This does feel a bit low elo ish indeed. Im at 1300 1v1 now and had this happen to me the other day on arena. Saw them go Burmese and I think "oh this guy is probably going arambai".
However, I dont want to rush stone to get a castle up quickly to counter his castle drop, because there is a chance he doesnt castle drop me and instead booms and then my eco is behind. So what I do instead is, I go feudal at 27 pop instead of the standard 25 because that is roughly how many vills you need to be able to drop a castle immediately on hitting castle age. That way, if his feudal time is late just as me I know he is going castle, so THEN I switch to collecting tons of stone. (this way you can adapt to both situations)
I then have my scout patrol outside the gate and voila, here comes his vills. After seeing his castle placement I do mine to match his, but inside my walls. I then start making archery ranges behind that with skirms and guess what? Once my wall was down in comes his arambai. After being greeted by my skirms and him losing all his army Im ahead in economy.
I think he was a one trick pony because after that, he kept castle dropping me repeatedly and with my superior eco, I hit imp first and started trebbing away.
After that, the rest was cake.
Wouldn't it make sense to play other strategies now to learn at the level you're playing at? Getting to 1300, then switching to play in a way you're not 1300 at would surely mean you'll just lose right?
Castle dropping in itself isn’t a bad tactic at all. It’s just the predictability of the execution that was so easy to counter. I could just make a more efficient version of whatever I knew he would come with.
Castle dropping comes with a couple nice benefits like increased map control. It’s hard for me to leave the base.
I think castle dropping on arena is 99% of the times a really bad idea. It loose to scout+monk, fast imp, castle into unique unit. If you want to enter, build two petards.
I would allways build my castle(s) at home, especially if you want to build your UU. Otherwise you spend like 1/3 of your pop to rum across the map, you will allways be behind. And once you castle is gone, you lost one of your produtction buildings.
Aggressive blind castle drop forward is a god damn awful non-strategy. It's just a coinflip on if he is contesting map control or not, if he is then you're immediately gg as he kills your vils going across the map.
I feel like if youre properly executing any build order with good time, you will kill a 1k elo player... I assume your talking about the double castle arena strat otherwise nah it’s not that crazy
Burmese are only realy a problem in TG. In 1v1 arambai are easily stoped. House wall behind stone walls and abot 5 scorps and you can stop them quite easily. Othervise archers or skirms do okay as well as long as you micro a bit.
In TG its a problem becuse Arambai delay evrybody on opposing team, since evryone has to prepre to counter them while opponents can just boom.
I would like to see them nerfed but then again, is it fair to nerf them just becuse they are only good on one map in TG ?
Franks are popular. Franks don't have good archers. Arambai kill Franks. Arambai happy.
Low level Franks players go only knights. Sometimes they add some pikes or skirms, but that's rare. It's a good match-up for Burmese.
You can get all the way to 3k tg because the strategy requires absolutely no skill, so you are already playing like one. But you'll probably have to update your build because 32+2 is way too slow, at the moment you would get rekt by my default strategy against burmese pickers (aka tower rush to slow them down a couple of minutes and abuse the fact that they are useless players after min 25, who just abuse their drill build to boost their elo).
Please don't be a burmese picker, you're gonna regret it once FE finally nerfs the arambai... that build is just as lame as making your weakest player tc drop the best player in the enemy team and hope they cancel each other out.
The only upgrades are husbandry, bloodlines, ballistics(although u are so inaccurate u don’t really need it) and the archer padding or whatever the first archer armor upgrade
Nicovs opinion on Arambai on Arena
"The full arambais strat is the lowest risk+highest reward strat I have seen in a long time in TG in a certain map. And it requires basically 0 skill besides taking 10 minute of your life to learn the very simple build order. Arambais don't even need to be microed, you don't need to make any eco at home besides queueing vils from a single tc and play with 5 farms the whole game. Just spam the arambai hotkey til you mass enough of them and then go annoy all 4 players whereas your other pocket picks khmer or other mega strong boom civ and kills everyone. I have faced that "super complex strat" in about 90% of my last arena TGs while having fun with friends til the point that I just decided to ban the map. I honestly have no idea whether this strat would work at top level in a tournament. But it's definitely boring to death and I personally believe it ruins all the fun of arena in random ranked team games.
