Hello! Have you check the new Nov. PUP?
Manipur Cavalry will become to +5 attack bonus against archer units.
I think it might not be helpful, no mention the comparison between Farimba and it.
Not similar to Tatars infantry, Burmese will start to feel pressure from opponents’ archers just since hitting the castle age. From experience, when the player gets behind unfortunately, waiting imperial UT and a troop of gold units to be affordable may be really tough. If the player could afford them, probably he/she is already able to control the battle by no-attacking-bonus units in way about the micro, strategy or economy before, rather than using countering units.
The dev team seems to resist giving Burmese the 2nd archer armor for keeping the feature.
If so, how can we do for make it able to struggle against archers?
For example:
Change a new imperial UT for replacing Manipur: the foot archers, especially the skirmisher line, get more extra attack bonus (perhaps +8) against archers. Now the regular elite skirmishers have +4 attack vs archers, so this way could let Burmese weak skirmishers more useful.
Change the infantry attacking bonus into a new effect: infantry have +2/+4/+6 attack bonus against archers in the feudal/castle/imperial age or just +5 since the feudal age. In view of that the swordsmen line get better and better recently, maybe this way could restrain the opponents’ archers in the castle age. Then, let the original Manipur back.
Maybe devs can give Burmese free Elite Skirmisher upgrade, it’s not much, but might help, this does not come from me, but from some other user, I’m sorry I don’t remember his/her name.
Or they might give burmese skirmishers more pierce armor, like a measly +1, similar to Turks bonus to scout line.
I like the approach of new Manipur cavalry.
As someone said arround, if that’s not enough z you can always inverse Burmese Ut, make howda the imperial UT, and adjust the cost properly
It’s just such an absurd change… No idea, but I think overall it’s actually a nerf to the burmese.
No idea, but maybe they need to give burmese super armored monks now to compensate for the strange arambai nerf. Don’t know how they want to fix that mess they caused in any other way.
They seem desperate, but with these kind of changes I don’t really see a chance for the civ becoming anyway close to what it was once.
Burmese always have a Knight line that is only missing Paladin to use against Archers, you know. For half the cost of the Paladin upgrade, the new Manipur Cavalry ensures their Cavalier won’t fall behind a big enough Arbalester army like generic Cavalier civs do. It’s also a big buff for a Hussar/Arambai comp.
The bonus is just useless at this stage of the game. If you can kill archers with hussars anyways it makes no difference cause the opponent will lack gold to replace them anyways. And the key stat for cav being able to get good engagements against archers is their tankyness (and speed ofc).
They just need to have a good engagement and then it’s not a big difference how much damage they can dish out cause once engaged the archer die like flies anyways.
On the other hand the bonus damage vs buildings actually was something really nice burmese had to their disposal in the lategame. Maybe it wasn’t the best UT of all time, but still handy, cause normally you didn’t wantet to waste your cav on buildings. But Manipur Cavalry made the cav actually quite nice as mobile raisers. I think the change is actually a big nerf to the burmese lategame.
And their weakness against archers is actually mostly a weakness in the midgame, especially as their best tool, the arambai, is actually extremely vulnerable to archer fire, but also because the lack of the second archer armor. So it isn’t a surprise they have problems against archery.
Why devs didn’t just gave burmese the second archer armor? I think that would have made so much more sense.
I think second archer armor and nerfing Arambai base armor would have been good. However, I think that the current Manipur cavalry could be nice but they should add the anti-building damage as well to it, or maybe add it to Howdah.
Or they could make "all land units effected by arson and squires [but losing blood… I mean squires] so at least the army retains some of the antibuilding power, although in this case from castle age onwards…
That would weaken the elephants, and considering the role of elephants as tanks, I’m not sure that that would be the best idea. Maybe if arson effected all land units though. Why squires though? I would rather have the extra 20HP (Bear in mind that it also affects Arambai), rather than an extra 10% speed. Do you mean losing husbandry?
My bad, I meant losing husbandry in exachange of making cavalry affected by squires! So at the end cavalry moves at same speed, but you save some resources.
Oh, Okay then. I guess it could be possible, although I kind of like @FurtherLime7936’s idea, or having it become a civ bonus for extra building damage.
It would be interesting to see how they perform against archers compared to Sicilian Cavaliers. That seems to be a similar case where the Imperial Age UT gives them an edge.
Ok this would make more sense at least. Don’t know if howdah is then needy anymore actually…
I would replace howdah with a speed charge bonus to the elephants. I think this would finally make elephants a possibly viable choice as you then could force favorable fights at least. (Speed charge of +.3 tiles/s speed bonus for 10 seconds when ordered to attack an enemy unit, needs 40 seconds to recharge)
I think they should change the order of the UTs like the way they did for franks, and perhaps nerf the new farimba a bit.
Really, once you have eles with 9 pierce armor, FU hussars, BBC, onagers, champions with 20 attack and an arambai mass archers aren’t an issue at all.
The issue is in late castle age/early imp, and giving burmese the option to go for a castle age all in against the archer civs will be a good solution.
Not a bad idea. If so, the cost of new Manipur Cavalry should be adjusted in my opinion.
Well, the extra elephant armor actually fit the imperial age. People seldom use it since it usually hard to keep spawning the elephant, building a castle and researching it simultaneously in the castle age.
On top of that, people are usually dead by the arrows just in the castle age, cannot wait an imperial tech. It is nothing to do with the sieging cavalry what people above have told about. Adding 2nd archer armor directly is a good solution but it seems be resisted.
Really little help. Burmese have economy to afford the upgrade cost, the elite one still lacks armor than the regular one in the castle age.
Might break the feature that Burmese must have the low-armored archery range units?
Then the current change for Manipur cavalry makes ZERO sense.
By the time you’re in imperial age, you’re dead against archer/cav archer civs, unless we’re talking about BF or some other heavily walled booming map.
Not only the change makes 0 sense because the tech comes in too late, but it will also barely do what it’s supposed to do since the archer player can just add camels/halbs and be fine. Nerfed raiding potential also means you don’t get to use the civ’s mobility as much, and mobility is better than killing archers in one more hit.