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]