Originally Posted by
Kilij Æ Varyl
Actually in terms of roster, I would dare say that the Turks have an even better roster than the crusaders. For one, the crusader spearmen only have 16 defense, which is equal to saracen militia. The dismounted hasham are equivalent to dismounted knights of Jerusalem/Antioch, but unlike the knights, hasham cost less upkeep and can get an armour upgrade. The Egyptian Tabardiyya are also quite excellent, but they are hard to get, so this is disregardable. Honestly I'm abit underwhelmed with KoJ's infantry selection, unless there's something I'm missing, it just seems worse. However you are probably right about the crusaders being able to dominate their foes very quickly. I simply lack the knowledge about the early game in the Levant to be able to make judgement there. In simple terms of roster though, I feel AR is perfectly fine in Crusades.
What do you guys think about possibly not having a TO player in a Teutonic hotseat? I for one, hate to limit others' choices, but really, 20 defence spearmen trainable from regular castle without barracks is completely ridiculous(not to mention the fact they start with a bunch and have four castles to train even more with), even in lead battles they are extremely hard to defeat. They also have other excellent units that will dominate regardless if lead battles or AR. Besides Teutonic campaign already has more factions than Britannia or Crusades, so taking TO out wouldn't be too bad in that regard.
Bookmarks