when you get out of the stone age.. which way do you go. the easy road and get the bowman which inturn leads to gunpowder or the hard road the knight, which inturn leads you down the road to money.
where do you go and why.:crazyeye:

There are several corrections I have to make to your question and some answers.

I understand you mean to ask if you should go to invention through to chemistry or to theology to astronomy, banking, democracy and so on.

Knights are not on any path they are a dead end that you don't even need to research to get to the next tech screen.

You mean longbowmen not the babylonian bowmen.

The answer is ...

It depends...

on whether you are warmonger or builder,
on whether you have a specific target ( you may want to switch to democracy asap for example or want to get to military academy asap),
on whether you have the Great Library,
on what's your position in the tech race.

I ussually go the top branch on builder games, when I'm behind in the tech tree, when I want to build wonders (more on the top branch)

I go the bottom branch when warring heavily, when I have the tech lead (because the AI goes usually for the top branch and because I want cavalry asap) and when I have Great Library (I will get the tech to Education anyway).

Hope that answers your question

by taking the hard road don't you frist reseach feudalism becuase of the pikeman ..got to have pikeman then theology. and then Chivalry even though Chivalry is a dead end you need the power and speed to conqour your enemys. going over to the bottom sting now would make it even harder.. but anyone that is on this line would be goin for money. And are sorry, should of made it more clear for those not able to remeber which techs are where. back to the point where as if you do Feudalism and engineering it would lead you on the path to gunpowder.and on to more powerful weapons like canons and Cav, doing both would make it a hard game out right!. and yes longbowman, indeeded. havn't play Babylonian and will not as their is no female leader.:)

Sometimes even when playing a Warmongering Civ it is best to skip the Knights and go strait on to Cavalry.
I normally only research Knights if I don't have a large number of horsemen or spearmen.
Instead I go strait for Leonardos workshop to first upgrade my spearmen. From there it is not far to Cavalry

I always go for the path of horseman, knight and cavalry. Since all units upkeep are the same, I rather have fast units than some cheapy one that could not retrieve from battle. Fast units are very good for running away from battle too.:) When things get tough, it would be best for my units to run, hide, and live to fight for another day. IMO, it would be impossible to run anywhere with those slow bowmans.;)

Most games I research the money road, theology, education, banking and trade for the bottom line techs, but that's just my preference. I sometimes skip down and research Military Tradition, if I have the other techs from trade.

One thing to remember is that the bottom techs don't do you a bit of good if you have no iron. If you don't have iron, you are wasting your time getting Feudalism and Chivalry. You'd be better off researching the top line.

A stack of 12 knight will prevent a lot of trouble when you start building university and bank, so i love to reaserch them as fast as i can, they are my main force power over medieval era.

So a few knight will counter attack any a.i. invasion if you are a republic or they can go on conquiere mission if you are warmonger.

A stack of 12 knight with constant resuply of fresh units can easily crush any a.i. on your way.

Specially AI Longbowmen. Even my Horsemen eat them for lunch, not to speak of any unit beyond that. It is a poor man's unit for those without Iron.

There is another thread going on discussing Knights vs. Cavalry, also discussing development paths. I think Yndy outlines the most important considerations.

So, who says longbowmen should be the only units used?

I would say that the knights vs. longbows doesn't have a definite answer. It depends on what you intend to do.

A knight (4.3.2) costs 70 shields, a longbow (4.1.1) 40 shields, and a pike (1.3.1) 30 shields. Notice that Firaxis has actually been quite clever when assigning the shield costs. :) These production costs mean that it takes the same time to produce either a stack of 4 pikes + 4 longbows or a stack of 4 knights. As the best defender of a stack is used the 4 knights essentially go against four units with a defense value of 3 (the pikes). If the pike+bow stack attacks it is essentially an attack of four units (the bows)with an attack value of 4.

In terms of attack and defense factors the pike+bow stack is equal to a knight stack.

However, this doesn't mean it's the same whether you crank out knights or pike+bow stacks. Which is better varies with the situation as both have pros and cons:

The knight stack is more mobile and the _upkeep_ cost is only for 4 units. OTOH 4 units only contain 4 units worth of hps, occupying power, and splitting.

The pike+bow stack is slow and the upkeep cost is for 8 units. OTOH 8 units is sometimes better than 4 as per hps, occupation and dividing attacks.

If I am going to attack and have the time to prepare for it then I probably would produce knights. But only as the initial strike force. If the war goes on longer than expected then pike+bow will they be with the occasional knight task force from cities far from the front.

Or maybe not. It all depends. :)

Some additional considerations: logistics and upgrade path.

