When i originally bought the game(more than a year ago) Knights where the masters of the early middle ages. But with all of the patches and the expansion pack knights have lost much of their worth. When the game first came out if a knight was losing a battle it always retreated, with all the patches it has lost that ability. The expansion pack gives us the midevil infantry which has an attack of 4 and costs 30 shields less! My question to you is do you think it is worth it to build knights when you could build midevil infantry? Knights do have a movement of 2. If you use knights a war may go faster if you can keep enough reinforcements coming so your attacks don't run out of steam. If!
Knights, do you even bother?
- Thread starter krw72588
- Start date
There was a thread somewhat related to this awhile ago.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32663
My 2 cents, go for Knights because they upgrade into Cavalry. So the question really is, would you rather have lots of Cavalry (from Knights) or lots of Guerilla's (from Midevil Infantry). Cavalry since they are so much better in many ways.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32663
My 2 cents, go for Knights because they upgrade into Cavalry. So the question really is, would you rather have lots of Cavalry (from Knights) or lots of Guerilla's (from Midevil Infantry). Cavalry since they are so much better in many ways.
Hellfire
Prince
You better be softening up those musketeers with catapults or cannon 
When I attack, I attack fast. Swordsmen are better than horsemen for their attack and defense strength, but a Knights attack is on par with swordsmen.
I forget if pikemen get a bonus vs knights, but knights are great for attacking in the open field as they can attack quickly and get to where you need them faster.
If you are in for a siege, you might as well throw up some pikemen, swordsmen, longbowmen and catapults and march them in a SOD. For defending my borders I like to be aggressive and pick off invaders with a fast unit like a knight.
Plus, if you didn't like Medieval infantry, did you like longbowmen? The same argument could be made for them, except you could not upgrade your swordsmen to them, but they could still be useful.
When I attack, I attack fast. Swordsmen are better than horsemen for their attack and defense strength, but a Knights attack is on par with swordsmen.
I forget if pikemen get a bonus vs knights, but knights are great for attacking in the open field as they can attack quickly and get to where you need them faster.
If you are in for a siege, you might as well throw up some pikemen, swordsmen, longbowmen and catapults and march them in a SOD. For defending my borders I like to be aggressive and pick off invaders with a fast unit like a knight.
Plus, if you didn't like Medieval infantry, did you like longbowmen? The same argument could be made for them, except you could not upgrade your swordsmen to them, but they could still be useful.
steviejay
Now in Black and White!!
Originally posted by WildFire444
There was a thread somewhat related to this awhile ago.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32663
My 2 cents, go for Knights because they upgrade into Cavalry. So the question really is, would you rather have lots of Cavalry (from Knights) or lots of Guerilla's (from Midevil Infantry). Cavalry since they are so much better in many ways.
I've just recently discovered Guerilla's (first time I've played PTW to the level where I can get them) and I don't really like them. they just seem to get chewed up by whatever its attacking. I would much rather put my recources into getting Infantry cause at least with them they have a better defence.
Also I've not actually discovered this yet but is PTW the same as good old Civ 2 where when an enemy takes one of your cities you get a few Guerilla's spawing beside the fallen city??
And I'm sorry I know this is a thread about Knights but when I read the comment about Guerilla's here it reminded me to ask all of you
SanPellegrino
Wanderer
No, no guerillas spawning like in civ2. there are only there to have something from your swordsmen or you got no rubber.
looper
Chieftain
Riders on the other hand (chinese knights) are fantastic.
Movement of 3 at that age is a huge advantage over anything else. I used to play chinese in standard world maps, as soon as I had enough riders, I basically conquered entire Eurasia within 6-8 turns! 6 turns man, russians and french did not even have time to build up units to conter attack me. they are fast man, I say FAST!
Movement of 3 at that age is a huge advantage over anything else. I used to play chinese in standard world maps, as soon as I had enough riders, I basically conquered entire Eurasia within 6-8 turns! 6 turns man, russians and french did not even have time to build up units to conter attack me. they are fast man, I say FAST!
anonymous4401
Prince
Well, in my game as the Romans, I had 20 Legionaries left over from my earlier war, so instead of building 20 70-shield Knights, I built 20 40-shield MIs and had a unit combo with attack of 4 and defence of 3 in a shorter time. Since MI+Pikeman has the same shield cost as a knight, cost twice as much to maintain, and moves twice as slow, I'd go with Knights, unless you have leftover UUs such as Hoplite, Numidian Mercenary, or Legionary w/ 3 defense and no immediate upgrade, and pair them up with MIs.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Originally posted by morkaphi
I still build knights, even with PTW.
Knights can withdraw, has a defense value of 3, and is perfect to kick the pikemen and even muskeeters. As of the upgrading, I prefer cavalry a lot more than guerillas.
A defense value of '3' is absurdly high and messes up game play. Cavalry - armed with rifles - has a defense value also of three?? Crazy. Change knights to 5-2-2 - it is more realistic and requires pikemen support for an invasion.
