The Weaknest Civs On Maps?

Who do you think are the weakest civs?

I find the Burmese quite simply awful. On both open and closed maps. I would never consider picking them pretty much in any game.

On 1v1 open maps. Walling is hard to do, and costly.

4v4 open maps. Walling is hard to do, and costly. Trade is risky.

4v4 black forest. Late boom game, with trade. Walling is easy to do and cheap.

And also particularly ineffective sometimes.

1 Like

Lots of players tend to do at somewhat truce on these maps. Rushing on these maps sometimes can backfire badly. Oh, you managed to harass one guy. Here comes his ally with 60 Paladins. I’m being someone hyperbolic, but do you get my point.

1 Like

I mean it is in-effective because in the late game one ram is all it takes to immediately destroy the wall.

Bombard cannons on watch put that ram to a stop.


I cant talk about 1vs1 but Burmese in teamgames are pretty viable.

Especially on arena.

Well ofc they are a one trick with arambai…but i think people make arambai worse than they actually are. If you have a big ball of them they are quite strong. With the recent change they even trade pretty good vs archers…and they can kill cav still.

It’s only that they cant take out buildings in castle age anymore. But if u petard in(arena) you can still idle a lot of eco and snipe vils. And in imp you can take out buildings easily.

A big ball of arambai is imo still one of the strongest units there is.

Burmese are pretty good (certainly above average) on closed maps and they are good (although not top obviously) on super open maps where players only go scouts. They might among the worst on rather open maps like arabia where archers are an important unit but I don’t think they are the worst considering all maps there is.

I don’t even think it makes much sense to ask that question because most civs are bad on some specific maps like Franks are horrible on full water if you aren’t going land but who cares since they are great on open and good on closed land maps.

1 Like