Knights have the added advantage of being at the front twice as fast and if shipping is required only half the gallies are required compared to the combo.

And although pikemen have a nice upgrade path longbowmen have not. Knights upgrade to the very valuable Cavalry.

I forgot to add, that when you mix defenders and attackers you can get the fortify bonus and still attack. This works for all mixed formations, but in the above pike+bow you could fortify the 4 pikes getting a defense of 4.5 and still attack 4 times with the longbowmen. With just knights you forfeit the fortify option if you attack.

Thats what i like to see. Pembroke. ideas. good work. what you point out is that their are different options even in how you use these troops.

Just to put this up as a idea. does anyone use their Knights to go around cities and destroy roads so nations can't supply thier cities that are under attack with new troops.

At this time, I am still hacking pikes and muskets with my swords. I love swordsmen so much yet I don't mind high casulty because they will be obsolute soon. I do build knights as the last resort reinforcement or to finish off the dying units. I build some longbows to tack along with my swords if I don't have enough swords to go around. I like using 1 movement units to launch attacks as it is a lot easier to manage the offensive and defensive units togather.

As for the production calculation: I don't need 15 pikes to protect my 15 longbows, I don't need more than 5 pikes to protect my stack of 15 longbows/swords. Also, when a knight dies, that equivalent to a dead pike and a dead longbow, when a longbow dies, you still have a pike.

The bottom line: The knights are too expensive to send to battles, I would rather stockpile and upgrade them as soon as I get cavalry.

Knight can retreat when they are red line so unsteed of loosing a units you keep it, send to a city for recovery, so knight worth the price, they are fast, they can protect themselve ( defense 3) and retreat when damage( most of the time).

O normally play on huge maps so I allways go for knights. The extra movement means they can make it tot he fight before the war is over. If I was on a smaller map (of the enemy os right next door) the pikes and longbows are an option for the initial strike, but after that the distance is just to great..

i love knights because they actually upgrade into a better unit! Even if i am not planning on going to war for a while, i still like knights because they can become cavalry so then you can start a cavalry war and end the game then.... although i sometimes wait for tanks and artillery

In one game, I have tons of longbowmen on my large island. It's a huge map, 16 civs, and 3 of us (one's gone thanks to me. ;)) are on large islands. The Zulus declared war on me (they can't even reach me!!), so I just put lots of longbowmen on my coast. With 4 attack, they're pretty good. Of course, if I have a lot of horsemen (due to lack of iron), I may go the route of knights once I get iron.

I used to see no reason for Knights. Now I'm playing in two games (GOTM11 and SD1) where I've relied on them exclusively for early victories.

Part of the reason is to complete the game rapidly; my schedule allows little game time, and this way I can participate in these tournaments. Second reason, is that in these two games I could get to Knight quickly enough that the AI was still using primarily spearmen as defenders. This just contributes to the blitz mentality. Also, as Japan and China, the Knight is a UU, which makes even more sense to rely on them. So ... build a stack of horsemen, save a treasury of 1600 or so, learn Chivalry, upgrade, start conquering and generate a Golden Age at the same time.

Longbowmen: I don't like them in general. Under the right conditions I'd consider building them.

I usually go first for Chivalry in the Medieval Age, and then take the lower road, trading for the techs on the high one.

As I too favour huge maps, it should come as little surprise that I see the better movement of Knights as a huge advantage over Longbowmen and Pikemen. Bow and pike are, IMHO, primarily defensive troops; only Knights has the mobility to be efficient offensive units in this period of the game. The Longbowman's niche is too stand in your cities, or in other fortified places, and attack stacks of invading troops. Stacks, 'cos if you attack a single unit, your Longbowman will move out of the defended position, most probably dying during the AI turn, so this should normally be avoided.

Really, the only one-move troops I use for offense are Swordsman/Immortal/Legionary, 'cos in Ancient times the enemy is usually close at hand and the Swordsman has the highest attack value of all ancient units for all but the Iroquois, and Infantry, as artillery guards. My reliance of Inf+Arty formations gradually decline with the coming of Tanks, Bombers and MA, but they find a place as siege troops till the end of the game. The Inf may be changed for MI tho', and the Arty for Radar Artillery should I ever get to research that tech.

Please... do you guys discuss between longbowman and knights...
knights have 2 moves and are 4.3;
longbowman move 1 and is 4.1, very vulnerable...
For me, there's no discussion... Knights.

gugalpm: If you've read the thread a little more attentatively, or indeed played the game a bit more attentatively, you'd noticed that Longbowmen don't cost much more that half the cost of Knights, so certainly there's room for discussion. That said, I do prefer Knights, for the reasons detailed above.

