Knights

[Artichoker]

With all the discussion going on about Trebuchets, War Elephants, and Riflemen, one unit we see less often in discussion is Knights.

What are you thoughts regarding using Knights in your own army? Of course the AI uses them all the time, but that's a different story.

Personally, I have never used them heavily in a game before, but that might just be because I never found the opportunity to use them in high numbers, in preference over other units.

 

[Rusten]

Knights are very good but they suffer badly from the tech tree. If you're a lightbulber you will find yourself having Cuirassiers at about the same time as knights come into play.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They're pretty devastating if you follow the bottom path on slow speeds and war a lot. They frequently have the best odds, even attacking cities over CR maces!

But, I seldom use them. The problem is that getting them faster than cuirassers is a bit iffy if you shoot the lib path, and it's extremely unlikely you'll be attacking someone at anything but parity.

It's possible with extremely favorable things like a feudalism slingshot and bulbing machinery and guilds to get them in the early 100's AD, but then cuirassers from lib are only a couple 100 years later, and the requirements for getting the wonders and GPs are far less demanding.

So my feeling is that they're good units but their location on their tech tree limits their use vs alternates.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

If you ignore the lib path, e.g. going for an early conquest they are just the ticket.

 

[tycoonist]

in my opinion, i would rather fight with maces. if they come out at 5xp, 2CR promotions are going to make them just as good as CII knights but they are a lot cheaper in terms of hammers and don't require moving through such a tricky area of the tech tree. they also have no real weakness if the stack has a couple of pikes, unlike knights which are very vulnerable to pikes, a unit that the AI loves to build.

 

[J-man]

Knights are good but on the wrong side of the tech tree. Cataphracts ,however, simply rock! It is well worth to ignore the liberalism path to get cataphracts.

 

[Kev]

I agree with the general sentiment here. If you are on lower levels, beelining with a feudalism slingshot and some bulbing with engineers and/or merchants can set you up with some speedy civ-wreckers well before pikes come on board. I've tried this with Justinian to see what the cataphracts can do, and they CAN do a lot in a short period of time to be sure - even taking well protected longbows. Getting them early enough means you won't have to wait for siege to take a great many cities quickly - or you can go after the various surrounding cities and move your siege and slower movers in to take the rest. Having an early Vassalage is handy too.

With higher levels (I'd say Monarch+) I don't think anyone could count on doing this anywhere near consistently, and if it's tried and it fails it could leave the player in a tough spot on the tech tree. As already mentioned, getting knights when the AI is near parity is not a game-changer.

I also prefer siege/maces/stack protectors around this era if I have to go to war. It can be a slog, so unless it's for an early domination or something I'm only warring in bits and pieces anyway.

 

[Monsterzuma]

What if...

- you did take the liberalism path and due to unfavorable conditions did not tech through the aesthetics/literature/music path with no backfill oppurtunities (trading nationalism for aesthetics, literatue or music doesn't qualify)
- you plan to tech to Rifles as quickly as possible (major drafting potential wanting to be unleashed) and can't afford the delay of teching aesth/lit/music, or, god forbid (!) military tradition.

THEN it's nice to be able to whip Knights on the way there, since to get to Rifles you need to tech through Guilds anyway. At the point you get them by then, they are the strongest unit you can build and they get an additional promotion from the stables.

I guess it requires a bit of tech-isolationist thinking though...

 

[futurehermit]

knights are great when you plan/are forced to fight at tech parity in the medieval era. i often skip them when i am gunning for a tech lead, which is likely the stronger play in many cases. however, when i choose to fight in the medieval era, they boost the strength of my army with their strength and mobility.

 

[Ormur]

If I have a comfortable tech lead I often try to snatch a GM from economics after winning liberalism. Then I get knights on the way. It's also nice if I'm warring a lot in the middle ages. Usually that's because I neglected my army and got declared on. Then I want quick knights for a quick counterattack after fending of the invaders. It's not very often but it can be worth it.

 

[huerfanista]

Knights are good but on the wrong side of the tech tree. Cataphracts ,however, simply rock! It is well worth to ignore the liberalism path to get cataphracts.

... With stone nearby you can do some good bulbing tricks to get them around 500AD. Game over.

 

[Tephros]

Knights dominate the open field due to their high base strength.

I use them most as open field stack defenders - specifically to counter crossbowmen. Due to weak promotions, knights cannot compete with CRIII macemen versus cities, but CRIII macemen get creamed by crossbows. Knights are also good for mobile defense. Each city has its main defenders but if your opponent is purposely or accidentally making it ambiguous which city he is going for, knights help secure multiple cities.

 

[hal08]

Another disadvantage is that knights do not ignore castle and wall defenses like gunpowder units.

 

[Tephros]

Another disadvantage is that knights do not ignore castle and wall defenses like gunpowder units.

Well the only unit that does during the knights' time is the musketman, and I hope you're not attacking with those, lol.

 

[vicawoo]

If you're going for non stop warring domination, you should be getting engineering for trebs, which means you have machinery, and you can trade for feudalism. But teching towards the gunpowder army, out of the way.

In the meta game, that means if you have a big enough empire early enough to wage a medieval war, it's a useful military tech. If you can't, skip for gunpowder.

 

[Iranon]

What's wrong about attacking with Musketmen? Against castle-bosted cities, I'd do exactly that... against others, they are ideal cleanup troops with a few Drill promotions (after a few Trebuchet suicides) that also make adequate defenders.

***

The only problem with knights is that many people try to avoid war on even terms; symetrical medieval war is either slow or costly and knights are available long after their effective counter.
Personally, I like the slow version because any time I'm not expanding my empire feels like time wasted... but teching hard to be the first player to Renaissance units and going on a rampage then is even safer.

 

[Levgre]

Knights are powerhouses, also the faster movement means you can take cities faster, or threaten more cities at the same time, or take out more stranded units. The AI does not coordinate especially well against 2 move armies, they will leave vulnerable units that you wouldn't be able to take with 1 movement armies.

with 10 base strength, the 2 promos they get from stable+barracks are exceptionally powerful.

13.5 versus melee, (with shock), or 12 versus archers. Against pikemen they are even above 50% without terrain/fortifying bonuses.

They are good if you plan on taking out your opponents about that time. Build lots of knights, keep fighting, keep building more knights... you'll be able to stand up against basically everything in the upcoming future, including taking out riflemen defended cities if you have enough siege, or enough knights. Although the plan would be to do most of the damage before they get riflemen. You don't really 'need' any other unit beyond knights and trebs (or tons of catapults) for backup.

Although it is very convenient, after you have built up say 30 knights, to then get military tradition and upgrade to cuirassers for that final devastating push. With all the cities you took, you should have plenty of gold for upgrading, or you could have used that gold to research towards MT at a very high rate.

You generally would not want to research MT unless you intended to finish with the cuirassers, though.

 

[JujuLautre]

Well the only unit that does during the knights' time is the musketman, and I hope you're not attacking with those, lol.

Why not? When attacking longbows, they are superior to maces with the same number of promos.

 

[Charonicus]

I like knights. I like to have a few patrolling my borders in case of pillages and I like to have a couple in my stack. I've noticed siege creep towards my stack as I'm nearing a city and a knight can go kill it and rejoin the stack in one move. I wouldn't build an entire stack of them, but they definitely have their uses. And they're easily upgraded to cavalry when the time arrives.

 

[KingMorgan]

I haven't used many knights since civ2, that was the era of the knights!