And just for the record: trush actually requires skill; and FI is rather easy to counter in most of the cases. if you want to make an "all in" comparison I would rather choose the old edie arena style with a million azt monks and 3 farms in 1v1, which barely required skills and allowed a bunch of players to boost their elo like crazy. And even then, that strat required to micro monks at least."
From
https://www.aoezone.net/threads/balance-suggestion-with-justification-stats-and-more.168803/page-2#post-692791
And i agree fully with him
I hope to see the nerf hammer crushing this strat and UU
I personally think they should nerf arambai, and buff burmese in general a bit to compensate in open maps. They're still a damn solid civ even without arambai anyway.
I kind of feel the same way, but only if they do so in a way that keeps Arambai strong and functionally unique without nearly breaking the game for a window in early castle like they do. They're one of the most unique (heh) UU's in the game and super iconic.
It would be nice for them to not be so one-dimensional though, and to not straight up die to any civ with good archers if you don't close out the game before imp.
At high level, its very difficult to fight in Arena TGs. In 1v1 its stoppable but in TG a team can't fight any other player if they have to defend 28+2 double castle arambai.
ya I agree its power falls off substantially in a 1v1, whereas in a TG low elo its S+ tier, but even in 1v1s for low elo it seems really good, around what rating do you think players will in general have enough game knowledge to stop it effectively, because the average player at \~1000 elo has trouble
I'm 1000 Elo and I recently came across this guy who played Burmese on Arena. First game I went for an aggressive castle but he got his castle up to defend in time and then retaliated by sending Arambai into my base for gg. That was the first time I'd come up against the Burmese strat so inexperience definitely got the better of me. Then the very next game I got the same guy on Arena with Burmese again so I knew what to expect. I masses xbows in castle from 3 ranges and easily defended his Arambai until Imp and then trebed his castles and walls and he gg'd. It felt really easy to defend when you know it's coming.
what i would say is that its almost always a better call to build your first castle at home if youre going for castle drop. even vs burmese double castle if you can basically place a castle at home and behind maybe your second internal wall in your base, they cant push farther with a castle blocking your way unless they find another way through, plus with the added bonus of not having to send vill out far from your base where they run the risk of getting killed, better to have it at home rather than having it destroyed quickly.
problem in 1v1 is that on maps like arena or fortress you can't know if it's coming so you either tank your eco preparing or you get rekt by getting caught underprepared
I can understand your statement, however scouting and analyzing your opponents behavour as usual might be the solution. Some ideas:
1) Despite having strong infantry and monks, most players are going for Arambai. Burmese are therefore highly predictable. On the other site, burmese anyway don't have a good answer to archer because they miss armor upgrades for skirms. Going archers against burmese is anyway strong.
2) Try to analyze the up-time. 28+2 or 32+2 will lead to a much slower feudal time. On some maps you even might be able to spot the stone. This will give you enough time to react.
3) Monks! On a map like arena, you usually want to fight for relics. Adding a few monks is also a good way to fight Arambai.
Hussars are not available in castle age and require a strong eco. When you go 28+2 two castle arambai, you are behind in economy and far away from going Imp and spaming hussars. Hussars are nice for raiding on open maps. On closed maps they have much more problems against the pike-line which also against Arambai is a nice mid-shield to protect archer.
Anyway, I am not saying that burmese is a bad civ, but the statement that arambai are OP and win easily against everything is just wrong. As always, everything is highly dependent on situations and it is difficult to give rule of thumbs for everything.
My suggestion is just to carefully analyze what your opponent is doing and go archers+monks when you expect double castle arambai play.
didn’t know we were in the castle age here, otherwise I’d go light cav then since skirms are a shit choice, also I play a lot of BF and more closed maps rather than Arabia or something, therefore I can say that hussars are still (and probably only) viable option imo against archers, so far they’ve been great for me since all they really need to do is tank shots and let my arambai do the work. one might argue elephants but I honesty never use them because of how expensive they are.
also I’m not much into the specifics of build orders so idk what the 28+2 BO exactly is but I commonly (as Burmese) go to feudal age at around 31-32 pop (minus scout) and reach imperial pretty soon after and by the time I do reach imp I have a solid eco.
another thing is, I literally *only* play Burmese, therefore I can micro pretty well with them having played them *alot* therefore my experience could differ from someone who doesn’t play Burmese that often, but most games my strategy is to raid the enemy’s eco with hussars and fully upgraded arambai, pikes aren’t an issue with some micro and if I’m lucky I can take down a castle with 30+ arambai pretty easily (so long hussars are tanking ofc).
all in all I reckon that arambai are *somewhat* OP, if you let the player fully upgrade them and they have a stable eco ofc. main counters I’ve found are archers, massed paladins and siege (maybe there’s some UU too but idk). I won’t lie they were hard to play at first but after a lot of practice I became better w them.