Techs don't always come in a specific order as I frequently buy them on the open market once they become available. I might pick up Invention, make a few longbow, and take a quick city or two. They are remarkable effective at destroying the defenders of your rival's border cities, especially when backed up with spear, sword or pike.

Sometimes it's nice to grab a little war before the Age of Chivalry.

I always go with the more mobile attack unit. I don't like attacking with movement 1 units.

The Middle Ages are fantastic almost constant war.

Knights are your better unit in most cases; however I do build both. My longbowmen are normally for defense to attack out of border cities or choke points at enemy STACKS.

I'm your typical warmonger. When I enter the middle ages my reseach normally follows this order. Before I start I would like to add I will almost always buy any tech I can from the AI, so this is only MY research path.
Feudalism-Chivary (Upgrade grade stacks of horseman to knights. If not already in a war start one.)
Engineering-Military Tradition (Upgrade grade knights to cavalry, continue your wars, unless you control the your own continent)

My top roll of techs are gain mostly from war concessions.

It all depends. If you have large cities with high production, then go to knight and cavs. But, if you have a bunch of small cities with low production, then stick with the bow-pike/musket combo

also, If you go to get longbows, and have no Iron, (if cavs need Iron, Tell me. Can't remember) then forgo knights, and get cavs.

cav only require saltpeter and horses

good. I wasn't sure. do that, and you could have a VERY good military advantage, assuming ou have saltpeter-horses

longbowman have a small time frame when they are lethal when attacking cities.
I like the theory of the 4 pike 4 long vs 4 kn.
The guy that wrote of a 12 knight stack is right though. I play monarch and get always tech behind.
I have no horses-i'll try the longbowman/pike against knight in an invasion against the aztecs -if i can get an alliance- and see what happens....

The knight is the best unit until cavalry comes along, and my philosophy is to always have the best units, no matter what the cost. Makes war a lot easier. If the other side has better units, then I like to get my allies to fight them until I catch up. The AI is a sucker when it comes to alliances.

If you are a builder and don't like fighting offensive campaigns then ignore this post.

Warmongers: I expect to get flamed for this, but how can anyone prefer a unit that has only 1 move per turn?

If you have the resources and don't fight with horsemen, then knights then cavalry then don't expect to win as fast. Civ3 AI is stupid enough to beat with any map on any difficulty level, but we are meant to be discussing the sensible option here.

I challenge anyone who prefers slow units to explain how they perform better at global domination than fast units that can withdraw and move 2 or 3 squares in one turn. If you are a capable general then fighting a war with slow units is just that. SLOW.

And I know about the advantages of the Pikemen/Longbow units. They are good for garrisons. That's it. The cost of knights is cheap at 70 shields, and I'd rather have 1 knight than 3 pikemen or longbows.

The only exception I can think of to this is if you are defending your nation, but seriously, who ever has to do that in earnest?

<<Warmongers: I expect to get flamed for this, but how can anyone prefer a unit that has only 1 move per turn?>>

I won't flame you, but here's my $0.02:--

A) Cheap.

B) Require no resources to build.

C) Attack at 4.

With pikeman or musketman defending, these make good units to keep in a city under seige, or to smack the AI around in the mountains.

True, the knight is definitely better with its higher mobility and defense, but sometimes you're playing against America, and they always have all the resources. Longbowmen can get that for you...


Later!

--The Clown to the Left

Originally posted by Clown2TheLeft
A) Cheap.Yeah, but for me value for money beats low cost any day. Moving your force around is so slow with longbows, and Knights retreat.

B) Require no resources to build.If I had no resources I would build them too, but I hope that by this time resources are not an issue. Early wars should gain enough territory to get everything you need.

With pikeman or musketman defending, these make good units to keep in a city under seige, or to smack the AI around in the mountains.I take your point. I still think that Knights are so versatile because they can fight in the mountains, survive more often than longbowmen, and then nip over to the other side of your empire.

Each to their own I suppose.

Anarres, I would agree with you that in general Knights are better - I like mobile units too - and I will _almost_ never go on an offensive war with pikers and longbows (pillaging raids on the other hand ...) But Clown2TheLeft has valid points, there are times when one does not have the resource that one needs. There are also times when one needs cheap units - quick! If you have never run into these problems then maybe you need to start playing on a harder level.

Originally posted by Gothmog
If you have never run into these problems then maybe you need to start playing on a harder level. LOL, I will when they invent one above Deity. :D (I won the tourney leader div last season)

Well... :blush:

You must be the master of resources then, I find myself without something I need at some point in about 30% of my games.

