View Full Version : Which knights are the best?
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-31-2003, 23:35
I was wondering what people thought about the different types of knight. Are Gothic Knights worth the money? Are 20 Royal Knights any use? How about all of the crusade Knights? I have used Knights templar, but none of the others. And what is the(adopt booming voice now)"ULTIMATE KNIGHT"?
Kats or Pronoiai Allagion these are really good and will smash through anything EVEN other knights http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
kats are slow but make up for it being big and powerful and the allagion are powerul almost the same as kats but faster
Kongamato
02-01-2003, 01:27
Get your @$$ to the War Academy at Totalwarassembly.com and use the compare tools Here is the breakdown according to me:
The Early Period:
Knights Hospitaller, Santiago, and Teutonic Knights all have equal stats. Knights Templar have the same stats, but a charge value 4 less than what the rest of the crusader Knights have. Second to these Knights are the Kataphractoi, Pronoiai Allagion, and Feudal Knights. Beneath that are Armenian Heavy Cav, Khwarazmian Cav, Teutonic Sarges, Boyars(not available) and Bodyguard Cav.
The High Period:
Lancers are without doubt the strongest all-around cav in the game. Whether they are "Knights" is up to your interpretation. Chivalric Knights come next, having equal stats with all of the crusader Knights(except for Templars(charge)) High Royal Knights have equal stats, but are at an unfavorable price for half the size.
The Late Period:
Make this a tie between Lancers and Gothic Knights. The armor-piercing maces of the GKs put them up there with Lancers in pure combat effectiveness. The two can harm the enemy in equal ways. After that are the Late Royal Knights, who have equal stats to Lancers but a size issue.
So... Who are the best?
Early Period:
Knights Hospitaller.
They are Dismountable into Hospitaller Foot Knights, who can serve as heavy infantry, and have the strongest stats too.
High:
Lancers are the best pure Cavalry, but second place goes to the Hospitallers again, for their dismounting option. The HFK's beat out other dismounted knights, such as Feudal foot and Chivalric Foot.
Late:
Gothic Knights. No playable faction can match the heavy weapons of the Gothic system of warfare. They can dismount into Gothic Foot Knights and rule as inf too.
Michael the Great
02-01-2003, 01:44
I believe Hospitaller Foot Knights have around the same stats as Gothic Foot Knights..except that armour piercing wich Gothic Foot Knights shouldn't get,coz by looking at their swords up close,I couldn't notice any major difference between them and the ones that Feudal Men At Arms and Chivalric MAA are using...
ahh.. thanks for this, not much i didnt know, but it all helps
Dramicus
02-02-2003, 01:34
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 31 2003,18:44)]
Quote[/b] ]I couldn't notice any major difference between them and the ones that Feudal Men At Arms and Chivalric MAA are using...
Well, the MAA use onehanded longswords and shields while the gothic inf use what looks like a two-handed greatsword It get ap simply for the fact that It can cut men in two just like halberds...
Have you ever seen a claymore? or braveheart for that matter? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Efrem Da King
02-02-2003, 11:33
Your forgeting one vital fact. Knights santiago aren't impetous.
Leet Eriksson
02-02-2003, 12:45
Gothic knights can crap everything,and on foot they can crap even the heaviest infantry(including swiss pikemen)
how about craperapkoi ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-02-2003, 20:36
Kats. are great early on, but get outclassed by later Catholic Knights.
powdermonkey
02-03-2003, 13:19
I love those metal covered Gothic boys - they can really devastate enemy lines in the charge, and they melee pretty well, too.
Still, Kats are my favourite, even if they are soo slow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
NateEngle
02-25-2003, 21:46
Given the structures required to build them, I've only ever been able to build Gothics once, and then only after I was powerful enough not to really need them. They were fun, but just not very timely.
Given my druthers I go for plain old Chivalrics, mainly because it's realistic to expect to be able to build them while there's still some suspense about how the game is going to go, and they have the flexibility of being able to dismount into a sort of super-halberdier. It's true that Kats are very impressive, but I find the Byzantine unit mix way too constricting for my enjoyment - the lack of advanced spearmen or polearms really crimps my style of play.
