Knights or Chivalry?

[Kataphraktoi]

first,are Knights better than Crusaders?im playing on a europe map as french,and wondering if i make crusaders or knights.

knights have 4 attack 2 defence,vs 5 attack and 1 defence.i prefer knights,when veteren they have a chance of surviving a counter attack.

a big stack of crusaders,on the other hand,will die to any counter attack if they fail to take the city...


second,would this be better in the strategy forum?

thank god you can edit your subject here

i fixed the subject,but when i go back to the forum it shows knights or chivalry not knights are crusaders whats up with that?

[Smash]

Its a good question.Especially for multiplay.
Tough call.Crusaders extra attacks numbers can make a big difference.True enough though,you better make the attack work as they are quite vulnerable to counter attack.Knight's window seems to be abit smaller.They don't fare well against pikes or even vet phalanx.Throw in walls and knights are 40 sheild garrison units all of a sudden.But if you can get them early enough...


btw-chivalry gives you knights.Monotheism is for crusaders

[Julius Brenzaida]

Crusaders definitely.
Knights don't survive much more anyway, so let's inflict as much damage as possible. The only use for knights in my opinion are reckon and pillage missions. But 2 of defense is just not enough.

And yes, it would be better situated in the strategy forum
But a very good question

[Scouse Gits]

Yes - my money too is on the vet Crook - sorry no Knights for me

SG[1]

[DaveV]

I agree that Knights are an inferior unit to Crusaders, but they are on a much more useful research path. It takes four (!) "wasted" techs for me to get Monotheism; I'd rather concentrate on the fast path to gunpowder. Then the next step from the knight is the dragoon, a two-hitpoint crusader !

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by DaveV
I agree that Knights are an inferior unit to Crusaders, but they are on a much more useful research path. It takes four (!) "wasted" techs for me to get Monotheism; I'd rather concentrate on the fast path to gunpowder. Then the next step from the knight is the dragoon, a two-hitpoint crusader !

As usual, Dave, you are right on the money - the actual answer depends fundamentally upon your preferred tech path - I don't plan on anyone getting dragoons

SG[1]

[Kataphraktoi]

gah!acccidentally put chivalry not crusaders :/

[Kataphraktoi]

I agree that Knights are an inferior unit to Crusaders, but they are on a much more useful research path. It takes four (!) "wasted" techs for me to get Monotheism; I'd rather concentrate on the fast path to gunpowder. Then the next step from the knight is the dragoon, a two-hitpoint crusader

exactly what i was thinking

Knights don't survive much more anyway, so let's inflict as much damage as possible. The only use for knights in my opinion are reckon and pillage missions. But 2 of defense is just not enough

researching straight to knights means you have fuedalism while the other guy goes for the better crusaders. i think vet knights beat un-vet crusaders....unless he wastes time making barracks.

(i use ICS alot now so i consider improvements a waste )

[Andemagne]

READ MY SIG!

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
researching straight to knights means you have fuedalism while the other guy goes for the better crusaders. i think vet knights beat un-vet crusaders....unless he wastes time making barracks.

You have Feudalism and from your comment about Barracks Sun Tzu's - I have the 10 shield Warrior slot and can rush faster and more efficiently -- the main reason I eschew the path to Chivalry is I hate losing that Warrior ...

SG[1]

[geofelt]

The immediate benefit of crusaders vs. knights is the 5 attack factor vs 4. If, however, you plan to attack with them, they should be vets. If this is the case, the vet benefit is 50%, rounded down, making it 6, the same value as knights 6. In this case, the new knight defensive value of 3 can be decisive.

[geofelt]

The immediate benefit of crusaders vs. knights is the 5 attack factor vs 4. If, however, you plan to attack with them, they should ve vets. If this is the case, the vet benefit is 50%, rounded down, making it 6, the same value as knights 6. In this case, the new knight defensive value of 3 can be decisive.

[Thoth]

Your math is a little off geofelt. 5 + 2= 7 Crusaders still have the edge in offense.

[Kataphraktoi]

The immediate benefit of crusaders vs. knights is the 5 attack factor vs 4. If, however, you plan to attack with them, they should ve vets. If this is the case, the vet benefit is 50%, rounded down, making it 6, the same value as knights 6. In this case, the new knight defensive value of 3 can be decisive

they will be vets if your enemy goes for crusaders and therefore leaves you un-opposed to build the academy...

