Knight vs Ancient Calvary

[Naval Power]

Hey all just wondering what you would rather have in a war.

Knights have an extra attack and but an elite AC has 6 whopping hp. I myself would love a mix of em. Knights are easily mass produced but AC come a era before em.

Pls dont consider the extra defense point this poll is about pure attack strength.

 

[Xen]

well, i personally liek the art on the ancient cav more, and I REALLY like the extra HP...so i voted for the ancient cav

 

[wilbill]

In my current game I built ToZ very early in the Ancient Age and the AC can be a gamebreaker. Very little can stand up to it. At this rate, by the time I can build Knights, I won't need them.

 

[Grey Fox]

You don't really prefer one of the other. Ancient cavalry are nice cus you will be the only one with them, and they are one of the best units in the era. The downside is you will only get a few.

Knights however, you build yourself, and you are not gonna "skip" building them just cus you got ancient cav.

 

[benstandby]

OK, Knights are expendable. Ancient Cav is not. I use the knights to soften up a hard target (pike or musket fortified in a large city or on a hill [or other difficult terrain]), and then I follow it up with the ancient cav. This works really nicely, too. A 1 or 2hp musket (roughly 6.5 defense strength in a city, fortified) against a 6 hp AC (3 attack strength) is just about a fair fight.

I'll disband the AC into my universities and banks.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I like to expand early and when I get Ivory I build the ToZ. Armies of AC can't be beat in the ancient age. I don't often have the tech lead, so by the time I get knights the AI is stocking up on musketmen heading for cavalry.

 

[Goober]

I prefer knights (but then again, I never get ivory when I need it, and have to watch the other Civs pile up the AC on my border). Preferably I like the KT (Knights Templar) for those Crusaders.

 

[Ville]

AC because it has extra HP
Knight because you can upgrade it to Cavalry

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Knights because you cannot plan on ivory, without a whole lot of restarts.

I had ToZ in my present game. It seems it allowed me to concentrate more on building improvements when i may otherwise have been producing units.

In battle, they appear about equal to knights and i have no problems adding an Elite* AC to an army of knights.

 

[BomberEscort]

From my best attacker utility:

Knight or Ancient Cavalry v.s. Veteran Rifleman (No Modifiers)


Att-----HP---------Win%
4--------5--------40.591%---Elite Knight
3--------6--------34.969%---Elite Ancient Cavalry
4--------4--------28.979%---Veteran Knight
3--------5--------25.865%---Veteran Ancient Cavalry
4--------3--------17.920%---Regular Knight
3--------3--------10.014%---Regular Ancient Cavalry
4--------2--------8.704%
3--------2--------4.527%
4--------1--------2.560%
3--------1--------1.235%

 

[Pfeffersack]

Didn't have a regular AC 4 HP?

 

[bru]

I voted for knights because of the numbers that can be built!

 

[Commander Bello]

AC, since you may concentrate on the infrastructure of your little empire's cities and will get some good attackers simulteanously, and some cultural points, and some tourists later in the game

 

[Revolutionary]

I vote for the Knights they are stronger, can be built, you don't need to be luck in starting near ivory, and can actually be UPGRADED.

now if the AC could be upgraded then I probably would of voted for it.

 

[tomart109]

I like ACav Armies so much i fought my way to the other side of the continent just to capture the ToZ. Strangely, Ivory hasn't been a problem lately - it seems to always be around. (oops, now i won't get any for a while... )

When Knights come along i build them too (but they seem heavy and fragile for their cost and speed, so i try to preserve them to upgrade to Cavalry, which REALLY ROCKS!)

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I think, like Bomber Escort proved, that the extra HP of the AC doesn't make up for the extra attack of the knight.
That said: if I already have ACs, I pretty often don't bother about chivalry at all, but build defenders and lots of artillery to support my ACs instead.
So in conclusion, if I started a new game and could get either AC half way through the ancient era or knights asap, I'd always take the AC option.

 

[Park Ranger]

Thanks BE for working out how close they actually are. So I guess if they were giving them both away for free I'd take the Knight.

Meanwhile, I would really go out of my way to get a nearby Ivory hooked up in the early game and build SoZ. The fact the AC can almost keep up with the knight points out how the effectiveness of this wonder endures.

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by Pfeffersack
Didn't have a regular AC 4 HP?

Oops... here is the new table...

Knight or Ancient Cavalry v.s. Veteran Rifleman (No Modifiers)


Att-----HP---------Win%
4--------5--------40.591%---Elite Knight
3--------6--------34.969%---Elite Ancient Cavalry
4--------4--------28.979%---Veteran Knight
3--------5--------25.865%---Veteran Ancient Cavalry
4--------3--------17.920%---Regular Knight
3--------4--------17.330%---Regular Ancient Cavalry
3--------3--------10.014%
4--------2--------8.704%
3--------2--------4.527%
4--------1--------2.560%
3--------1--------1.235%


I'd also like to add that the AC is very valuable because it is available way before knights are. This is its advantage. It is by far the most dominating unit of the ancient age, the Immortals are a very close second. Knights properly are more powerful given the distance from AC in the tech tree...

Originally posted by Capt Buttkick
I think, like Bomber Escort proved, that the extra HP of the AC doesn't make up for the extra attack of the knight.

Your right it doesn't make up for it. But coupled with the fact of its early availability, it extra HP, etc. It may as well be like having Knights in the ancient age... The percentages are very close, these differences would be hard to notice in-game...

 

[Portuguese]

So 29% Vs 26% for Vet.s...
Knights are better, but...

AC is cheaper
(I always conquer the civ with Zeus, if it is close... it is not a big advantage if you only have it for 4 turns )

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by BomberEscort
Your right it doesn't make up for it. But coupled with the fact of its early availability, it extra HP, etc. It may as well be like having Knights in the ancient age... The percentages are very close, these differences would be hard to notice in-game...

Not only that, the defenders of the age arn't as good as those the knight faces.

People understimate the power of extra HP.