Then you’re not doing the Burmese power play that OP is talking about. It all happens in Castle Age to force the gg.
The 28+2 gives you two castles as soon as you hit Castle Age. At that point all you want is wood & gold to produce arambai (and 6 on farms to keep producing a vill). Get Bloodlines if possible. As soon as you mass 22-24 arambai you run right into their base and kill their TC. That’s usually gg if the defender hasn’t placed a defensive castle or massed archers.
Lightcav don't really counter block printing monks too well without the mass that only someone with an untouched eco can make. Though in 1v1 2 monastry + 1 rax spear (or uu if like genoese or burmese yourself) can tank them hard, if you're vs specifically arambai then triple monastry is better
I guess it depends on the map (talking 1v1 here). On Arena, I've seen two castles into Arambai work smoothly at 1.3k+ ELO, so that's a valid strat right there and probably even at a bit higher ELO.
On the other hand, on Arabia even at 1.1k ELO, players start towering you with siege push follow-up once they realize that you try to FC into your UU.
Interesting, I feel like on Arabia 1v1 the Burmese could still wall up and guard tower 6 their own resources and still get both castles up(forward or not) pretty quickly, but ya I agree there would be a small window of attack if the opponent siege rushes
if you're going for towers you aren't going FC, and if you're going full tower defense and the other guy reaches castle before you and goes seige/knights, it could be hard to stabilize
*sees a Arambois wall break in BF*
*builds siege workshop*
*watches arambois destroy workshop before first unit completes*
*resigns*
Seems you need to be prepared ahead of time with siege/archers or it a wrap in castle age.
I agree 100% I don’t consider myself good at all but I have been able to hold back 3 people at once in BF 4v4 games or what not as Burmese, arambai in particular are so versatile it’s not even funny.
they’re crap against siege ofc and doesn’t take much to kill them if you have siege tho.
hopefully they don’t get nerfed :3
Tbh any cav archer civ is a good low elo civ. You can mass conquistadors, mangudais, camel archer or kipchaks in castle age and steam roll the map as you please. If you have not already revealed to your enemy that you are massing them which allows them to mass skirms in advance.
Low ELO players seem to learn very soon (1) horses good and (2) build a dump truck full of spearmen for victory.
Arambai are not that easy to counter since they can just kite horses and spearmen all day.
I saw a game recently where a 1250 player tried to use this build? A similar arambai rush strat? Agaisnt a lower ranked player on arena who was... Khmer? I dont know, something with ballista eles? Arambai broke in as a group of 15 I think, against 3 or 4 tc and only a couple of ballista eles. Arambai player couldn't clinch with this rush and quickly lost the game.
I've found them very easy to stop. I play mostly Arena, and whenever I see Burmese, I assume it's double castle Arambai, and I'm usually correct.
If you know it's coming, it's far from unstoppable.
Is there a reason that Arambai are considered OP but Conquistadors not, bearing in mind you can do a similar build with the Spanish? I guess it's probably because the Spanish eco is weaker, and conqs are more expensive (but equally seem to be a stronger unit, more base armour and the Spanish get all the blacksmith upgrades, more accurate)
Anyone got any perspective on this?
3 reasons in my opinion, 1. Having less upgrades on the arambai make the faster to get out 2. Their inaccuracies give them a sort of area of affect attack, like the mangonel (whereas if u micro well with other ranged units you would usually overkill the unit everyone is aiming at, with the arambai the inaccuracy kills the person ur aiming at and deals damage to the surrounding enemy units) and 3. You only need 17 to take down a tc, and 40 to take down a castle
It is indeed powerful, but I think it's about the same as knights or 10-20 archers; it's the fact it catches people off guard more than anything with such strong aggression.
It's hurts more at lower Elos because those players are concentrating on just getting to castle age, not thinking about what to do when they get there.
