Skipping Chivalry?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

If I'm on the continent with the "advanced" civs of the current game, and they begin building wonders I want, then sure, I'll consider beelining for MT and conquering their wonders. Still, a civ with a good wonder like Sistine's under their belt will be able to fight back much more heavily, and the chances of their cities deposing me will be much greater.

There's nothing wrong with a knights-based war. If you strike soon, and hard, enough, you can overwhelm the first few pikemen and then be up against spears. No contest!

Obviously, cavs vs. pikes is a no brainer. But, will any civ that has Sistines and Leos, etc., have still have only pikes by the time you are ready to deploy cavs?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Chivalry for Monarch Level or Above

Sorry to post on such an old thread, but a lot's changed and I now have a chivalry question. Please disregard all my previous posts! I've moved to Monarch from Regent and things are a bit different now.

It's the medival era. I'm playing as the Romans. I've been successfully warring, taking down France, Spain, and now Germany, using mostly Legions but building plenty of Horsemen as well. But I'm stuck in despotism. Most of the other countries and I are tied, tech-wise. No one has chivalry yet; just about everyone has feudalism and monotheism.

The question is, once my war with Germany is over, and I switch governments, should I research Chivalry to upgrade, or skip it, and go for MT?

Another option would be to build more legions! Sounds insane, but all the conquests I wish to make are to the South, through dense jungle and mountains, so movement points aren't so much of a factor.

Wish I had a save game here to post... unfortunately, I don't... the government change is definitely in order. I've been putting it off to avoid the period of anarchy, but with Germany down there'll be no pressing conquests and my strategic field is open. Carthage and Greece, both to my north, are not too powerful but more powerful than I'd like, especially Greece. Egypt and Russia to the south are the most likely to build Wonders I want ahead of me.

So, the question is: Chivalry or not?

Hopefully this is not too stupid a question, given that I can't describe my game in detail.

But for you Monarch or Above players out there, feeling a swordsmen/legion/immortals based mass conquest dying down: do you build the Knights or skip 'em?

Please let me know... merci senors.

[Nor Me]

I doubt that it would be really worth attacking with legions or med inf at this time.

If the other civs already have Monotheism and Feudalism then it might make more sense to trade for Chivalry than to research it. If they're close to Gunpowder then skipping it might be more sensible.

I'd be surprised if horsemen weren't the best units to build here though. If you have to build units for attack now then knights are the best idea.

So it does depend on the situation so much that general advice is useless..

[Solomwi]

One thing to bear in mind, and I'm not sure if this is coded in or just my imagination, but the smaller the empire is, the shorter the anarchy is. Depending on how many units are in the field, I've found that wartime can be a most opportune time for a government switch.

On to your main question, like Nor Me said, it's kind of hard to tell you anything specific, but...

If Germany has iron, your worst case scenario with legions is that they've been keeping up with upgrades (which would be fairly uncharacteristic of the AI, even on Monarch) and you're facing pikes with them. In that case, only proceed if you're prepared to mass build the legions, take massive casualties and win a war of attrition. More likely, you'll have a handful of pikes, depending on how long they've had Feudalism, break through them and get to spears. With the rough terrain, depending on the size of your legion army, I might also look at upgrading half or more to MI, then sending a combined stack (MI/Leg stack = 4/3/1 = Knight on rough terrain). Obviously, if movement isn't a factor, this is the route I'd go, and skip Chivalry unless opportunity strikes to get it in a trade. Beeline for cavs and do what damage you can with your modified stack until then.

As Nor Me said, too, though, never stop building horsemen, even if you just use them to capture workers or hoard them for a cav/knight upgrade.

[vmxa1]

I hate to pump out Legions/Med Inf at this point in the game. With Calv not far off, I would prefer to make horsemen and upgrade to knights (if I get the tech) and then Calvs.
I tend to skip Chivalry, unless some compelling reason or playing as China. Skipping optional techs is very helpful in getting to the next age.

[Solomwi]

I should've added the disclaimer that it's the route I would go to keep my warmongering going in the short term. Vmxa, you're right in the implication about MI/Leg usefulness later on. I wouldn't mass produce them unless I just had to get some conquering done and couldn't wait on cavs, but if he's got the legions sitting around...

