Talk about Burmese

I really like all new fixes/buffs especially the great fix for my favourite unit the CA :ok_hand:t2:, i am really happy too that the devs removed the sick obsidian missiles and did the same for Saracens too, but actually the Burmese nerf was somehow good and bad at the same time and this is what i want to talk about.

We all know the Arambai is really annoying especially in Arena, and now the Arambai got more nerfs, but in general what the Burmese actually only good on Arena and now they are weaker, and on Arabia with lacking many upgrades especially the archers armor, this make them very weak and don’t have a good answer against archers, because actually even their skirms with only the 1st armor archer are not that good against xbows/arbs, so i have 3 suggestions for Burmese:

1-Give the Burmese thumb ring


2-Give Burmese 2nd archer armor


3-Give the Arambai 80% accuracy

So what do you think?


I agree. They are probably one of the weakest civ. Bottom 5 for sure - and easy to fix them.


Just rework the Arambai, that unit is one of the ill designed units, Leitis is 100% better designed.

No need for that after the last nerf, Arambai now is more than fine. The Burmese now need general balance like getting the archers 2nd armor or thumb ring.

I prefer giving them the second Archer Armor first.


Yeah this is the best choice actually.

Burmese won’t be weak on Arena because they have the half price monastery techs. I don’t think the Arambai is bad now, since their stray shots now deal more damage. The main difference is that now Burmese players will have to remember they have to use infantry, elephants or monks to raze buildings.

1 Like

The problem is that they don’t have a good answer against archers with lacking the archets armors

They have siege like everyone else, and maybe the new arambai will handle them better than the old one? I think this is quite tricky to discuss without extended testing.


Burmese won’t be weak on Arena. They still have a half price monk tech and one of the strongest infantry. Arena is the map that generally mobility is less important than Arabia and monks and infantries are more shine than open map. But the issue would be more on Arabia that they can be bad civ for nerfiing Arambai. Yeah but I think we still have to see how they play, and how the Arambai change of missed shot full damage affect their play.


No, the whole point of not having 100% accuracy (and that arambai now deals the full damage to miss hits) is that this give the unit an “are of effects” kind of damage.

Completely agree on this, you can give arambai -1PA and simply give them the second archer armor, so their skirms may be at least decent.


Burmese will be fine. They always had many strong options nobody used because double Castle Arambai was that much stronger. Relic bonus is like a discounted Vietnamese TC bonus before relics become important. M@A opening has both strength and flexible transitions with the +1 attack and free Double-Bit Axe. Economy in general is solid with free Lumber Camp upgrades, including Two-Man Saw. Siege/Monk rush is top-tier with half-off Monk upgrades. Full Cavalier and Hussar with big bonus damage vs. buildings through the Imperial Age UT. Archers are still a good option until late Castle Age. Though Onager is their only option vs. archer civs in the late game, Onager vs. archers is still Onager vs. archers. Battle Elephants with extra armor from the Castle Age UT wouldn’t be a bad choice either vs. foot archers on the uncommon occasions the Burmese player can get there.

Nevertheless I have a hunch Burmese could become like the next Tatars post free Thumbring. Where most players think the civ is F tier because of a few bad matchups and refuse to play them without big buffs. Then after they play the civ with the big buffs, they all realize the civ was always strong and never needed any buffs! But now the game is still stuck with a busted civ :roll_eyes:.


Thumb ring have sense, second archer armor lol is so broken arambais would live more and the unit is broken, 80% accurancy is broken a bit, because damage per second

1 Like

Arambai was adjusted, yes it might be overall nerf but the UU had absolutely no real counters.

What else do burmese have going?

  • Better infantry than almost all civs (+1 attack per age feudal onwards)
  • Strongest battle elephants in the game (FU with 2 UTs)
  • Better than FU Hussar and Halb (great thrash)
  • One of the better early economies in the game with great lategame economy (only missing 2nd stone mining upgrade)
  • The best monk civ: Cheap upgrades
  • Bombard Cannon, Heavy scorpion and Onager with Siege engineers
  • Still great unique unit
  • Bracer, Keeps, fortified walls, architecture. So great defence.
  • FU cavalier with possible UT (paladin isn’t really a thing in 1v1s anyways)

Yea their archers are unusable as soon as you start needing thumb ring (late castle age) but then you can just play scorpions or maybe even the new arambai as backline.

Overall Burmese are still very strong. And no civ should be able to waste 650 stone on a castle and feel ahead, thats how busted Arambai were.


I always liked burmese besides arambai. I think the civ is not bad per se. I would like them to get just an small push to their stable, maybe, but that’s it. I wouldn’t give anything to their archery range, since they’re already have other good options. Idk, maybe divide the effect of manipur cavalry like they did with zealotry (grant +2 as a civ bonus, and 4 as a ut, and make the civ cheaper) but that’s it

1 Like

I am not a fan of the Arambai because of it’s ridiculously low accuracy, it’s like they are drunk. So, I’d change them to be a little more like the Conquistador.

1 Like

Well the deal with Arambai is that they already are like conqs. And if you make them more like conqs, then are they an UU anymore?

I don’t like giving them the 2nd archer upgrade because it’s part of their design. We got a civ with no 2nd cav armor, a civ with no 2nd infantry armor and a civ with no 2nd archer armor. And i think it’s fine.

If matchup against archer is a problem, i would rather buff infantry, cav, monks, siege or arambai against archer rather than giving them the 2nd armor upgrade. Don’t forget that arambai get the archer armor upgrade.

My idea is one of these:

  • skirm get +1/+1 every age starting in castle
  • cavalry get +2 dmg against archer class (same as persian team bonus but for all cavalry, including elephant and scout line)
  • free balistic (ES can be used in early/mid castle and archer play is possible in feudal/early castle) - may be too strong even for a civ without 2nd archer armor upgrade.
  • free ES upgrade (so they can be used early castle)
1 Like

I think the change to the Arambai was intended to make them better or the same versus massed archers, and worst versus melee units. The thing however is the Arambais are glass cannons, and if not microed will not really be as efficient as cavalry archers or conquistadors in the late game anymore, especially given their high price. So I would probably give just Elite a bit more armour, or +1 range. But after seeing how this plays out.

I would not be in favour of appointing them archer or skirmisher bonuses, nor even the second armour upgrade: terrible archers is their identity, like terrible (unmouted) trash is Turks’.

1 Like

Arambai always had a tendency to fall of in Imp anyway compared to castle age, so this is no big deal.