hospitallar knight

[Shinewz]

Hospitallar is famous for their endurance and talent of defence. But compared with other two knights, they are two weak, even worse than the Aviz Knight. What a pity!
What's more,some units when they upgrade to a new type they will lose their traits just like the Aviz Knight and Templar receiving no defending or razing city bonus.

 

[merijn_v1]

Hospitallar is famous for their endurance and talent of defence. But compared with other two knights, they are two weak, even worse than the Aviz Knight. What a pity!
What's more,some units when they upgrade to a new type they will lose their traits just like the Aviz Knight and Templar receiving no defending or razing city bonus.

First, would you please stop opening one thread after another and post your comments in the right thread. (Questions in the question thread, remarks like this one in the playtesting feedback thread) It absolutely isn't neccessary to open a new thread for about 3 units.

The Aviz Knight is an UU, so you shouldn't compare a unit with them. (Exept the maceman) You should compare the Hospitaller Knight with the Maceman. Then, the Hospitaller Knight isn't less stronger. It has 5% less city attack, but 50% more city defense. (And no bonus vs infantry and heavy cavalry, but vs polearm, which is also less strong) But IMO, the city defense equals the bonus vs the other unit types.

It isn't rare that some traits will be lost by upgrading. For instance, in the normal game, the Rifleman has 14 and +25% vs mounted units. The Infantry has 20 and no bonus vs mounted units. They don't need the bonus because they are stronger vs mounted units anyway. If a Rifleman fight with a mounted unit, his strength will be 17.5 . An Infantry has 20 standard, so they don't need the extra bonus vs mounted units. The same way for the other units.

 

[Shinewz]

However, compared with the other two, hospitallar is still weak. Even when it is garrisoned in the city still cannot defend the charge of the other two. 9x1.5(hospitallar)<14(teutoic)13x1.1(templar)

 

[Zipzapzup]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Hospitaler are based on Maceman, they are melee and not mounted. They only require Iron and are available with Plate Armor.

And a defensiv units like Hospitaler are usually garnisoned and therefore can kill a Teutonic Knights or Templar, when attacked.

 

[Shinewz]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Hospitaler are based on Maceman, they are melee and not mounted. They only require Iron and are available with Plate Armor.

And a defensiv units like Hospitaler are usually garnisoned and therefore can kill a Teutonic Knights or Templar, when attacked.

9x1.5(hospitallar)<14(teutoic)13x1.1(templar)

 

[merijn_v1]

9x1.5(hospitallar)<14(teutoic)13x1.1(templar)

Don't forget the other aditional strength like fortify bonus. If you take those units (and give them combat I and II promotion, what isn't very uncommon) you get totally different numbers.

The Hospitaller Knight has:
50% City defense
25% Fortify bonus
20% promotion bonus
(50% or 100% for walls and castles)
(25% for hills)
So you'll get 1 x 1.95 = 17.55 (without the buildings or hills)

The other Knights get (with the 2 promotions):
Templar: 13 x 1.3 = 16.9
Teutonic: 14 x 1.2 = 16.8

So if the mounted knight attack the footed knight in a city, they aren't stronger. (If you take away the promotions, they even have a lesser chance to win. Especially if you include the defense bonus for the buildings) So their is no reason to complain. The only problem is when they fight in open ground.

On the other hand, those knights are in the game to fight with Arabia, not against eachother.

 

[fdgsgds]

I see Arabia with Teutonic Knights or Templar very often. I think it should require Christianity.

 

[merijn_v1]

I see Arabia with Teutonic Knights or Templar very often. I think it should require Christianity.

It already does. Maybe you should update your version.

 

[civ_king]

I see Arabia with Teutonic Knights or Templar very often. I think it should require Christianity.

It does require Catholicism

 

[sinitahr]

Mercs probably.