pike+longbow vs knights-Balanced army

[music_theory7]

Guys I just want to know what you guys think about the more balanced and slower armies compared to the all out bitlzkerg knight armies in the middles ages(early). I know in single player knights are your bet but in multiplayer? I just had a game where I was a relative weak country allied to a superpower vs another superpower and medium strenght power. They must have chatted cause they came at me from three directions with three armies. All of them were the pike+longbow+cataputh combo which surprized me since noone used those in any of my games. I had two medium sized armies of knights 4-6 and attacked the two larger ones. I managed to kill some of their pikes but all my guys were seriously damaged and their bowmen killed my knights next turn. When they got next to the cities they fortifed with the pikes bombed with the capauths and attacked with the longbows. I lost 70 percent of my empire which I then sued for peace and surprizing they accepted I joined them against the country I was previously allied too. I watched his pikes armies win against any kinghts the other put up.

Sure they may be slow but I'm starting to think they are more balanced and better in multiplayer where you arn't nessarily going for fast world domination

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why'd anyone use Longbowmen for this? If they can build Pikemen they can build Medieval Infantry, which is simply better.

I usually employ a mix on Knights, Catapults and Medievals, plus the odd Pikeman, in my offensive forces during the Middle Ages. Kights are better in open terrain, but it feels much better throwing 40 shield Medievals against city walls than 70 shield Knights. In MP, I'd increase the amount of Pikemen, since humans tend to launch more competent counterattacks.

 

[#1 Person]

Wha?? What is a Medival Infentry? Don't like devesifying my army, i just get 10 to 30 knights ( or riders or war elphants or samirys) and take the enemy quickly.

 

[krw72588]

I never build knights. Medevil infantry are the way to go. Would you rather have 4 knights or 7 medievil infantry? Medievil infantry also upgrade from swordsmen so the first turn i get the tech i may have 20+ instant medievil infantry. Knights however, upgrade from horsemen which i don't build for obvious reasons.

 

[newbiebad]

Well it's not so simple as 4vs7. Knights have the extra defense which a medieval infantry needs pikemen escort to equal. They also have a nice upgrade path to cavalry when the time comes. Most of all they are fast units that can retreat. You lose less in assaults so you have more for the next battle. Since knights live longer they tend to promote better and give you chance at leaders. They can also get to cities faster instead of trudging 2-3 turns per enemy city. This could mean counter attacks especially if you were playing a human opponent. As someone mentioned Knights are very nice in the open. For an easy war you initiate they completely blow infantry away. I've had some wars in which my swordmen ==> medieval infantry upgraded troops never saw combat because my knights were so successful.

That said, I almost always use a mixed army. Knights are expensive to build from scratch and sometimes you simply don't have the time to wait for all that. Also, Chivalry is an expensive tech during that stage of the game when I'm usually short on money AND techs. I'd rather attack now with a mixed army than wait 6+ turns and burn through my treasury to get that tech. By the time I actually get chivalry I'll need to wait a few more turns to get upgrade money for my horseys... those turns add up when I could have been taking over the enemy. Of course some of those problems can be solved by planning but plans tend to fall apart when some AI civ suddenly backstabs you.

I use knights exclusively when:
1) I have a lot of horsemen + the cash to upgrade + I can get chivalry easily. (Happens quite often actually if I'm the tech broker)
2) I have a nice knight UU. Come on... why even bother with mixed armies when you can use samurai/ansar/rider in your war. Heck, you can even set off a perfectly nice nondespot GA to catch some medieval wonders.

 

[DaveMcW]

Knights work great defensively, but only if you use them correctly.

First, build roads everywhere so you can send them 6 squares at a time to the danger spots. Then fortify a stack of knights 2 squares away from the approaching enemy.

The enemy stack will move next to your knights. Now you attack them, and most knights will survive or retreat. Since you still have your second movement point, you can move the knights back to avoid the counterattack. Send wounded knights to heal in the nearest city, and fortify the healthy ones for the next ambush.

 

[music_theory7]

Actually you guys are right ever since PTW longbows are just plain stupid I think they should have made it's attack higher or made it cheaper. As to cataputs their attacks are too weak and don't do all that well. If any of you guys know how to use cataputs well post it cause I think cataputs are pretty bad. Mine always gets captured after my 2 pikes defending it die.

 

[allhailIndia]

I find longbows to become almost redundant in the middle ages with the inclusion of the medieval infantry. They are moderately useful if you don't have the resources, but if your opponent does, you can kiss your longbows goodbye

 

[denyd]

It's also possible that the longbows are upgraded archers from the ancient age. If you build for an archer rush early and aren't able to pull it off, you've got them sitting around, might as well upgrade them and attack as longbows.

 

[allhailIndia]

Longbows are best used against pikemen, for all others Knights are far better.

 

[The Last Conformist]

When AI use Catapults for Medieval offense, I'm feeling a largish stack of Medievals, Catapults and a few Pikemen. In addition, I try to move thru difficult terrain. This means that the AI has to kill off a considerable number of units with decent defense before it gets to my Catapults.

And don't expect your catapults to achieve anything unless you bring along a bunch.

 

[rickyson1]

Originally posted by #1 Person
Wha?? What is a Medival Infentry?

do you have ptw??

 

[Gingerbread Man]

The reason for using longbow/pike combos:
If you only have iron, no horses
They cost just as much to build.

But the main reason I think is that the attack power is detached from the defence power. 50 knights cost the same as 50 longbows and 50 pikes. With the longbow/pike combo, when you are attacked, and lose, you are only losing 30 shields, as opposed to 70. You also retain the 4 attack - the longbow can still attack even though it's pike pare-up is destroyed.

So considering that one knight costs two units in the bow/pike combo, when you lose a knight, you are losing 2 units worth. when you lose in the combo, you are losing 1 unit's worth.

Also, in multiplayer, it takes at least 50 units to take out 50 knights. (in the perfect situation). However, 50 units will not take out the 100 pikes and longbows. You will lose the pikes, but have just as much attack power.

So it all boils down to:
Good:
1) The same cost to build
2) The attack is detached from the defence, so if you lose the defence, you keep the attack.
3)dont require horses, but are as good as knights.

Bads:
1) Costs 2x upkeep
2) Half as fast.
3) does'nt retreat.

Then again, if you can get pikes, you can get medieval infantry, which defeats the purpose of building longbowmen. But the strategy still applies - only this time it is a lot better that a knight in every way, except upkeep and speed. It is a viable strategy, only if you have the time - and the good enough opponents - to warrant doing it. The 50/50 pike/MI stack would be overkill for the effort against AI