Knight_Yellow
02-25-2003, 22:18
heres sumthing u wont expect but holibars is the best calv by miles.
there cheap as hell and are so cheap u can upgrade the hell out of them.
seriously 3 units of my holibars just killed over 200 lancers and about 80 gothic knights in 1 game (there was some careful micro management though) they later whent on to kill the enemy gen on one of those horses with carpets on them and ran down about 200 passive arbs.
all that for 5000 florins is not half bad.
Brutal DLX
02-26-2003, 10:49
The best by stats, I think Kongamato pointed that out. My fav. Knight unit, probably the Feudal Knights. You get them quite early and they are the best you can field for a while, and the building requirements aren't that high either.
NateEngle
02-26-2003, 20:39
Feudal knights have quite good stats for their timeframe, but their support costs are back-breaking and their lack of barding makes their horses easy pickings for archers.
Given my druthers I'd prefer plain old mounted sergeants - the MS also have a full 8 charge bonus for lance, and their horses are unbarded just like the feudal knights, but they cost a lot less over time (and upkeep is the real long term expense involved in building and maintaining any unit).
In the early period I'm not particularly impressed with any knights, or any other unit whose countermeasure is so far less costly than the unit itself. That's an objection I also have to nizaris, or most any of the late-era Turkish janissary units. The structures required to build them (and the time they take to construct) just make me sick to my stomach when some stinking saharan cav comes whipping up and chops them to ribbons while I'm busy looking at something else on the battlefield.
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-26-2003, 21:05
I like using knights, not just because they are effective, but because they are bound inextricably with the period. They are part of the background and ethos, and total war without knights just feels wrong. Even if they do impetuously charge a bunch of SAP's and die horribly, I love them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Lord Of Storms
02-27-2003, 08:21
Good Knighthttp://images.animfactory.com/animations/war/medieval_knights/knight_armored_archduke_preattack_md_blk.gif
Brutal DLX
02-27-2003, 11:45
Quote[/b] (NateEngle @ Feb. 26 2003,19:39)]Feudal knights have quite good stats for their timeframe, but their support costs are back-breaking and their lack of barding makes their horses easy pickings for archers.
Given my druthers I'd prefer plain old mounted sergeants - the MS also have a full 8 charge bonus for lance, and their horses are unbarded just like the feudal knights, but they cost a lot less over time (and upkeep is the real long term expense involved in building and maintaining any unit).
In the early period I'm not particularly impressed with any knights, or any other unit whose countermeasure is so far less costly than the unit itself. That's an objection I also have to nizaris, or most any of the late-era Turkish janissary units. The structures required to build them (and the time they take to construct) just make me sick to my stomach when some stinking saharan cav comes whipping up and chops them to ribbons while I'm busy looking at something else on the battlefield.
I do know what upkeep costs are about, but you will find that your mounted seargents will lose in melee against any other unit, unless they are very high valour. And sometimes you just can't do the charge, disengage, charge again routine. Sometimes you have to slug it out.
I use MS too, but along with regular knights. True, the FK can be susceptible to missiles, but then , so are most units.
Cavalry is mobile, and if you get shot at then just stay out of the way or charge their archery. I can rarely recall any situation where I kept my knights under misslile fire without them doing anything useful. So that is not one of my biggest concerns.
Lancers are the best. Gothic knights are way too slow. Also, Lancers have a higher charge value and higher melee value. IIRC, the enemy unit needs to be 4 armor for cavalry and 5 for infantry before Gothic knights will have equal melee to Lancers. They need to be 6 for cavalry and 7 for infantry for them to be better than Lancers.
Gothic knights are generally better against heavy cavalry but Lancers are generally better against most other units.
A.Saturnus
02-27-2003, 17:13
Mounted sgts are quiet usefull when you handle them carefully. Their high charge value can help to break most inf when flanked. And that for a very low price. That makes them definitely better than Hobilars, at least in SP. When you consider the upkeep, Byz cav is weak. Most other heavy cav is superior to them and cheaper. Their only real advantage is that you get a lot of them with heirs and the Byz have the money to pay them. That`s what makes them so dominant in the early years. Pronoiai Allagion are far too expensive. For the same price, Muslims can have 2 units AHC and AHC are only slightly weaker.
JHI defeated by Saharan cav? I have to see this What I`ve see is JHI shreddering Katas. In my Turkish campaign JHI killed everything they faced, but of course, I`ve you aren`t careful and let you units be flanked, every elite unit can be wasted.
In general, I`ve good experience with medium and heavy cav.
