Knights are not that good!

[Dr_Who]

My experiance with knights is that they have little value. On oh lets normal, being the byz, I have managed to chop up countless formations of knights with little trouble.

[Dr_Who]

I made use of byz inf. and trebizond archers. If you put the infantry in an inverted circle with the archers in a thin line up front. You could kill any knight with ease. Nowadays I just use Pronai Allagion and Kataphaktoi for flanking.

The computer has this thing about trying to use knights to flank every time and it only gets him into trouble. If he attacks the flank he is mobbed by the inf. and my cav. If he hits the center he goes through several volleys of arrows and gets mobbed by inf.

[SmokWawelski]

Either way somebody has to die. The realities of life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

I do not know of what type of knights are you talking about, but I am most unhappy with first unit, the feudal knights. They are OK, but very expensive in terms of upkeep. I guess it is accurate historically, but I very, very rarely use them. I try to build Hobby cavs, Mounted Sergs, and then go straight to chivalric knights... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Dr_Who]

any mounted knight can be beaten with this tactic, now if they were foot knights I would have to adjust http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, you are right, any horsemen can be beaten like that. That is exactly why none but the very experienced players bring all cavalry armies to battle.
Properly supported by foot soldiers, any cavalry units can do terrible damage, even to this particular defensive formation.
As for Feudal Knights, they are the best cavalry you will have for a while, and I don't find the support cost too high. They can win against most Islamic mounted units and can win easily against MAA and CMA, as well as spearmen if you manage to flank or get into the rear.

[LadyAnn]

Yes, you are right, any horsemen can be beaten like that. That is exactly why none but the very experienced players bring all cavalry armies to battle.

Err... do I read this correctly?

I thought only very few experienced players use all cavalry, and many newbies try it, especially when they encountered Amp.

Annie
ps.: But otherwise underestimating the power of the knights is a mistake.

[Dr_Who]

I'm notunderestimating them, its just they seem useless when they are mounted. Now I use foot-knights sometimes but they just don't seem to be worth it for their price.

[Acronym]

Dr_Who
I know what your talking about, you just gotta come across someone who knows how to use cav. Knights work very well if you use them correctly, just like any unit.

[Foreign Devil]

Knights can be very powerful, but like any other unit, they have their strengths and their weaknesses. You should't expect to be able to throw then into any situation and have them come out on top.

Knights, and any mounted unit for that matter, offer superior mobility. Using this mobility effectively, i.e., flanking or rear attacks, is the key to effective use of knights. Although they can also be used to make effective frontal assaults, especially heavily armored shock troops such as Kataphractoi and Gothics, you have to exercise care in choosing when and against what type of unit.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, like any military resource, you must use knights properly for them to be effective.

[Exile]

The AI does not use knights very well. The AI often marches them straight up to your lines , allowing the palyer to concentrate on them (although I've had them charge and break my lines a few times). The AI seems to have no problem sending knights into the woods - doh. However, knights are a very formidable unit. A strong unit or two of knights has saved my rear many a time.

You can only get 16 units on the battlemap at one time and few units can take and dish out punishment like knights, plus they're mobile. There's nothing like a flank or rear charge of knights to reduce an enemy unit to a few scattered, routing troops.

-Knights trump strong infantry like CMAA.
-Knights can get at the enemy archers and kill them easily (whereas my Hobilars have been humiliated by crossbowmen more than once.)
-besides knight-like units like the Kata. and Pronoi, no unit can do more immediate damage to an enemy than charging knights.
-their morale is superb, they will usually fight to the last man, this virtue can turn a pending defeat into victory.
-placed behind a defensive formation, they can rush quickly to whatever point the enemy may threaten
-knights can withstand great punishment, allowing a retreat if necessary or buying time for reinforcements to arrive.
-knight units are likely to have command stars
-infantry losing to calvary suffers a large big morale penalty. Knights can route low morale infantry armies (like urban militia & peasents) quite easily.


Check out the Great Dane's thread 'big battle' to see how tough facing an army of knights can be

[Odyssey of War]

Using infantry as a shock force against spearmen provides a good front moving unit for support in the use of knights. Knights can then take advantage of the spearmen facing the infantry and knights can be used to attack the spearmen in the flank or to mow down archers. In this use, knights can be a superb fighting force with a lot of potential for inflicting lots of damage. So in my opinion, knights are very good units, whose potential is not fully utilized by some people.

