Knights v Crusaders.

[Like2frolick]

I've noticed one of the things lots of people have said is "use vet vrusaders in battle line" etc etc.

Why?

A crusader has 2 move, and an attack of 7.5, when Veteran. Against a Phalanx (2+1+1+4) That just might be enough to win...against a pikeman, it proberably isn't.

So, what we have here is a big, expensive unit, which, if it's attacked by a cheap archer (or a WARRIOR for God's sake!) will die.

Now, Knights I like. They have a 6* attack, and a 3* defense...and they move for 2. They can kill a non-walled city, and they can kill "loose" units with little trouble.

Now...I've seen some people talking about how you should use Settlers to build a fortress right outside the gates, and stack defensive units on top of 2-3 catapaults. This seems like a reasonable suggestion

Catapault:9* attack....against pikemen or Phalanx, it will almost guarantee a kill(Thanks for that idea, BTW)

So, my question is....why Build crusaders? I mean...they have to end a turn away from the enemy, or stacked with a good defensive unit, which reduces mobility significantly, while Knights can ride on up next to the enemy, and take whatever they throw at-em.

In addition, you get Knights/Catapaults sooner...

So, I was wondering, is there some kind of uber-strategt I could use, where Crusaders are cool? I mean, if so many good players say that Crusaders are good, then they must be good for SOMETHING....I just need to know what.

Why would you build a fragile unit which has a good chance of Losing offensively to a walled city, and a great chance of losing if attacked, when you could get a Knight, stack it with a catapault, and have a good chance of keeping both units?

------------------
I dunno. I think nukes are cool..If you're the only one who has em.

[Dissident Aggressor]

good point. I don't believe anyone has ever built one in the history of the game.

I like knights myself. I rarely do much conquering in that time. But in alexander scenarios they work good in conjunction with catapults and archers. I don't even build fortresses many times. I feel my archer can defend against most units if it is on hills or better. although every once in a while a catapult will take out my stack. I try to use 2 or 3 separate stacks of 3 units. knight/catapult/archer. The ai is hopeless to defend against this strategy.

since you have the asterick I'm sure you know the knight attack is 4 and the crusader is 5. But their defense isn't so hot. So I usually stick with knights. In my above strategy I use knights to kill all loose units. so they need to have some shot at defending against a pikeman or phalanx. although archers will probably take them on flat ground.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Laertes]

One reason I like to have some crusaders is for picking off barbarian legions or AI units on good defensive ground. A knights attack points often are not enough.

With a crusader and some roads, you can defend 3-4 cities with one unit.

[Scouse Gits]

Oh yes they have - scores (if not hundreds) of them.

Although Feudalism and Sun Tzu followed rapidly by Chivalry and Knights is an excellent strategy for early conquest, I find that it's utility on large maps (and now Giga maps - thanks Julius) is less than that of the 'happy route' racing for Monotheism (Crusaders) and Mike's. I use these (the Crusaders) to take out my immediate neighbours while I am still in Monarchy - then we go for the long haul probably leading to AC unless the great sleaze actually reaches the distant neighbours (not a common thing on a Giga map).

You are of course correct - given a simple choice a Knight is almost always superior to a Crusader, but in this game nothing is ever that simple!



P.S. added in Edit - and as far as 'perhaps beating a Phalanx' goes, my vet Crusaders have successfully taken walled cities with Musketeers (thankfully not vet) in defence - you lose some Crusaders, but you get the city!
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 15, 2000).]

[WorkEd]

The reason I like Crusaders and not Knights is that as soon as you research Chivalry you get barb Knights!

Ouch! I'd rather have barb archers and horsemen anyday!

WorkEd

[DaveV]

One of the most common uses for crusaders is to hop off a boat and attack a city. The AI (and some humans ) is notorious for leaving lots of cities thinly defended. If you do run into a stiff defense, the extra 1.5 attack factor can be crucial. According to the generally-accepted algorithm for combat resolution, any difference between atttack factor and defense factor is effectively doubled, so seemingly small differences in attack can make a big difference in practice.

