at the very beginning. That’s why it suffered four nerfs. Currently, this unit is good enough. Buffing it is likely to be a nightmare. Battle elephant is a better choice to buff.
I never said is BAD. Ijust said it was not one of the best. And yes, if buff elephants it’s not an options, I think +1PA per age to Skirms starting from castle could be the best buff for Burmese.
Again, I’m against any buff for arambais, and extra pierce armor for elephants . And I would like devs to remove parthianntactics from them. Is like giving bloodlines to aztecs 11
Burmese are a great civ on most maps. The fact that you can’t play them well, doesn’t mean they need a buff. It baffles the mind that you think they’re in anyway weak.
They have great m@a into archers, their UU is one of the strongest in the game, their stable is great, and with manipur cavalry their hussar raids can be deadly in the late game. Their infantry is also top tier, arguably better than Aztecs. Monks are the best after Aztecs, and their siege is also decent. The Burmese are great in so many ways it would take another 2 paragraphs to list them all.
You’re also underestimating the eco bonus a lot, free wood upgrades really helps the early game when resources are tight, and you’re struggling to make military, and even if you’re doing an FC or don’t need the resources for military, it means you can easily afford horse collar or the gold mining upgrade. Really the only weakness of the Burmese is their lack of siege ram and that their skirmishers die quickly under fire.
If you think the Burmese are bad, that’s a problem with you, not the civ. Work on your transitions and flexibility, and you’ll do great with them.
and 6 of the civs below them all just got buffs (Koreans, Portuguese, Tatars, Byzantines, and Italians), while Burmese just saw Elephants get nerfed.
but those archers fall off once you hit castle age due to no thumb ring or armor upgrades.
there stable is solid, not great, they lack paladin, they don’t get camels, and their elephants just got nerfed, their cavalry have no bonuses except for attacking buildings.
while true, the only infantry unit that sees common use is the spear line, and extra attack doesn’t do them much good because their entire point is the bonus damage to cavalry units. does it help? yeah. but its also only 3 extra damage every 3 seconds.
definitely agree that this bonus is being underestimated, but its also not a top tier bonus either, and sadly, if you look at top civs today, they almost all have amazing eco bonuses today.
i don’t think anyone is calling them bad, just painfully mediocre. they don’t really stand out anywhere at all.
They have m@a that kill villagers in one less hit, their archers are above average until late castle due to their strong m@a and free wood upgrades. Once you hit castle, you want to transition into Arumbai or stable units yes, but they’re still a great opener. If you can get a castle up, any knight play gets pretty much deleted, and if your crossbows just trade vs the opposing crossbow force then your arumbai are pretty uncontested as archers don’t really counter them in small numbers.
Their stable is great IMO. They get FU hussar and cavalier that turn into mini tarkans, they have elephants that make for a great power play in 1v1, especially vs Arbelest civilizations, and are incredible in TG’s. Guess it depends on how you define great, they’re not the best, but they’re better than any civ that doesn’t get paladin (with the exception of the Bulgarians, but they are better than byzantines or celts). Since paladin doesn’t always get the most utility in 1v1, I’d rather have manipur cavalry.
As far as infantry goes, they have 13 attack FU on their Halbs, which makes them actually a pretty decent generalist melee unit. They also do get onagers and BBC with SE, so their halb siege push is respectable.
They stand out with great UU, monks, and halbs, along with well above average stable, and respectable siege. Throw in super strong M@A and a good eco bonus, and you have a very scary civ.
Yeah, power creep is a pretty major problem
Bringing up aoestats is actually extremely interesting. One concern with it is that Burmese have a low pick rate, and there are only 493 games above 1650 on all maps, but you can see some pretty clear trends. They have a very high win-rate against civilizations that rely on cavalry, while having the lowest win-rate against archer civilizations. With the prevalence of archers due to bad pathing, that probably lowers their win rate a lot.
I’m only going to be using data from all maps, as the Arabia only statistics are rather un-reliable with only 1100 games across all elo’s. Across all maps the win percentage for Burmese is slightly above 50%.
Across all elo ranges, the Burmese have an incredible win-rate in 20-30 minute games. In the 1250-1650 range (high enough that the games actually mean anything, while still having a large sample size), the Burmese actually have a 60% win-rate in 20-30 minute games. In fact in the 1250-1650 range they’re the 8th best win percentage, and in the 1000-1250 range they’re the 13th best. What actually brings down the win percentage is the less than 1000 elo games, where their win percentage is awful. (in the 1650+ games they also have a low win-rate, but since the sample size is so small it doesn’t really affect the average).
Sorry for the long response, I may have gotten a bit carried away