I must admit though that I have only built longbows once or twice in all my games.

Im guessing by most posts. that most poeple play on small or medium maps. Well for me , I go for Knights. "regardless". If i don't have any iron, fight my way to it. and build knights, or build the light house to fine countrys who are willing to trade for iron. I only play on Huge maps. and all the nations are playing. then i go strait for the money. Wall street, banks and tradeing smith. "allso" with nations on other islands. you can trade techs with them to get gunpowder. nothin beats upgradeing Knights to Cav.

opps i've said enought laf.

There is now a level above Deity. It's called "human opponent". :)

Yep... i wonder how that will play out. how evil can we become?.

Well, if civ3 was thought to take a long time to play imagine with 16 human players!

I will be trying to play the simultaneous version (haven't tried yet - not here in uk for another 3 weeks), hopefully another tournament-style competition will come out of it...

I think playing each other will rock. Unless it's just too flakey, it should mean _real_ challenges, without the stupid AI reasoning.

Originally posted by Pembroke
There is now a level above Deity. It's called "human opponent". :)

IMO, I think this level is easier than the Deity level. Unlike the Deity level, each human player would produce and research at the same rate.

yeah when i defeated the aztecs and indians i went. Straight for Wheel, quickly got horsemen, Bronze Working, then Iron working then got legionaries. Then increased research to hurry and get to next age of time and researched feudalism to get pikemen and then chivalry to get knights.

knights own period. 5-6 knights, a few backup horsemen and a few pikemen for defnse can take any veteran or elite defenders the cpu might have guarding their capitol. It also helps to have 1-3 backup galleys on the way with backup units. Also building roads to enemy will cut your mobilization time in 1 /2

I would love hear more about wonder rushing and the significance it makes in battle. Please tell me more



;)

Wonder rushin. well you gotta get the Sun Tzu's. it gives you a Barracks in every citie on the same land mass. which helps with cash. cash you say.. yep.. you don't hav to pay for ya barrecks now.and them you can build any unit you like at Vet level. helps at the front lines and quickens your ability to defend by being able to build more units. more knights. It is a good thing when ya need to take out a small Civ next to you.

Originally posted by wargasm23
I would love hear more about wonder rushing and the significance it makes in battle. Please tell me more

In my current game (Huge map, Deity level, 14 civs), I was at the bottom of the list. I managed to produce a few dozen warriors right around 1000 BC. Of course, the English, Persian, and German decided to join force against me. I'm playing China and my civ is the weekest one on the planet; therefore, it's logical for them to bully me around). Anyway, I immediately paid 280 golds for Iron Working from the French and upgraded all my warriors to Swordmans. With swordmans, I was able to defend all my borders without any problem while trying to build some horsemans.

My swordmans were just fortifying along my border and hoping to survive for another turn; out of the blue, a leader show up.:) It was a big decision: to build an army so that I can build the Hero Epic or to rush a Great Wonder? I noticed that the AIs almost finish the Sun Tzu's and the Great Library which mean that I'm way behide in techs. Of course, all other Wonders such as Pyramid, Light House, Oracle, Garden... already built by the AIs.

I decided to trade with the French again for Alphabet, Writings then Literature. I immediately rushed the Great Library and by the next turn, I got all the ancient tech tree and a few Middle Age techs including Chivary.:) I just upgraded all my 14 horsemans to Raiders. Since the AIs just discover Chivary, they don't have any knight yet. My raiders are winning almost every battle at the front line and the war is now in my favor. I'm adding their towns to my empire in almost every turn. Now, they are all begging to sign a peace treaty with me but (of course) my answer is "no". My civs is also entering the Golden Age and it's now 10BC.:) I'm expecting to become the superpower within 50 more turns.:)

In summary, by building just one Great Wonder at the right time would make the big different between life and death of a civilization.:)

That was lucky... getting that Leader. if ya didn't you would of been screwed. not been able to get ahead of them would made you weak.. so weak that they would of crush you as soon as they got Knights. Great library is a good one when ya behind.. and the Sun tzu is a good one when ya ahead.

I have to disagree with kinghts. First in multiplayer you don't have the time or the money to build 6 or 7 kinghts when you arn't a superpower at 70 compared to longbowmen and pike for 80 it's too much for too little. Actually it really depends on your stragety cause once your longbow+pike army conquer a city you can defend it with the pikes.Second even if the knights attacking your pikes win they would be seriously damaged so finish them off next turn with your bows. Thirdly unlike knight armies you can put catapuths with them. So overall the pike=catapath=longbow is a much more balanced army.