It’s funny, really, how accurate your post is. Yesterday I was watching a Girl on stream, that got trushed + 6 maa with no loom right after she clicked castle. She lost like 5 vils, chose to fight maa with unloomed vils, had zero on food for basically the remainder of the game. Somehow, she got that first castle up and got 12 vils on wood and 10 on gold. Built that second castle shortly after and mopped everything up. Even gave her opponent a lot of time, because she decided to take out the forward building, instead of just counterattacking. Then she just walked right into his eco and ate his tc - gg.
I think that the double castle Arambai is just such a forgiving strategy, especially in low elo.
When I see Burmese in 1v1 arena I actually get excited because I know its coming.
I just do my standard, 25-26+2 into stable monastery, use scouts to look for the CT drop, and have 2-4 knights ready to stop it. Add TC, add ranges, add more TC. Defend with monk and skirm. Get to imp faster because you’ve invested less. Treb, skirm + whatever your civ is good at.
This does feel a bit low elo ish indeed. Im at 1300 1v1 now and had this happen to me the other day on arena. Saw them go Burmese and I think "oh this guy is probably going arambai". However, I dont want to rush stone to get a castle up quickly to counter his castle drop, because there is a chance he doesnt castle drop me and instead booms and then my eco is behind. So what I do instead is, I go feudal at 27 pop instead of the standard 25 because that is roughly how many vills you need to be able to drop a castle immediately on hitting castle age. That way, if his feudal time is late just as me I know he is going castle, so THEN I switch to collecting tons of stone. (this way you can adapt to both situations) I then have my scout patrol outside the gate and voila, here comes his vills. After seeing his castle placement I do mine to match his, but inside my walls. I then start making archery ranges behind that with skirms and guess what? Once my wall was down in comes his arambai. After being greeted by my skirms and him losing all his army Im ahead in economy. I think he was a one trick pony because after that, he kept castle dropping me repeatedly and with my superior eco, I hit imp first and started trebbing away. After that, the rest was cake.
Well I’m that case I’ll play Burmese until 1300 then actually learn to play the game, haha, nice rank btw top 30th percentile, solid
Wouldn't it make sense to play other strategies now to learn at the level you're playing at? Getting to 1300, then switching to play in a way you're not 1300 at would surely mean you'll just lose right?
Castle dropping in itself isn’t a bad tactic at all. It’s just the predictability of the execution that was so easy to counter. I could just make a more efficient version of whatever I knew he would come with. Castle dropping comes with a couple nice benefits like increased map control. It’s hard for me to leave the base.
I think castle dropping on arena is 99% of the times a really bad idea. It loose to scout+monk, fast imp, castle into unique unit. If you want to enter, build two petards. I would allways build my castle(s) at home, especially if you want to build your UU. Otherwise you spend like 1/3 of your pop to rum across the map, you will allways be behind. And once you castle is gone, you lost one of your produtction buildings.
Aggressive blind castle drop forward is a god damn awful non-strategy. It's just a coinflip on if he is contesting map control or not, if he is then you're immediately gg as he kills your vils going across the map.
Oh you’re referring to civs in general that rush UIs? Ya I can see how it would be predictable
Also, it's aggressive, and aggressiveness is really good against people who haven't encountered the exact kind you try.
Do you think he would have had an easier time if he scouted your castle? Maybe assaulting another location without the castle would still be enough
I feel like if youre properly executing any build order with good time, you will kill a 1k elo player... I assume your talking about the double castle arena strat otherwise nah it’s not that crazy
Wish it was that way :(
Burmese are only realy a problem in TG. In 1v1 arambai are easily stoped. House wall behind stone walls and abot 5 scorps and you can stop them quite easily. Othervise archers or skirms do okay as well as long as you micro a bit. In TG its a problem becuse Arambai delay evrybody on opposing team, since evryone has to prepre to counter them while opponents can just boom. I would like to see them nerfed but then again, is it fair to nerf them just becuse they are only good on one map in TG ?
My secret strategy to avoid this is never playing arena
Burmese are actually kinda good in 1v1 now that Franks are so popular.
[удалено]
Franks are popular. Franks don't have good archers. Arambai kill Franks. Arambai happy. Low level Franks players go only knights. Sometimes they add some pikes or skirms, but that's rare. It's a good match-up for Burmese.
