Burmese are a very interesting civ from a design point of view. For several months now, Burmese have been considered extremely strong in both 1v1 and TG, and possibly the best Arabia TG civ. But at the same time their design is very close to Spanish, with weak archers, great monks, conquistador-like UU, strong heavy cavalry and wide tech tree. But how come Burmese feel unstoppable and Spanish don't, if they are so similar.
To answer that, a close comparison of the bonuses and tech tree is required :
As we can notice it, both civs are quite similar : each one miss an archer upgrade every other civ has (leather archer armor/Xbow), fully upgraded infantry, heavy cavalry (Battle Elephant/Paladin), great monks bonuses/tech, access to BBC, and very similar UU.
But there are some key differences that have a huge impact on how they are played.
First, Early game :
Burmese have a very strong eco bonus with free lumber upgrades. 100f 50w is a lot of resources saved when reaching feudal, where getting scouts or M@A out is an absolute priority. Meanwhile, Spanish only have faster builders as an eco bonus, which is a very mediocre bonus when not trushing.
Burmese don't only have one early game bonus, but two : +1 attack on intfantry makes for deadly M@A, specially with the resources saved with the free lumber upgrades. The only military bonus spanish have in feudal is saving 50g for fletching, which isn't nearly as good.
Also, Burmese can safely go archers in feudal knowing that they can upgrade to xbow in castle, while Spanish archers are as good as dead in castle age.
Second, Arambai vs conqs :
Even though conquistadors are the better unit statistically with +1 range, 2/2 armor vs 0/1 (4/4 vs 1/2 fully upgraded in castle age) and less attack delay, Arambai are much more usable, because of one single key difference : they cost wood. Food is a much more precious resource than wood in castle age because it is gathered slower, requires farms and is needed to produce villagers. The 60f cost on conquistadors is what kept them from being too OP in AoC, because it makes it hard to boom while producing them, specially with no eco bonuses.
But not only Arambai cost 20 less total resources, they cost wood, which is very convenient since Burmese have free wood upgrade. The only proper counter to Arambai, archers, is easily countered by mangonels, that cost... wood and gold too. Basically a Burmese player only has to spend wood and gold on his army, and use all the food to boom behind it.
Now I know what is FE's stance on Aramabai costing food : they would be too similar to conquistador. I disagree with this, for me the unit itself is quite different enough already with less range, armor, accuracy, more attack and a faster fire rate. For me it would be perfectly fine if they cost food and wouldn't take anything from what makes conquistadors unique.
To sum it all up, I get the feeling the FE tried to make a civilization on the same template as Spanish, which is fine and has worked in the past (Huns and Magyars, Teutons and Slavs). But the set of bonuses that went with it was misguided, as it failed to understand the things that made Spanish viable but not OP : none/mediocre early game bonuses, big hole in the tech tree, and a very eco intensive UU. Instead, they gave Burmese two early game bonuses, a mssing tech that doesn't hurt so much, and a UU that is quite light on the eco.
That's my takeaway from this : Want to rebalance Burmese ? Nerf their early game bonuses and/or makes arambai much harder on eco, making them cost food seems like an absolute necessity.
To answer that, a close comparison of the bonuses and tech tree is required :
Burmese • Free lumber upgrades • Infantry +1 attack per age • Monastery techs 50% cheaper TB : Relics visible on the map UU : Arambai UT1 : Howdah UT2 : Manipur Cavalry Missing techs : Archers Arbalest, HC, Thumb ring Infantry Eagles Cavalry Paladin, Camel Monks Heresy Siege Siege Ram, SO Blacksmith Leather archer armor University BBT, Arrowslits Eco Stone shaft mining | . . . | Spanish • Builders work 30% faster • Blacksmith upgrades don't cost gold • Gunpowder fire 18% faster, Cannon Galleon have ballistics TB : Trade units give 25% more gold UU : Conquistador, missionary UT1 : Inquisition UT2 : Supremacy Missing techs : Archers XBow, HCA Infantry Eagles Cavalry Camel, Elephants Monks / Siege SO, Heavy scorpion Blacksmith / University Treadmill crane, Siege engineers Eco Crop rotation, Gold shaft mining |
As we can notice it, both civs are quite similar : each one miss an archer upgrade every other civ has (leather archer armor/Xbow), fully upgraded infantry, heavy cavalry (Battle Elephant/Paladin), great monks bonuses/tech, access to BBC, and very similar UU.
But there are some key differences that have a huge impact on how they are played.
First, Early game :
Burmese have a very strong eco bonus with free lumber upgrades. 100f 50w is a lot of resources saved when reaching feudal, where getting scouts or M@A out is an absolute priority. Meanwhile, Spanish only have faster builders as an eco bonus, which is a very mediocre bonus when not trushing.
Burmese don't only have one early game bonus, but two : +1 attack on intfantry makes for deadly M@A, specially with the resources saved with the free lumber upgrades. The only military bonus spanish have in feudal is saving 50g for fletching, which isn't nearly as good.
Also, Burmese can safely go archers in feudal knowing that they can upgrade to xbow in castle, while Spanish archers are as good as dead in castle age.
Second, Arambai vs conqs :
Even though conquistadors are the better unit statistically with +1 range, 2/2 armor vs 0/1 (4/4 vs 1/2 fully upgraded in castle age) and less attack delay, Arambai are much more usable, because of one single key difference : they cost wood. Food is a much more precious resource than wood in castle age because it is gathered slower, requires farms and is needed to produce villagers. The 60f cost on conquistadors is what kept them from being too OP in AoC, because it makes it hard to boom while producing them, specially with no eco bonuses.
But not only Arambai cost 20 less total resources, they cost wood, which is very convenient since Burmese have free wood upgrade. The only proper counter to Arambai, archers, is easily countered by mangonels, that cost... wood and gold too. Basically a Burmese player only has to spend wood and gold on his army, and use all the food to boom behind it.
Now I know what is FE's stance on Aramabai costing food : they would be too similar to conquistador. I disagree with this, for me the unit itself is quite different enough already with less range, armor, accuracy, more attack and a faster fire rate. For me it would be perfectly fine if they cost food and wouldn't take anything from what makes conquistadors unique.
To sum it all up, I get the feeling the FE tried to make a civilization on the same template as Spanish, which is fine and has worked in the past (Huns and Magyars, Teutons and Slavs). But the set of bonuses that went with it was misguided, as it failed to understand the things that made Spanish viable but not OP : none/mediocre early game bonuses, big hole in the tech tree, and a very eco intensive UU. Instead, they gave Burmese two early game bonuses, a mssing tech that doesn't hurt so much, and a UU that is quite light on the eco.
That's my takeaway from this : Want to rebalance Burmese ? Nerf their early game bonuses and/or makes arambai much harder on eco, making them cost food seems like an absolute necessity.
Last edited: