Skipping Chivalry?

[Worthingtons]

Ok in most games it's essential to have Knights - they run over anicent era opponents and upgrade cheaply to Cavalry, BUT in my recent game i discovered a distinct advantage in NOT researching this tech.

I was on a map where I had a lot of Room to expand, even afte the Ancient era i was still building settler's here and there, so war at this point was daft. I knew soon however, I'd need to take some blood, but my cities werent developed. My Answer? Skipping Chivalry and beelining for MT

This meant that I coudnt build Knights but as I already had leo's the steep upgrade woudnt be too bad afterall. So in the coming turns I got many cities producing Horsemen, because horsemen are so cheap I managed to get my Top cities churnign them out every 2/3 turns meaning that when MT came round I had dozens of Horsemen to upgrade. Since I find Gold easier to come accross than Shields it was no problem raising the neccesary for all the Upgrades.

The Beuty was that for those few turns where science went to raising that extra gold I got back when after a very sucessful war I got many techs out of my opponents.

[monkeyman]

Being by nature, a pacifist builder-type, I almost never researched Chivalry, but instead built up my cities and went straight to MT. Only in a recent game as the Aztecs, where I was constantly liberating opressed citizens of the other, evil regimes , did I accidentally acquire Chivalry. It was helpful to keep the liberation campaigns running and was worth giving up my jaguar warriors for (I deliberately didn't hook up iron so I wouldn't have to build swords). I think when you expect that large break in action, though, Knights are pretty redundent. I am thinking that maybe Chivalry/MilTrad is an either/or choice in most of my games, unless I can extort them from someone...

I recall, soon after Civ3 was released, it was widely told that Knights were useless. Does anyone remember that? I don't think they are useless, but they certainly aren't critical for me...

--mm

[Nor Me]

I often skip Chivalry. If you're fighting at the right time a horse-knight upgrade can be useful but if not don't research it.

In my current game, I made the mistake of building horsemen instead of warriors. I could then have researched straight for Navigation.

[nbarclay]

I fairly routinely skip knights and go straight for Military Tradition. With knights versus pikemen, the ratio of attack factor to defense factor is four to three. With cavalry against musketmen, it's three to two (albeit with more cities getting a defense boost from being over size 6). Couple the higher attack/defense ratio with three movement versus two movement (so the attackers can more easily stay out of range of enemy counterattacks) and I'd generally rather build through the middle ages and attack with hoardes of cavalry near the end.

Nathan

[King_Henry]

Sorry to go against y'all, but Chivalry is major to me. I have a very early offensive, then a short break to replace my casualties. Then straight to Chivalry,upgrade all and boy, I control a third of the world! Basically, I need Chivalry.

[Konquest02]

What I like to do is to conquer my nearest enemy with horesemen and the occasionnal swordman, then build my empire, get a few wonders, and let he!! break loose when I get to MT. I try to get Sun Tzu and Leo's for fast and cheap upgrades of my forces...

You might want to try this, Henry... You'll probably love this strategy...

--Kon--

[Worthingtons]

Depends on Game circumstances as well i Spose. Map size, # of opponents and difficulty level are major factors.

I just found it prefferential to have a different focus early medieval age than war, I've usually upgraded to Republic too which means i need to focus on having all my cities having good infrastructure.

[Catt]

One of the reasons the Middle Age is so interesting to me is that broadly divergent strategies are equally interesting and equally available. The great attackers both come from optional techs -- the player can choose to pursue the optional techs and exploit the power of a unit-level tactical advantage or avoid the optional techs and exploit the power of a temporary tech / commerical advantage offered by the more "peaceful" techs.

I've recently been playing around with ridiculously peaceful approaches (as everyone, I'm sure, is tired of hearing ) and come to believe that researching Chivalry or MT is worthwhile only if I plan for an offensive -- but tif I am planning an offensive, then both techs are very much worthwhile and a great investment! Absent an affirmative decision on an offensive, the opportunity costs of actually researching the optional techs is a high price -- I can usually buy either tech if it is actually needed for its mobile defender abilities in an unexpected war, but in most cases I can avoid needing to buy the techs to put up a credible defense.

Trying to make a long post shorter -- Chivalry and MT are interesting tech choices because they offer significant advatages in any fight, but also represent a distracting departure from one's larger objective if fighting isn't in the plan.

