Difference between knights

**Ryanus** · 07-05-2010, 18:36

Hello, I just noticed that in the French unit roster there are three night units with very similar stats; chivalric knights, noble knights, and lancers. I believe they all have identical attack, charge, and secondary weapon stats. Lancers have slightly less defense since they lack a shield. I was just wondering what the purpose behind this is? Are there any significant differences between these units? Other factions, such as the Polish, also have several heavy calvary units with similar stats.

**Ryanus** · 07-06-2010, 18:07

No one have any ideas? It would seem weird that as France's latest calvary, one of its unique units, and, as the unit description puts it, "the ultimate evolution of the medieval knight", the lancer wouldn't be inferior to the chivalric knight. However, if the lancer has any advantages over its earlier, more common, and cheaper counterpart it is not obvious.

**Iberia Auxilia** · 07-07-2010, 09:04

For me, I think Lancers are more disciplined than Chivalric knights, even though they have no shield defense values. So you can make some important exactly timed charges with lancers. Gendarmes may be most disciplined cavalry unit like its counterpart demi-lancers.
They won't charge without orders and they will perfectly obey your command. That does not mean your whole melee cavalry force should be professional (Gendarmes, Demi-lancers).
Chivalric Knights are still needed in holding the enemy cavalry and being outnumbered. And wait until spearmen aid in the fight. So knights are very much less disciplined and have very powerful morale. Lancers have both fair morale and discipline. And gendarmes are the best- disciplined and are not very good at morale. I never use lancers though. I use 2 units of chivalric knights and 2 units of gendarmes. Use gendarmes to charge at swordsmen and use the knights to deal with archers.

**Myth** · 07-07-2010, 10:18

I don't play factions that focus on heavy cav simply because getting Hospitaliers is so easy and they are top-tier cav anyway, but they don't charge without orders! Pretty much any Catholic nation can get Hospitaliers and get the great cav. So England doesn't really have a Cav disadvantage, only pikes/spears.

**Ryanus** · 07-07-2010, 15:22

Hmmm, well according to http://totalwar.honga.net/ chivalric knights, noble knights, and lancers all have the same moral, discipline, and training stats. They do have different mounts; barded horse for chivalric knights, mailed for noble, and armored for lancers. Does anyone know if this has an effect or is it just visual? At this point I'm really just wondering what the point of all these units are. Perhaps there is know substantial difference and its just to add aesthetic variety, but this wouldn't make much sense to me in terms of game design.

**Magraev** · 07-12-2010, 13:13

The type of horse does make a difference. The mounts have different amounts of armor, mass (penetrating power) and speed. I can't remember the specifics.

Also if lancers and chivalric knights have the same defence value it's a safe bet that the lancers have more armor (and no shield). So they are better protected from the right, sides and back than the chivalrics. Finally you can maybe build some of those in cities (not sure), and that would be an advantage too.

Lancers, nobles and chivalric knights are both clearly better than hospitaller knights, but they are all good heavy cav.

**Myth** · 07-12-2010, 14:14

Well they are better but do remember that England also gets Retinue Longbowmen, Armoured Swordsmen and Dism. English Knights, whilst France gets the (inferior) Scotts Guard and Dism. Chivalric Knights. (and also Armoured Sergeants which are nice)