No announcement yet.

Skipping Chivalry?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Skipping Chivalry?

    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.
    Up The Millers

  • #2
    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...

    If Bush bought America, why shouldn't he sell Iraq?


    • #3
      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.


      • #4
        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.



        • #5
          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.


          • #6
            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...

            Get your science News at Konquest Online!


            • #7
              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.
              Up The Millers


              • #8
                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.



                • #9

                  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).
                  The Mountain Sage of the Swiss Alps


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Catt

                    I've recently been playing around with ridiculously peaceful approaches (as everyone, I'm sure, is tired of hearing )
                    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
                    The Mountain Sage of the Swiss Alps


                    • #11
                      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.
                      Shouldn't you be dead or something?


                      • #12
                        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!"
                        You can't fight in here! This is the WAR room!


                        • #13
                          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.
                          People want to know why I do this, why I write such gross stuff. I like to tell them that I have the heart of a small boy... and I keep it in a jar on my desk. - Stephen King


                          • #14
                            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.
                            You can't fight in here! This is the WAR room!


                            • #15
                              MT=music theory
                              MT=military tradition

                              Proud Member of the ISDG Apolyton Team; Member #2 in the Apolyton Yact Club.
                              King of Trafalgar and Lord of all Isolationia in the Civ III PTW Glory of War team.
                              May God Bless.