DaveMcW
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 6,489
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Very "intelligent" braindead remark. Pathetic.
Try explaining why knights, who never heard of gunpowder, have the same defense factor as rifle-armed cavalry in Civ 3. Can't do it, can you? Didn't think so. Or aren't we even allowed to use rudimentary logic on this forum anymore, according to you?
Mod the game! It works better and is more realistic.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,136
Then why would you mod the knights to 5-2-2 giving them a disadvantage even against swordsmen instead of making the cavalry's defense higher giving IT the advantage?????
I agree fully, if you don't like something, you might as well mod it.
anonymous4401
Prince
1. Numbers
A unit of Knights could, and probably would, represent more # of Knights than a unit of Cavalry.
2. Tactics/Philosophy
Weren't Cavalry designed to be shock units to demoralize enemies? They weren't exactly defensive units.
3. Detail
Let's face it, CivIII isn't exactly detailed. A rifleman 'unit' probably also consists of supporting field cannons, medics, engineers, and other supporting units. Likewise, a unit of Knights can also consist of other supporting Medieval units.
A unit of Knights could, and probably would, represent more # of Knights than a unit of Cavalry.
2. Tactics/Philosophy
Weren't Cavalry designed to be shock units to demoralize enemies? They weren't exactly defensive units.
3. Detail
Let's face it, CivIII isn't exactly detailed. A rifleman 'unit' probably also consists of supporting field cannons, medics, engineers, and other supporting units. Likewise, a unit of Knights can also consist of other supporting Medieval units.
it's all about terrain if you have lots of flat plains and grasslands go for knights they can quicky intercept invaders and reinforce your positions that means you can build less units if you move them faster to the front, if the terrain in filled with jungle or hills defensive units will be the better option the defense bonus of the terrain will help the defenders and defeting the opposing army would be enough for many human players to sue for peace but the AI for get it.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
Since I need saltpeter to build cavalry and they come before Nationalism and Riflemen, I'd always thought of them as being armed with muskets.
As far as the "more realistic" argument - Sorry, Civ 3 is like going to the movies for me - I have to suspend disbelief. From the time scale, to movement distances, to the cultural, political, and economic aspects of the game, it's all rough approximations of reality designed to give a playable game. Reality it ain't. Change Knights to 5-2-2 because it works better for you. I have trouble seeing it as more or less realistic.
greenie
Warlord
Steering well clear of the Knights vs Cavalry arguement, if you have 3 defense then use it!
As Swordsmens' attack of 3 really kicks ass over the 2 of an Archer, the 4 of a Knights' really improves over the Swordsman. Then add the other defense point, and the extra movement AND the retreat ability against most defenders and the arguement solves itself.
It's easy to upgrade to Cavalry, and relatively cheap considering the attack and extra move you get. If you have horses you may as well use them, or if you have to trade for horses, build as many while you have the horses. Then upgrade to Cavalry.
While the gap may not be very big to Cavalry, the short window I do have Knights for, they certainly earn their keep in my games, either garrison or on attack.
As Swordsmens' attack of 3 really kicks ass over the 2 of an Archer, the 4 of a Knights' really improves over the Swordsman. Then add the other defense point, and the extra movement AND the retreat ability against most defenders and the arguement solves itself.
It's easy to upgrade to Cavalry, and relatively cheap considering the attack and extra move you get. If you have horses you may as well use them, or if you have to trade for horses, build as many while you have the horses. Then upgrade to Cavalry.
While the gap may not be very big to Cavalry, the short window I do have Knights for, they certainly earn their keep in my games, either garrison or on attack.
Romanus
Ruler of CivRome
I usually build knights with the upgrade to Cavalry in mind. Build as many knights as I can, as is practical I guess based on my strategy, then I will have instant Cav later on.
Tiger_Nation
Warlord
I never build knights as my first war is when I get Immortals/Swordsmen & my second war is when I get Siphi/Cavalry and my third war is when I get Tanks/Panzers the forth war is when I get nukes and my fifth war is when I get Modern Armour. I don't generaly go for a warmonger game but that is how I plan it out and I just skip knights as I find they slow down my cavalry charge.
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
IMHO, Knights do play a role if used properly and at the right time, especially if you are at war and you need to hurt the enemy as soon as you can.
In some cases, a movement of 2 just brings you to the enemy's city, without exposing your units in the open (e.g. when you are attacking from a mountain, a city that is 2 tiles away), or when the city is 2 tiles from your border.
In a game, i had knights near my border with Rome. The romans declared war on me when i asked them to remove a unit of theirs that has crossed the border.
In the same turn, they were already 3 cities down...
In some cases, a movement of 2 just brings you to the enemy's city, without exposing your units in the open (e.g. when you are attacking from a mountain, a city that is 2 tiles away), or when the city is 2 tiles from your border.
In a game, i had knights near my border with Rome. The romans declared war on me when i asked them to remove a unit of theirs that has crossed the border.
In the same turn, they were already 3 cities down...
Similar threads