----------------oops-----wrong post----sorry I was refering to the knights vs pike+longbow topic sorry------------------

Originally posted by anarres

Warmongers: I expect to get flamed for this, but how can anyone prefer a unit that has only 1 move per turn?


Because relying only on mobile units may be prohibitively expensive.

The best example, of course, is the period between Replaceable Parts and Motorized Transportation. Unless your shields per turn total is completely out of the roof, simply crashing thru an AI's defenses with Cav will lead to unsustainable losses, forcing you to take pauses in your offensives. If you bring along Arty (and Inf to escort them) to pound the AI cities to dust before attacking them, losses will be much lower, and you can wage a continuous offensive again.

As regards Knights vs Longbowmen/Medievals, I find that the footsloggers can be very worthwhile in the right circumstances - in particular when attacking across big areas of difficult terrain. I'm also on of the apparently few players that like to bring along Catapults on early Medieval campaigns of conquest.

My path, is fairly consistent, though this is assuming I have the Great Library (which I tend to have). First, I make a beeline to Theology to get the Sisten Chapel (and cathedrals). That way, I can turn off the luxury slider and go full blast in science. Afterwards, I grab feudalism (start building Sun Tzu) and make my way to about Gun Powder (getting Leo's Workshop started on the way). By then, I should have recieved Education (through GL) at which point I will go for the wonders and the techs they require: Music Theory, Economics, Astronomy, Theory of Gravity. During that time, I would pick up Banking and acquire PP through GL. Then I'd grab Democray, and rap things up with Military Tradition and Magnetism. This path tends to get me most of the wonders I want before the AI and will get me Democracy just in time for the Industrial revolution. I don't wage too many wars until Tanks, so Cavalry are never a priority for me.

Whether you build knoghts or longbows, or any other unit, of course, depends on the circumstances.

If you are in a situation where you wish to launch a war, and you can do so in your own time at your own convenience, then it is likely you will go for the best units you can, and knights are the granddaddys of the early middle ages; great attack, great defence, mobile. Build a stack and watch your enemies crumble.

In other situations, you may find your opponents aclling the shots and attacking you out of the blue. Perhaps then, you simply can't wait for 70 shields to accumulate, and you build longbows at 40 shields each instead, because you need some quick response.

In PTW with the addition of medieval infantry, you might as well go for those at 40 shields if you have iron, because they are also defence 2.

By far the greatest feature of longbowmen is that they are an attack 4 unit that require no resources. In an emperor level solo game I'm currently playing, I learned to appreciate their value. The game settings were totally random, but on a standard sized map. I drew the Germans, and the map turned out to be a 60% pangaea. I got a decent landgrab, on the northern edge of the pangaea, but was still weak. And I had no iron or saltpeter, and no hope of trading for it:eek: The civs next to me were Babylon and China, who both had all the required resources. To have a good chance of winning the game I had to attack at some point, and eventualy I've managed to knock both of them out, learning a great deal about longbows and combined arms in the process. When I fought Babylon, they were using swords, bowmen, spears, pikes and medieval infantry (this was before chivalry) - at that point, i was fighting with archers, spears and horsemen. The main war against China, they had Riders (and a GA:( ), muskets, medieval infantry anmd cavalry (!), I had spears, horses and longbows, yet I whipped them, by using longbows covered by spears and advancing on high ground, and large stacks of horses to take cities down by force of numbers. I was amazed at how well longbows did against muskets in size 12 cities, and even how good horses were against cavalry (because the cavalry couldn't retreat, so using a longbow to injure the cavalry and get him to retreat, and then use a horse to finish off).

Conclusion: all units are useful in the right circumstances, and a good general uses whatever he can get his hands on!

i have played a few more games and am now winning at the emperor level. My conclusion? Knights are only superior at lower levels of play. Longbowmen gain strength the higher levels u
reach. Skip chivarly, get it later when its cheap to buy or demand it from a conquered civ. What I found -using Greece- is that
Chivarly is an unneccessay. If u are fighting any civ that has a medevil uu-and there are lots-one should -at all costs- Avoid War during that time. If u like warring during Medevil..play Japan-that UU is better than a knight anyway. Same with China or the Mongols. The question begs criteria-what level, what civ, what size map.

well longbows are actually better in 2 circumstances i can think of:

1. rough terrain, knights lose their mobility.

2. against fast defenders: ie samarie

Do pikes have a special advantage vs. knights? If they do (i don't think this is so, from what i've heard), then the advantage of longbows in attacking pikes is obvious. Also, if you bring some bows along to attack a heavily entrenched position, it gives you a low-cost attacker to throw against the defenders, whether they win or lose, they do damage. If they do lose, they're cheaper to replace than knights.