Either way, in this case, I'm leaning toward skipping Chivalry.

[asleepathewheel]

Sometimes I'll skip chivalry and wait purchase it off the AI later on, like say in a trade for invention if I've already built leos (or nearly done) Otherwise its pretty much map dependent for me. Nearby neighbors, chiv yes, not, then probably a peaceful buildup for a galleon led cavalry invasion.

[Torpid]

I always go for the non-dead-end techs, and trade for the dead end ones later on. I never really start wars until Military Tradition or Motorized Transportation, but hey, that's probably why my games take so long. But I usually lose interest when I get into future techs and start a new game.

[Theseus]

From what you describe, skip it.

Legions are friggin' GLORIOUS on tough terrain; when damaged more than 1 hp, I typically upgrade vets and below to MedInf.

You might want to consider cutting your iron for a period of time.

And you will want to have built up a force of 10-15 Horse just before you get Mil Trad.

[Stuie]

The only time I research Chivalry is when I get to Gunpowder and find I have no saltpeter. This then requires an offensive war to gain the resource, so I fall back and research/buy Chivalry so I can build knights and capture some saltpeter.

Other than that, I almost always beeline for MT and plan my wars accordingly.

Another factor is the Great Library; if a dangerous opponent has it, then I want to nullify its effects ASAP and will go straight for Education. If I have it, I want to ride it for all it's worth and avoid that branch of the tree completely.

For YS's situation: skip Chivalry and head for MT.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hmm, a wide array of opinions, but most supporting the contention that researching Chivalry is not worth the effort. Here's what I did, and the results:

I took down Germany with Legions and Horses, and then moved onto Scandanavia next with the same troops, more or less. During this time, fearing anarchy (perhaps paranoiacly so) I remained in despotism and got chivalry, theology and education via the GL. Using Great Leaders and a good core, I got all the hefty medival wonders built on my own, including Leo's and Sun Tzu's, so upgrading my horses was no problem!

The only problem was that I hadn't produced more horses, and then, beeing for MT, I actually picked up MT perhaps too early. I wanted a massive army of horsies to upgrade with my gold reserves, but instead, I had to build cavs from scratch, a most irritating process.

Nonetheless, I took down Russia and now I'm working on Egypt. I thought it would be totally galling, fighting Civs with cavalry of their own (didn't often have this problem in Regent!) but actually, it wasn't that hard - just had to put off some development at home to get the war won. But with Egypt out of the way, the world is my oyster and I can develop at my own pace and still stay ahead of the pack.

The knights I did build were some very handy units, though, even in tough terrain. A Medival Infantry cannot retreat, after all. I still have a few elite knights around, and generated 2 leaders off of knights.

Had I not had knights, though, I probably could have gotten the job done with legions/med. inf. and horses.

[Zero]

Depends on which civ I play. Japan and China, I grab Chivary ASAP. If Im playing anyone else, I may skip chivary, especially if AI is on same par in tech. I'll focus on MT tree and trade something for chivary as soon as the most advanced civ gets it. Until then I might use med inf + catapult (or cannon if im already there)... esp if I built alot of cata and swords in ancient age.

[jshelr]

The first commandment: Thou shalt build horses, not cavs or knights, IMO.

The thing about Chiv is that you can frequently trade an old tech for it when you need it or buy it for very little. Why waste the research?

Even if you plan an overwhelming knight attack, the path of upgrading horses to knights rather than building knights is very powerful, particularly with the relevant wonder. So, skip chiv in your own research even though you will need it later.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

It's true: around the time the knight conquests seem to occur, there's still plenty of cities defended primarily by spearmen left, and horses are fine for those. After that point, you mostly need MORE horses to compensate for not having knights... with retreat ability, many will survive - nay, most, if you're smart - and then the cavalry upgrade will be massive, assuming you were bright enough to save the gold.

Arabs, Japanese and Chinese face a different situation. As do, I suppose, Indians, if you're looking to spring a GA, although the War Elephant is not the most behind-kicking UU, IMHO.

[jshelr]

Don't get me wrong. I mean build horses for upgrading. The combination of gold and shields gets a large stack of knights into the field much more effectively. This continues to be the case for cavs.