Skipping Chivalry?

[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