Bengal Versus Burma
- This topic has 5 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In my opinion, these civilizations share many similarities.
However, the Bengalis have certain weaknesses that set them apart, making it necessary to redesign them.
Both civs rely on the Monk-Elephant combination, but while the Burmese have a variety of options available to them, the Bengalis are limited to archers and are only able to slowly transition to an elephant-based army.
Moreover, Burmese monks are more versatile as they can effectively counter both siege and monks, while Bengali monks struggle to compete against knights and skirmishers.
Additionally, Burmese excel in infantry and cavalry, whereas Bengalis struggle in the infantry department in the later stages of the game.
While the Burmese have a dedicated anti-archer tech and decent archers, the Bengali archers fall short in comparison.
The Burmese also possess better siege capabilities, while the Bengalis rely on the armored elephant as a form of siege, which doesn’t quite compare to the powerful BBC.
Lastly, the unique units for each civ cost nearly the same, but the Burmese Arambai serves little purpose, while the Bengali Nasir gets the job done against knights and camels.
Overall, the Bengalis’ reliance on units vulnerable to skirmishers and the high cost of their units calls for a redesign.
I don’t think those civs are as close to each other as you’re making them.
In my eyes, both civs have unique traits and just because one civ is weaker in one part than the other does not mean any of them should be reworked.
Calling Burmese an elephants civ is a huge stretch.
Battle elephants are straight up not viable on open maps in Castle Age.
In Imp, Burmese usually have more cost efficient options than BE (better than average halbs against cavalry, better than average hussar against archers w/ Manipur) that it rarely is a good choice to go for.
Bengalis on the other hand will rely either on Ratha or EA as the backbone of their army and have to add halbs or LC as their front line.
Just wait a year until we see pros picking up Ele Archers.
It took the pros quite some time before they shifted their attention to Steppe lancers or until they realized and utilized the full power of Burgundians.
Ele archers are such a power house.
Once we see them in competitve play, people will call them out as OP.
Biggest difference is, despite both have monk and elephant focus, Bengalis tech tree is much more funnelled towards those 2 compared to Burmese.
Burmese have very good cavalier, hussar, infantry, and BBC.
Bengalis have none of those, but they do have better archers for range support, and a more powerful eco bonus, although pays off later.
Looking beyond just Bengalis vs Burmese, I really do think Bengalis need a bigger power spike in early imp since that’s the only time they can have an advantage.
Maybe all elite elephant upgrades half price?
Elite elephant archers is very expensive and doesn’t feel very justified.
Alternatively make their free villagers bonus become staggered, with +2/+3/+4 per age up.
That way they get a more reasonable boost in castle age to not die
Also a tired argument.
But if BE were more usable we wouldn’t necessarily have such a conundrum.
That and making melee Ratha less susceptible to skirms, would go a long way.
Maybe at the cost of something?
Reduce PA of Ratha but give the melee version bonus CA class armour.
Burmese are good not great throughout most of the game.
The Bengali are meh but turn into late game monsters against most civs.
Skirms are a soft counter against FU Bengali EA.
Arambai make Ratha look like trade cogs
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