[Ming]

The extra 1.5 attack can make all the difference in the world. Yes, I plan on lossing some of them, but it usually takes less crusaders than knights to take out a target. Plus, I usually race down the happiness wonders path unless I know I don't have a chance of winning the race to Mich's. If I think I'm behind, I race toward Invention. Chivalry is on neither path.
I might take that option if I know I'm going to lose the race to both of them.

[kcbob]

On this butterfly ballot, I vote for Crusaders. While the Knights have a better defensive rating, usually at this point in the game, I'm on the attack. As Ming mentioned, even though I might lose some Crusaders, I subscribe to the best defense being a good offense.

BTW. Stacking a catapult with a knight hampers the knights mobility, n'est-ce pas?

------------------
Frodo lives!
[This message has been edited by kcbob (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Martin Schmidt]

Hi,

Crusaders bonus attack can make a real difference
against a veteran phalanx . Because they are the
cheaper unit i would consider them better .

[Mercantile]

Crusaders cost the same as knights IIRC I subscribe to the vet crusader strategy as well. As stated above, you might as well take as much firepower with you, it cost the same. If your worried about defense than attach a few pikemen with your assault, which is always a good idea anyways.

I have found that knights stall far more quickly and suffer horrible losses to pikemen, whereas you will lose a few , but not nearly as many crusaders.

[Sieve Too]

Here's another vote for Crusaders over Knights. When AI or Barb Legions are coming at me over hills and forests, I'll take the extra attack strength of the Crusader any day over the weaker Knight.

The Knight's additional defense generally isn't a factor the way I play. Any early attacker (Archer, Legion, Knight, Elephant, even Horseman) can defeat or at least critically damage a Knight. Sure you can move your Knight into the hills or mountains, but then you lose the Knight's mobility, which is why you probably built it in the first place.

As Ming noted, Knights are usually off my normal tech paths, while Crusaders fall right on it. If you plan to use the Warriors-to-Musketeers trick with Leo, going after Knights early drastically reduces your window of oppurtunity with el cheapo Warriors.

All that being said, I still build Knights once they become available. They keep up with my conquering Crusaders and Diplos but unlike them, they can actually defend a city for while if I need to slow up my advance.

[Bohlen]

quote: Originally posted by Sieve Too on 12-15-2000 11:44 AM The Knight's additional defense generally isn't a factor...

I would totally agree with that. If you are concerned with the defensive capabilities of either unit, don't be. While the Knight's defense is slightly better, it is still not strong enough defensively to survive 100% of the time on the terrain types that they usually travel on - flat terrain. Either unit is used best in wide open spaces, so it really makes since to bring along a defensive unit or two during the charge forward.

Having said that, I usually stick with Knights based largely of the fact that Chivalry comes sooner than Monotheism in my games and I just build them by habit after discovering Mono. However, as stated earlier, Crusaders are great on shore assaults, and if you have a lot of vets, they can fight right past the city walls of your enemies.

[suas333]

I use crusaders, no knights at all. I get monotheism early anyway, and i never research chivalry until real late. And thats not even counting the barb knights.

[Blaupanzer]

Knights can also jump into all the silly forts the AI builds. This helps while bringing up the heavies. But crusaders are the attackers of choice in that period.

[Deity Dude]

CRUSADERS without a doubt. After monarchy the next thing i go for is monotheism, you get Mike's and Crusaders all on the same tech path - plus if you play it right you're the first to get philosophy which means one free tech on the way. Keeping that in mind, with a crusader i can get an offensive 5 unit way quicker than getting an offensive 4 unit, with a knight. At that point in the game it is the most powerful unit in play, by far. Most cities won't even have walls yet. In fact crusaders are pretty much dominant on offense until you start running into riflemen w/city walls, and that usually takes quite awhile. As far as the defense is concerned who cares - I got my fortified phalanxes or muskateers playing defense where defense belongs - in my cities. In addition, Crusaders are upgradable with Leo's and share alot of the same techs as invention (i would have to look but i think more techs in common than chivalry)

[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited December 16, 2000).]