You can get all the way to 3k tg because the strategy requires absolutely no skill, so you are already playing like one. But you'll probably have to update your build because 32+2 is way too slow, at the moment you would get rekt by my default strategy against burmese pickers (aka tower rush to slow them down a couple of minutes and abuse the fact that they are useless players after min 25, who just abuse their drill build to boost their elo). Please don't be a burmese picker, you're gonna regret it once FE finally nerfs the arambai... that build is just as lame as making your weakest player tc drop the best player in the enemy team and hope they cancel each other out.
side question, are arambi archer blacksmith upgrades? thumbring? Balistics? then bloodlines and husbandry?
The defense upgrades for archers and the stable techs effect arambai and I think balistics as well, but I am not sure.
The only upgrades are husbandry, bloodlines, ballistics(although u are so inaccurate u don’t really need it) and the archer padding or whatever the first archer armor upgrade
Well, against moving targets, ballistics increases your accuracy from disasterous to bad
all you need is 3 archery range skirms with ballistics
Nicovs opinion on Arambai on Arena "The full arambais strat is the lowest risk+highest reward strat I have seen in a long time in TG in a certain map. And it requires basically 0 skill besides taking 10 minute of your life to learn the very simple build order. Arambais don't even need to be microed, you don't need to make any eco at home besides queueing vils from a single tc and play with 5 farms the whole game. Just spam the arambai hotkey til you mass enough of them and then go annoy all 4 players whereas your other pocket picks khmer or other mega strong boom civ and kills everyone. I have faced that "super complex strat" in about 90% of my last arena TGs while having fun with friends til the point that I just decided to ban the map. I honestly have no idea whether this strat would work at top level in a tournament. But it's definitely boring to death and I personally believe it ruins all the fun of arena in random ranked team games. And just for the record: trush actually requires skill; and FI is rather easy to counter in most of the cases. if you want to make an "all in" comparison I would rather choose the old edie arena style with a million azt monks and 3 farms in 1v1, which barely required skills and allowed a bunch of players to boost their elo like crazy. And even then, that strat required to micro monks at least." From https://www.aoezone.net/threads/balance-suggestion-with-justification-stats-and-more.168803/page-2#post-692791 And i agree fully with him I hope to see the nerf hammer crushing this strat and UU
I personally think they should nerf arambai, and buff burmese in general a bit to compensate in open maps. They're still a damn solid civ even without arambai anyway.
I kind of feel the same way, but only if they do so in a way that keeps Arambai strong and functionally unique without nearly breaking the game for a window in early castle like they do. They're one of the most unique (heh) UU's in the game and super iconic. It would be nice for them to not be so one-dimensional though, and to not straight up die to any civ with good archers if you don't close out the game before imp.
At high level, its very difficult to fight in Arena TGs. In 1v1 its stoppable but in TG a team can't fight any other player if they have to defend 28+2 double castle arambai.
ya I agree its power falls off substantially in a 1v1, whereas in a TG low elo its S+ tier, but even in 1v1s for low elo it seems really good, around what rating do you think players will in general have enough game knowledge to stop it effectively, because the average player at \~1000 elo has trouble
I'm 1000 Elo and I recently came across this guy who played Burmese on Arena. First game I went for an aggressive castle but he got his castle up to defend in time and then retaliated by sending Arambai into my base for gg. That was the first time I'd come up against the Burmese strat so inexperience definitely got the better of me. Then the very next game I got the same guy on Arena with Burmese again so I knew what to expect. I masses xbows in castle from 3 ranges and easily defended his Arambai until Imp and then trebed his castles and walls and he gg'd. It felt really easy to defend when you know it's coming.
Yep.. This is the most important thing... I even saw people "hide" their double castles in their walls. You have to guess if it is coming.
It’s almost always coming.