[bosdur]

Fresh knights can overturn the tide of battle, make ur infantry fought the enemy hard and make them running around while keeping your knight fresh somewhere, and then after they're at 1 bar, charge with ur fresh knights. It's sad that knights cant really be used honorably (charging heads on) unless fighting another horsemen or weak swords unit.

[Brutal DLX]

LadyAnn, maybe I should rephrase.
Only very few experienced players bring all cavalry armies and still have a chance to win. Is that better?

[Knight_Yellow]

but put those knights in the hands of a human general and watch them run ur little purple guys into the ground.

[Leet Eriksson]

in my countless mp battles i have defeated chivalric knights with mamelukes,khawarizmians or sipahi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif its just that knights don't fare well when flanked.knights are only good at charging head on imo,and did'nt have much use of them excpet for lancers,kats and gothics(they do serious damage).

[A.Saturnus]

fighting the Byz I found Knights very usefull given that they don`t have any higher spear units. Knights are the best way to deal with Guards and when you manage to bring chiv Knights in the back of Byz inf, THEY are useless. The AI just doesn`t use them well because Knights aren`t are "charge-and-forget"-unit but need the right tactic.

[Hasek]

My favorite calv would have to be Boyars they totally own western knights. I started A people of Novgorod campaign last night and wow when I started using them they won combat every time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif So I went online and my decked out Boyars totally destroyed around double there number of Chiv mounted knights. As for feudal knights I've always had good experiences with em maybe because I try and keep them from charging spear units head on, otherwise the only other mounted knights that I've seen be worth anything would be the order knights.

[A.Saturnus]

When feudal knights are worth their price, chiv knights must be too, it`s not possible otherwise. Feudals are in no way better than chiv.

[Husar]

In my game as spanish I have had Lancers with al upgrades and i could even use them against Saracen Infantry one from the front and another one from the rear. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
But I like knights very much and I use them very often for rear attacks, because if you attack in the rear with chivalric knights most often even the best spearmen will run. But I also agree, that the AI doesn´t always use them properly.

[Knight_Yellow]

boyars suck vs ponies trust me


my holibars can be upgraded enough since their so cheap that they cut through LANCERS never mind boyars.

PS. thats a head on charge btw there was no flanking my elite holibars took out val 2 lancers. 120 of them infact.

[A.Saturnus]

Maybe v9 peasants slaughter VGs but in SP you don`t get that good Hobilars. Even mounted sgts will rout them all the time and cost the same.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 22 2003,09:08)]boyars suck vs ponies trust me


my holibars can be upgraded enough since their so cheap that they cut through LANCERS never mind boyars.

PS. thats a head on charge btw there was no flanking my elite holibars took out val 2 lancers. 120 of them infact.
Lets look at that for a moment.

V4 Hobs are: (charge/melee/defense/armour/morale) 6/6/6/3/10

V0 Lancers are: 8/5/7/9/8 a fair match for the V4 Hobs
V2 Lancers are: 8/7/9/9/12 an impossible match for the V4 Hobs

Clearly you didn't face V2 Lancers or else you fought them under greatly favourable conditions. In all cases there would be no cutting through, more like an equal match.

[Lord of the Isles]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 22 2003,14:57)]Clearly you didn't face V2 Lancers or else you fought them under greatly favourable conditions. In all cases there would be no cutting through, more like an equal match.

Maybe he was using Elite Woodsmen? It's easy to confuse them with Holibars and Elite Woodsmen would decimate Lancers.

[Mr Frost]

I always like to have four heavy cavalry units in my armies , and in early catholic factions , that means Feudals . I find them quite usefull . In the 1092 mod {by Paladin} all catholic factions have one province that can produce Feudal Knights and a unit in that province already to fight with the bronze sheild upgrade making them more dangerous against plain {no upgrades} starting units like basic spears and Urban Militia {so you have to be more wary in your out lying provinces which border catholic factions} .

It all depends on personal preferance I suppose . How you prefer to fight will determine a lot of your success with a given army as we {humanbeings} generally tend like what were good at , and dislike what were not good at . Some will be better with infantry , some with cavalry .

Perhaps this is one reason why the Romans prefered infantry : their early commanders were better with infantry than cavalry and this became tradition {which is hard for a society to change} , whereas the Scithians might have got a series of leaders better by far with cavalry than infantry and then having developed the tast for cavalry , moved to where their armies needs were best met {the open grass plains of Steppe country} .

[Dr_Who]

good point