Catt

[Mountain Sage]

Rothy,

It boils down entirely to your playing style. Be a warmonger and you'll need Chivalry and MT, play a peacenik and the most powerful unit you'll ever build is often a spearman! (see the AU207 thread for an example).

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Catt

I've recently been playing around with ridiculously peaceful approaches (as everyone, I'm sure, is tired of hearing )
Catt

Not me, keep it and keep us, meaning me ,posted.

Don't worry, I don't mind being on the 'Critically Endangered Species' WWF list. At least I am in good company

[Jarvin]

The only times i research chivalry is when i'm in a nasty war and really need it, or when i'm playing as China and get those badass riders.

I usually lay off war until Nationalism, or at least MT. Or just start up war immediately with horsemen and swordsmen, war doesnt seem to come up much in the Mideval times with me.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I'd have to say that I do most of my annexing during the middle ages, so I generally research Chivalry. And I always trade something to acquire it - perhaps Theology AFTER I build Sistine's, preferrably something less advanced - in case I get attacked out of the blue and need some knights to deter the attackers.

My research path is typically:

Feudalism - Monotheism - Theology - Engineering - Invention - then if I've got Sun Tzu's already and I'm ready to take on my neighbors, esp. ironless ones - Chivalry. But I'll gladly put off Chivalry and take Education, Music Theory and Gunpowder.

Still, the knight is a wonderful unit, and used creatively can take down even a powerful opponent. True, beelining for MT will net you the Cavalry. But is it worth veering that far off the beaten research path?

For the mediterranean powers, definitely so. Ain't no takin' on Carthage or Greece unless you can really pound 'em. Still, I like to prevent my enemies from building the big, great medival wonders, and that means using knights to either destroy, or permanently cripple, their empires.

If I've got a chivalry-related UU to trigger my GA with, I will research chivalry right off the bat, and then, as Mark (Groucho) said, "It's war!"

[Ephesos]

For me, it really depends on the circumstances. I'll usually get Chivalry eventually, it's just when I'm at war that I really dash for it. Let's face it, often enough, the AI just never gets around to building Pikemen, so Knights can pretty much mow down any Ancient Age defense. Generally, in peaceful games it's just best to get Chivalry last and eventually get Military Tradition (I'm usually doing this). Cavalry are really a good quick strike in the later ages.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I generally don't "beeline" for MT like many folks around here do (but they're better players than me, so you should listen to them... ), but I have found the utility of doing so after you have theology, feudalism and invention. If you can trigger your GA around this time, and have Sistine's, Leo's and SunTzu's being built, go straight for MT... there's a chance no one will out-race you to Music Theory, ESPECIALLY when you're pummeling them with Cavalry.

[Panzer32]

MT=music theory
MT=military tradition

[vmxa1]

MT is military tradition, I do not even research Music, just trade for it. It is not required to advance to the next age.

[Inverse Icarus]

im assuming this is mostly a single player strat?

i can't live without civalry when i'm playing with my friends, even when i'm playing peacefully (believe me, i do sometimes).

knights are the end all be all unit for the middle of the game, and the middle of the game is the most important part of the game, period. the middle of the game is where everyone begins to know everyone, and the borders of your empire begin to get tighter. knights allow you to pose a major threat to their wandering settlerstacks, and the threat of city assault if they overstep their bounds.

i can't dream of not getting knights in MP.

[Theseus]

Other than playing a purposefully peaceful strategy, such as Catt's experiments, or an AU game, or an OCC...

GOTTA HAVE KNIGHTS!!!

GIMME SOME... GIMME SOME!!

Ahem.

Knights and Knight-equivalents, in sufficient number, provide a significant period of relative power. As a correlary, they provide a significant period of possible GL generation.

I highly dislike giving that up.

[Cruddy]

Here's an alternative strategy for knights and and cavalry for the most peaceful purpose...

I find that on the harder levels, I often have a few massively underdeveloped cities (too much corruption). Build up a nice stack of horsemen, upgrade them and disband them in the corrupted cities to make courthouses - the extra shields can help "fill out" those corrupt cities.

And even if a courthouse is useless (too much corruption) you can still use them for culture improvements to boost your borders.

You don't always need units for combat!

[Theseus]

Yup...

When I hit the end of the Cav branch, I do one of three things with those units left:

1) Same. Disband on the fringe.

2) Burn them out on Rifles / Infantry... close the attack with slowmovers.

3) Use'em for Army "infrastructure"... 2XCav+1Tank... if I had the patience, I would appropriately save them for 3XCav+1MA.