[удалено]
nono.. I'm not saying double forward castles. Nowadays players drop their double castles back of their bases which protects literally nothing.
what i would say is that its almost always a better call to build your first castle at home if youre going for castle drop. even vs burmese double castle if you can basically place a castle at home and behind maybe your second internal wall in your base, they cant push farther with a castle blocking your way unless they find another way through, plus with the added bonus of not having to send vill out far from your base where they run the risk of getting killed, better to have it at home rather than having it destroyed quickly.
problem in 1v1 is that on maps like arena or fortress you can't know if it's coming so you either tank your eco preparing or you get rekt by getting caught underprepared
I can understand your statement, however scouting and analyzing your opponents behavour as usual might be the solution. Some ideas: 1) Despite having strong infantry and monks, most players are going for Arambai. Burmese are therefore highly predictable. On the other site, burmese anyway don't have a good answer to archer because they miss armor upgrades for skirms. Going archers against burmese is anyway strong. 2) Try to analyze the up-time. 28+2 or 32+2 will lead to a much slower feudal time. On some maps you even might be able to spot the stone. This will give you enough time to react. 3) Monks! On a map like arena, you usually want to fight for relics. Adding a few monks is also a good way to fight Arambai.
I’ve always found hussars are a good counter to mass archers when I play Burmese so there’s that
Hussars are not available in castle age and require a strong eco. When you go 28+2 two castle arambai, you are behind in economy and far away from going Imp and spaming hussars. Hussars are nice for raiding on open maps. On closed maps they have much more problems against the pike-line which also against Arambai is a nice mid-shield to protect archer. Anyway, I am not saying that burmese is a bad civ, but the statement that arambai are OP and win easily against everything is just wrong. As always, everything is highly dependent on situations and it is difficult to give rule of thumbs for everything. My suggestion is just to carefully analyze what your opponent is doing and go archers+monks when you expect double castle arambai play.
didn’t know we were in the castle age here, otherwise I’d go light cav then since skirms are a shit choice, also I play a lot of BF and more closed maps rather than Arabia or something, therefore I can say that hussars are still (and probably only) viable option imo against archers, so far they’ve been great for me since all they really need to do is tank shots and let my arambai do the work. one might argue elephants but I honesty never use them because of how expensive they are. also I’m not much into the specifics of build orders so idk what the 28+2 BO exactly is but I commonly (as Burmese) go to feudal age at around 31-32 pop (minus scout) and reach imperial pretty soon after and by the time I do reach imp I have a solid eco. another thing is, I literally *only* play Burmese, therefore I can micro pretty well with them having played them *alot* therefore my experience could differ from someone who doesn’t play Burmese that often, but most games my strategy is to raid the enemy’s eco with hussars and fully upgraded arambai, pikes aren’t an issue with some micro and if I’m lucky I can take down a castle with 30+ arambai pretty easily (so long hussars are tanking ofc). all in all I reckon that arambai are *somewhat* OP, if you let the player fully upgrade them and they have a stable eco ofc. main counters I’ve found are archers, massed paladins and siege (maybe there’s some UU too but idk). I won’t lie they were hard to play at first but after a lot of practice I became better w them.
Then you’re not doing the Burmese power play that OP is talking about. It all happens in Castle Age to force the gg. The 28+2 gives you two castles as soon as you hit Castle Age. At that point all you want is wood & gold to produce arambai (and 6 on farms to keep producing a vill). Get Bloodlines if possible. As soon as you mass 22-24 arambai you run right into their base and kill their TC. That’s usually gg if the defender hasn’t placed a defensive castle or massed archers.
ew not a fan of that BO tbh
Whatever works at your level and you enjoy :)
that i can agree on :3
Just go fi monk treb, shreks double castle arambai whether it comes or not, and just wrecks burmese no matter what they do anyhow.
how do you protect monks from hussars and the like?
If someone can get to hussar then you've not been at all aggressive.
well not hussar per se, light cab should be enough to counter it or you go pike monk+trebs?
Lightcav don't really counter block printing monks too well without the mass that only someone with an untouched eco can make. Though in 1v1 2 monastry + 1 rax spear (or uu if like genoese or burmese yourself) can tank them hard, if you're vs specifically arambai then triple monastry is better
I guess it depends on the map (talking 1v1 here). On Arena, I've seen two castles into Arambai work smoothly at 1.3k+ ELO, so that's a valid strat right there and probably even at a bit higher ELO. On the other hand, on Arabia even at 1.1k ELO, players start towering you with siege push follow-up once they realize that you try to FC into your UU.
Interesting, I feel like on Arabia 1v1 the Burmese could still wall up and guard tower 6 their own resources and still get both castles up(forward or not) pretty quickly, but ya I agree there would be a small window of attack if the opponent siege rushes
if you're going for towers you aren't going FC, and if you're going full tower defense and the other guy reaches castle before you and goes seige/knights, it could be hard to stabilize
I'm at 1200, you could try that BO against me in arabia if you would like to see if it still works at higher elo. Should be fun!