Your math is a little off geofelt. 5 + 2= 7 Crusaders still have the edge in offense

what the heck are you defending with?definitly not pikemen if you went for crusaders meaning the knights a big advantage because your best defense unit is what?a phalanx?

im assuming both players ICSed and are next to each other and only techs researched are ones needed for knights\crusaders?

now that ive tried ICS it seems the only viable strategy...

[Scouse Gits]

Yes my vet Phalanx behind walls defends at 9 you attack at 6 - and as I have a barracks my Phalanx is fit next turn - and yes your vet pikeys behind walls chew up my Crooks - i hope to get there first ...

SG[1]

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by DaveV
I agree that Knights are an inferior unit to Crusaders, but they are on a much more useful research path. It takes four (!) "wasted" techs for me to get Monotheism; I'd rather concentrate on the fast path to gunpowder. Then the next step from the knight is the dragoon, a two-hitpoint crusader !

"Wasted"? I find Michel's wonder very interesting

[rah]

I agree, vet crusaders. That extra attack point at the same cost can make all the difference. The only time I usually have knights is when I have leos, and some horses upgrade.

[Kataphraktoi]

i wonder if having a horendous error in the subject influenced the above average veiw count

Yes my vet Phalanx behind walls defends at 9 you attack at 6 - and as I have a barracks my Phalanx is fit next turn - and yes your vet pikeys behind walls chew up my Crooks - i hope to get there first

we need to establish some facts here.do both players have the same ammount of cities?if the knight user has 10 more citys and an average 5 mre in production,then obvousily the knights win...does the crusader guy have his citys on mountains?a zillion factors than can effect this all...

lets say both used something similar to ICS and have,say,35 citys with 10 production each.ICS=no city improvements normally(as far as i know anyway) so your troops are NOT vet.and you DONT have walls.mikes and acedemy are only buildings.the vet pikes therefore,have 3 defence.x2 vs horse=6.

crusaders have a attack of 5,so they lose everytime.but you can outproduce the enemy.but you cant defend your citys at all hardly.

the knights have 6 attack vs 2(phalanx) and 1(crusader). the knights are better at defense AND offense now.plus,your on your way to gunpowder and can finish him\her off with dragoons

[Java2999]

....oooh.... i got a headache reminds me too much of math class LMAO j/k
Cataphract887 makes good sense to me being im still pretty much a noob at this game though my opinion means little lol

[Straybow]

No barracks or walls? In MP you'd have to be really close for the Crusaders to get there before any Knights are finished. SG says he'll rushbuy better since he's got Warriors, but rushing the first row of boxes without any shields costs 50. The next two rows cost 25 each; the cost is double.

If I'm playing the Knight path, I'll wait one turn (assuming 10 production or better) and buy the next two rows at 25 each. It takes me 2 turns. If SG is so close that he can reach me in 1 turn I'm still somewhat safe. My fortified Pikemen put him at the disadvantage.

SG can rush half as many units in half the time. If that first wave doesn't do the job the cost comes back to bite him as I build twice as many units at the same cost.

When our armies meet in the field on the way to attacking the other, I'm at 4:1, he's at 5:2. Attacker is at quite an advantage, but I've got better odds and more units. When I do get to his cities my Knights are at a slight advantage (4:3) against SG's fortified Phalanxes.

Then there are other factors: whoever wins a battle may become vet. Vet Crusader is 7:6 vs fortified Pike. Vet Knight is 6:3 vs fortified Phalanx. Vet Phalanx is 4, still behind regular Pikemen vs mounted attackers. It sounds like the way to go, to me, who lacks MP experience.

[Kataphraktoi]

well,i was saying no improvements for the sake of simplicity.more factors=harder to figure out what unit is best

it seems city walls benifits vet pikemen more than vet plalanx...4 attack times 3,12 defence vs 7 attack,while the vet phalanx has 3 times 3 for 9 vs 6 attack....a 3 differance.7 vs 12 is a 5 differance.looks like the knights are better at offense....

In MP you'd have to be really close for the Crusaders to get there before any Knights are finished

maybe im missing something here,or maybe i should get some tylenal for this killer headache,but knights\crusaders cost the same.why would he have his quicker?

[Straybow]

Why would SG have his Crusaders quicker?

If I'm playing the Knight path, I'll wait one turn (assuming 10 production or better) and buy the next two rows at 25 each. It takes me 2 turns.

See, I don't have the Warriors unit any more because I've gotten Feud on the way to Chiv, while SG can rushbuy "more efficiently" using the Warriors increment. He can do it in one turn for much less than I could. But the cost is still too high, IMO.

[Kataphraktoi]

yes,i remembered that as i hit the submit post button.was in a hurry and no time to edit it.