That pathetic Byz Infantry...

[caravel]

I suspect Khwarazmians were added: a) for "flavor"; and b) to give the Eggies a heavier cav unit that wasn't "Ghulam". Which would be fine by me--while I prefer historical accuracy, I'm not exremely anal about it--but as we've all said before, they're just not powerful enough to justify their cost and high building requirements. I admit I usually recruit a couple units of them for variety's sake, but they've never formed the bulk of my cavalry corps.

Possibly, though the Fatimids/Ayyubids/Mamluks didn't make use of them historically. Though I'm pretty sure the Turks and Mongols did.

Hmm...

I personally love Kwarazmiams, and I've used them to good effect. If yer economy isn't solid by the time you can build them, and you need to be concerned about their cost, well yeah... you've definitely got other things to worry about.

I've just found it really useful to have something THAT heavily armoured which can move faster than both Goths and Katanks.

Plus, by the time I've teched up to Kwazarmiams, I've usually expanded my empire to the point where fighting in the desert isn't even a consideration.

Each to their own, I guess.

Very valid points in the defense of Khwarazmian Cavalry. I find that, with Khwarazmians I expect them to be able to take on similarly heavy cavalry, such as Chivalric Knights, Mongol Heavy and Kataphraktoi if needed. But they just aren't a match for those. When flanking I will use the fastest cavalry with the strongest charge, that I can easily pull out quickly to charge again (AHC in most cases). I just don't see a gap in my typical unit lineup for Khwarazmians. The only time I've seen them remotely useful is as reserve cavalry in extremely defensive situations under fire from the mongol horse archers. It's useful to be well armoured in such situations.

My annoyance is, that with the abundance of Turkish cavalry available historically, why the Khwarazmians and Armenians? And why are the Sipahi so pathetic?