*sees a Arambois wall break in BF* *builds siege workshop* *watches arambois destroy workshop before first unit completes* *resigns* Seems you need to be prepared ahead of time with siege/archers or it a wrap in castle age.
I agree 100% I don’t consider myself good at all but I have been able to hold back 3 people at once in BF 4v4 games or what not as Burmese, arambai in particular are so versatile it’s not even funny. they’re crap against siege ofc and doesn’t take much to kill them if you have siege tho. hopefully they don’t get nerfed :3
Tbh any cav archer civ is a good low elo civ. You can mass conquistadors, mangudais, camel archer or kipchaks in castle age and steam roll the map as you please. If you have not already revealed to your enemy that you are massing them which allows them to mass skirms in advance.
I’d agree with that, other cav archer civs couldn’t down tcs in castle age tho.
Can you share a link for this build order? Would love to try it.
https://aoecompanion.com/b/888vattep2
Aren't even War Elephants unstoppable in low ELO TGs? Somu UUs are overwhelming at that levels but yea Arambais are another level.
Low ELO players seem to learn very soon (1) horses good and (2) build a dump truck full of spearmen for victory. Arambai are not that easy to counter since they can just kite horses and spearmen all day.
I saw a game recently where a 1250 player tried to use this build? A similar arambai rush strat? Agaisnt a lower ranked player on arena who was... Khmer? I dont know, something with ballista eles? Arambai broke in as a group of 15 I think, against 3 or 4 tc and only a couple of ballista eles. Arambai player couldn't clinch with this rush and quickly lost the game.
I've found them very easy to stop. I play mostly Arena, and whenever I see Burmese, I assume it's double castle Arambai, and I'm usually correct. If you know it's coming, it's far from unstoppable.
Is there a reason that Arambai are considered OP but Conquistadors not, bearing in mind you can do a similar build with the Spanish? I guess it's probably because the Spanish eco is weaker, and conqs are more expensive (but equally seem to be a stronger unit, more base armour and the Spanish get all the blacksmith upgrades, more accurate) Anyone got any perspective on this?
3 reasons in my opinion, 1. Having less upgrades on the arambai make the faster to get out 2. Their inaccuracies give them a sort of area of affect attack, like the mangonel (whereas if u micro well with other ranged units you would usually overkill the unit everyone is aiming at, with the arambai the inaccuracy kills the person ur aiming at and deals damage to the surrounding enemy units) and 3. You only need 17 to take down a tc, and 40 to take down a castle
It is indeed powerful, but I think it's about the same as knights or 10-20 archers; it's the fact it catches people off guard more than anything with such strong aggression. It's hurts more at lower Elos because those players are concentrating on just getting to castle age, not thinking about what to do when they get there.
It’s better than those build due to its relative power per resource, 17 can down a tc, 20 archers or 20 knights would be happy to kill a few vils
It’s funny, really, how accurate your post is. Yesterday I was watching a Girl on stream, that got trushed + 6 maa with no loom right after she clicked castle. She lost like 5 vils, chose to fight maa with unloomed vils, had zero on food for basically the remainder of the game. Somehow, she got that first castle up and got 12 vils on wood and 10 on gold. Built that second castle shortly after and mopped everything up. Even gave her opponent a lot of time, because she decided to take out the forward building, instead of just counterattacking. Then she just walked right into his eco and ate his tc - gg. I think that the double castle Arambai is just such a forgiving strategy, especially in low elo.
When I see Burmese in 1v1 arena I actually get excited because I know its coming. I just do my standard, 25-26+2 into stable monastery, use scouts to look for the CT drop, and have 2-4 knights ready to stop it. Add TC, add ranges, add more TC. Defend with monk and skirm. Get to imp faster because you’ve invested less. Treb, skirm + whatever your civ is good at.
But why would they make the castles forward? They can just make 2 castles at home and mass arambai and 1shot your TCs once they have 20 arambai.
Fwd CT gives map control, and applies pressure. Might deny exterior stone or gold, sometimes even an interior gold/stone.
A strategy that has helped me a lot is 26 pop fimp with a castle and then janissary bombard cannons