Difference between knights

**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)