Teutonic Knight
02-27-2003, 17:37
G0THIC Knights baby Smash some heads W00t
Quote[/b] (faisal @ Feb. 02 2003,05:45)]Gothic knights can crap everything,and on foot they can crap even the heaviest infantry(including swiss pikemen)
Try a custom battle sometime with SAP v. GFK. I tried several one day, and the SAP won each.
GFK are indeed formidable, but with all other factors even, SAP beats any unit in the game. GFK do beat JHI though.
Gothics and Lancres are indeed the best knights. Royal Knights are underestimated IMO. Even with only 20 men they are quite good, particularly when you have a leader with good V&Vs, most common with royal blood commanders, aka - royal knight units.
The AI on the other hand, seems to think Royal Knights are invincible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
MacGregor
03-01-2003, 08:35
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 31 2003,18:44)]I believe Hospitaller Foot Knights have around the same stats as Gothic Foot Knights..except that armour piercing wich Gothic Foot Knights shouldn't get,coz by looking at their swords up close,I couldn't notice any major difference between them and the ones that Feudal Men At Arms and Chivalric MAA are using...
Gothic Knighs don't have swords. They have Maces. That's were their AP ablities come from.
Quote[/b] (andrewt @ Feb. 27 2003,05:15)]Lancers are the best. Gothic knights are way too slow. Also, Lancers have a higher charge value and higher melee value. IIRC, the enemy unit needs to be 4 armor for cavalry and 5 for infantry before Gothic knights will have equal melee to Lancers. They need to be 6 for cavalry and 7 for infantry for them to be better than Lancers.
Gothic knights are generally better against heavy cavalry but Lancers are generally better against most other units.
I think you have misunderstood something.
AP vs infantry works from Armour 3 since the patch, so the Gothics are equal to the Lancers from Armour 3 on any infantry (just don't forget the more powerful Lancer charge). So at cavalry armour 6 and infantry armour 5 the Gothics are better.
But you are right the Lancers are generally better. They are faster and have a better charge and are generally more powerful.
Michael the Great
03-01-2003, 20:29
Quote[/b] (MacGregor @ Mar. 01 2003,01:35)]
Quote[/b] (Michael the Great @ Jan. 31 2003,18:44)]I believe Hospitaller Foot Knights have around the same stats as Gothic Foot Knights..except that armour piercing wich Gothic Foot Knights shouldn't get,coz by looking at their swords up close,I couldn't notice any major difference between them and the ones that Feudal Men At Arms and Chivalric MAA are using...
Gothic Knighs don't have swords. They have Maces. That's were their AP ablities come from.
i was talking about GOTHIC FOOT KNIGHTS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Leet Eriksson
03-01-2003, 20:37
Gothic knights are the best.just when you see those JHI in the battlefield dismount your Gothics.lancers will get reduced to so much dogfood by JHI,becuase they can't dismount http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Michael the Great
03-01-2003, 20:46
Yes,yes,yes...but why the AP for Gothic Foot Knights?
They have swords(and not even gallow-like swords,but they look much more common).
I think a ton of armor that they wear is enough.
Also,they're not that great in the desert,where JHI will tear them apart.
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-02-2003, 19:42
The heavy 2 handed swords that GFK's use were, historically, capable of splitting a heavily armoured knight(and his horse)in half. This is, I believe, were the AP comes from.
I think AP does not literally mean "armour piercing" - it means relatively good against armour. A two-handed sword might give a sufficient blow to concuss or knock down a well-armoued opponent. And once he is on the floor, disarming him or using a strong dagger to find a weak point in the armour might be sufficient. I would regard a two-handed sword as primarily doing "bludgeoning" damage against a plate armoured opponent, rather than piercing damage. Maces are AP for similar reasons.
I was reading a fascinating if morbid link on what people have found by examining the bones of the dead in Towton, a battle in the War of the Roses. Few had evidence of wounds to the body, implying they were well protected by armour. Many had horrific injuries to the head, probably due to polearms and such like.
Kongamato
03-04-2003, 01:43
Many medieval warriors carried a "Mercy Dagger", a long, thin stabbing knife that would kill an incapacitated man by insertion into the eye socket or weak point in the armor. I am guessing a skeleton would not display the damage caused by such a wound.
Hakonarson
03-04-2003, 02:41
Oooh oohhh.....I remember this thread from teh original board http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
IIRC the correct answer is..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hot Summer Knights in White Satin
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.