Los Tirano said:
The game was originally designed to be somewhat balanced. If you greatly weaken knights the cowards that hide behind their walls will have a further advantage to them. If knights become three times more expensive, they will not be able to take cities, because a smart player or AI will easily be able to build five longbowmen for every knight, if not more. Please consider the effects of weakening the main civ offensive unit for the middle ages.
Why dont the players that lose their cities meet the invading armies in the field with an army of their own? Just like in history. If you dont have an army how can you hope to protect your civilisation?
@Bovine The tactics of knights, the powerful charge to break formations is closer to a panzer attack than the hit and run attacks of horse archers, and the gradual picking off of troops. Units like pikemen cannot move as fast as heavy cavalry, they are not even close to the same speed. And neither can they charge with the sheer momentum of knights.
Sorry, don't have time for a long post (very busy, for a change, at work), but couldn't let this go unchallenged.
How would not being a "coward" and "hiding behind walls" have changed my predicament at facing down hordes of Knights? Considering that most defenders (Redcoats in my case, but most likely Longbows in general) would have City Defense promotions, the most logical place to fight off the attackers would be from behind city walls with CD in effect. So you're saying I was supposed to sally forth to be slaughtered with greater haste in the open field? And that's good strategy?

I already noted that my defenses were insufficient in this case - however, if my forces were twice as large, then I might have fought the attackers off - but certainly not by negating my defensive advantages. Of course, I still would have had to build some Knights of my own to take the fight to the enemy, but that misses my larger point:
Knights should be ELITE units
I'm willing to re-consider my earlier proposal that they should be weakened (though I still don't agree with 3 movement points), but reflecting their elite status,
there should be fewer of them around.
The simplest way to accomplish this is by raising their costs. Another alternative would be to have a national cap, like for spies and missonaries. But it is in no way realistic to have HORDES of Knights swarming the battlefields. AFAIK, the largest numerical components of medieval armies consisted of poorly-armed peasant levies. Then there were masses of foot-soldiers and archers, with perhaps some light cavalry, and finally, a relatively tiny percentage of heavy cavalry (i.e. Knights).
This reminds me a bit of the way Tanks tended to dominate in vanilla Civ4 until some mods finally decided to partially redress the ahistorical imbalance by requiring Infantry for city capture. As it stands now in TR, why make anything but Knights in the medieval era (and even well into the gunpowder era, as well), even for city defense? Given their speed and collateral damage abilities, they seem to be the most efficient use of hammers. I fail to see the realism (or fun, for that matter)...
I guess it was a kinda long post after all - oh well
Oh - and I almost forgot, re: "medieval panzers". I am willing to grant that on the
tactical level that may be true, but I was speaking more of the
operational or strategic level, which is closer to the level of representation involved in Civ4. Operationally, the Mongol horse archers functioned much more like armored formations than their European knight counterparts.