[CerberusIV]

I tend to take out a neighbouring civ in the late ancient era using mainly swordsmen. That works very neatly as PTW allows a cheap upgrade to med inf so I usually have a lot of those about. I only go for chivalry if I need knights for further wars to clear my continent. Intercontinental invasions I generally leave until airpower becomes available.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by vmxa1
MT is military tradition, I do not even research Music, just trade for it. It is not required to advance to the next age.

YOU ARE A BLASPHEMER AND ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL.

Jusssst kidding...

...but seriously, how can you let anyone else in the world get away with building JS Bachs?!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

The more I play, the more I learn, and I recently I've gotten better at my knight assaults. I too consider the middle of the game the most important phase. I'll almost never SKIP chivalry... I'll certainly trade for it at the least... and in 66% of my games, I'll use knights for assaults on 1, 2 or 3 nations (one at a time, of course).

There are a FEW exceptions, however, that might make me skip chiv and go for MT. Notable are the Russians, and the Ottomans, with their wonderful UUs. Also, certain neighbors make me hesitate:

1. The Spanish, unless they're weak, give me pause. They seem to always be well defended. Of course, it's either knights vs. pikemen or cavs vs. muskets, which is a pretty close situation. Still, I want to make sure I can TRULY OVERWHELM the well-defended Spaniards.

2. The Celts seem to always be behind in tech, but have a beefy army. If they have iron, and I know I have to take them out, I'm likely to wait until MT, as I don't want to suffer counterattacks from GWs. Of course, wait 'til MT and you suffer counterattacks from Knights, so... (the plus side of the Celts seems to be that they're not real big on defending)

There are some others I'm queasy about, namely the industrious types, but for the most part, bring on the knights. I couldn't stand another turn of daylight.

[Don Giovanni]

I believe you should be able to build horsemen instead of knights by disconnecting your iron, even when you have acquired chivalry

I usually beeline for Chivalry, mostly because I feel a little weak without it , and because I like preemptive strikes against backward neighbours . I prefer not to miss out on any opportunity to strike first (inspired by Julius Caesar et. al.).

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Don Giovanni
I believe you should be able to build horsemen instead of knights by disconnecting your iron, even when you have acquired chivalry

you cant? never noticed that before.

[Don Giovanni]

you cant? never noticed that before

You can, unless you are playing the Indians (Iron is not needed for War Elephant).

[TheArsenal]

I find other civs to be too aggressive, even if I feel like playing nice with my neighbors, not to keep a fair number knights around to knock them back on counter-attacks. I play on large (occasionally) huge maps, and AI seems to crank out high numbers of knights that make those never ending ant trails it seems to love, into my empire. The exception was a recent game I had a large island continent to myself due to a timely archer rush and the very early elimination of my only neighbor the Spanish. With the occasional AI only bringing a unit or two to my soil, I was able to skip straight to MT. Having those few extra turns to pump out sick numbers of calvary and early sea transports, gave me a huge advantage when I went adventuring to other isles.

But again, most of the time, I haven't found a strategy where I can skip it.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

In my opinion, the point of cavalry is to conquer, not to counter-attack. If you're up against toughies, knights might not do the trick, or might make your war too long. HOWEVER, mass-building knights and then upgrading them all to cavalry always you to wage a cavalry war before the other mojos discover nationalism... a MAJOR benefit, IMO.

The only hitch is that you'll have universities and banks to build during the pre-war period that might detract from your mass-building... but then again, everyone needs to prioritize, ne c'est pas?

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

...but seriously, how can you let anyone else in the world get away with building JS Bachs?!

Who says that by only trading for Music, do you miss JS Bach's Cathedral? I NEVER research music, but get the wonder 80-90% of the time.

I routinely skip researching the Monotheism branch of the tree. I head straight for MT. Feud+Engineering+Invention+GP+Chem+Meturllgy+ calvary = the rest of the techs in trade with a calvary offensive or two.

I also like to build during the Mid Age. If I do, I can then focus on war AFTER I RR my cities together. I can wage war and still keep ahead of the research curve.

Chilvary is what I use to fight mideval wars... a rare thing If I can help it.

Mss

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by TheArsenal


But again, most of the time, I haven't found a strategy where I can skip it.

Part of my strategy requires me to skip chilvary. Between skipping monothesim and chilvary (and theology), it puts me at least 12-20 turns closer to MT than the AI. I trade for the rest.

Mss