 |
| |
|
|
Like2frolick
|
|
St Louis, Mo, USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I've noticed one of the things lots of people have said is "use vet vrusaders in battle line" etc etc.
Why?
A crusader has 2 move, and an attack of 7.5, when Veteran. Against a Phalanx (2+1+1+4) That just might be enough to win...against a pikeman, it proberably isn't.
So, what we have here is a big, expensive unit, which, if it's attacked by a cheap archer (or a WARRIOR for God's sake!) will die.
Now, Knights I like. They have a 6* attack, and a 3* defense...and they move for 2. They can kill a non-walled city, and they can kill "loose" units with little trouble.
Now...I've seen some people talking about how you should use Settlers to build a fortress right outside the gates, and stack defensive units on top of 2-3 catapaults. This seems like a reasonable suggestion
Catapault:9* attack....against pikemen or Phalanx, it will almost guarantee a kill(Thanks for that idea, BTW)
So, my question is....why Build crusaders?  I mean...they have to end a turn away from the enemy, or stacked with a good defensive unit, which reduces mobility significantly, while Knights can ride on up next to the enemy, and take whatever they throw at-em.
In addition, you get Knights/Catapaults sooner...
So, I was wondering, is there some kind of uber-strategt I could use, where Crusaders are cool? I mean, if so many good players say that Crusaders are good, then they must be good for SOMETHING....I just need to know what. 
Why would you build a fragile unit which has a good chance of Losing offensively to a walled city, and a great chance of losing if attacked, when you could get a Knight, stack it with a catapault, and have a good chance of keeping both units?
------------------
I dunno. I think nukes are cool..If you're the only one who has em.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
good point. I don't believe anyone has ever built one in the history of the game.
I like knights myself. I rarely do much conquering in that time. But in alexander scenarios they work good in conjunction with catapults and archers. I don't even build fortresses many times. I feel my archer can defend against most units if it is on hills or better. although every once in a while a catapult will take out my stack. I try to use 2 or 3 separate stacks of 3 units. knight/catapult/archer. The ai is hopeless to defend against this strategy.
since you have the asterick I'm sure you know the knight attack is 4 and the crusader is 5. But their defense isn't so hot. So I usually stick with knights. In my above strategy I use knights to kill all loose units. so they need to have some shot at defending against a pikeman or phalanx. although archers will probably take them on flat ground.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited December 15, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martin Schmidt
|
|
Germany
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Hi,
Crusaders bonus attack can make a real difference
against a veteran phalanx . Because they are the
cheaper unit i would consider them better .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sieve Too
|
|
New Hampshire, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
Here's another vote for Crusaders over Knights. When AI or Barb Legions are coming at me over hills and forests, I'll take the extra attack strength of the Crusader any day over the weaker Knight.
The Knight's additional defense generally isn't a factor the way I play. Any early attacker (Archer, Legion, Knight, Elephant, even Horseman) can defeat or at least critically damage a Knight. Sure you can move your Knight into the hills or mountains, but then you lose the Knight's mobility, which is why you probably built it in the first place.
As Ming noted, Knights are usually off my normal tech paths, while Crusaders fall right on it. If you plan to use the Warriors-to-Musketeers trick with Leo, going after Knights early drastically reduces your window of oppurtunity with el cheapo Warriors.
All that being said, I still build Knights once they become available. They keep up with my conquering Crusaders and Diplos but unlike them, they can actually defend a city for while if I need to slow up my advance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
suas333
|
|
Brooklyn, NY, U.S
Feb 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I use crusaders, no knights at all. I get monotheism early anyway, and i never research chivalry until real late. And thats not even counting the barb knights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
CRUSADERS without a doubt. After monarchy the next thing i go for is monotheism, you get Mike's and Crusaders all on the same tech path - plus if you play it right you're the first to get philosophy which means one free tech on the way. Keeping that in mind, with a crusader i can get an offensive 5 unit way quicker than getting an offensive 4 unit, with a knight. At that point in the game it is the most powerful unit in play, by far. Most cities won't even have walls yet. In fact crusaders are pretty much dominant on offense until you start running into riflemen w/city walls, and that usually takes quite awhile. As far as the defense is concerned who cares - I got my fortified phalanxes or muskateers playing defense where defense belongs - in my cities. In addition, Crusaders are upgradable with Leo's and share alot of the same techs as invention (i would have to look but i think more techs in common than chivalry)
[This message has been edited by Deity Dude (edited December 16, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Like2frolick
|
|
St Louis, Mo, USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Hmmm..... Must try Crusaders, then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ken Hinds
|
|
Peanut Gallary comment here. To get free Knight's with Leo's you need a lot of fairly useless (IMO) horsemen, but free Cruisader's can be had from fairly useful elephants.
Ken
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Off-topic meta question:
How do you include quotes in your post which name the original poster?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maelhavok
|
|
Seattle,Wa. USA
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Horsies? I like Horsies.
Horsemen are good scouts, and early game are indispensable for preemtive strikes. Their ability to catch the Barbarian leader $$ never goes away. Plus they enforce morale as well as any. With roads in my core cities, a few horse can rush to morale flare ups as well as enable me to use economy of force concepts. Not to mention, they're cheap. Finally, Leo's always makes me wish I had built more of them, 'cause knights are so much better.
Knights are everything that Horsmen are but better (cost more too). They fight as well as a legion but with all the advantages of mobility. They can move and fortify! In civs with roads or river squares they are potent scouts/strike units as they can cover 3 squares and be attack-ready and still move 2 squares and fortify (My tactic for sweeping held water and roadways is 3 out 2 back and F).
Elephants aren't horsies.
Crusaders I think of as mobile cannon. They are excellent city crackers, but don't let a bee sting them or they will die.
Utilizing your mobile army for maximum benifit is one of my favorite aspects of the conquest side of Civ2. The AI Monguls are always such a disappointment.
Merry Holidays,
Maelhavok
P.S. Pikemen are evil
P.P.S. Really
[This message has been edited by Maelhavok (edited December 23, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Matthew
|
|
Manhattan, Kansas . USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
Chivalry is on the tech path for leadership. Monotheism is not. In fact, if you're not going to get MC, you may be better off doing without mono for a while. Build collosseums first instead of Cathedrals. I'm sure that a lot can be said for getting leadership early, especially if you get it well before some big plump civ out there has had a chance to upgrade many units to musketeers.
On the other hand, if you are going to go for an early attack with mobile units, you probably would like Feudalism to not even be in the game yet. If you have it, your intended victim can get it either by stealing it from you, from the GL as soon as someone else gets it, or from retaking a city you captured. And you need Feudalism to get Chivalry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ken Hinds
|
|
My biggest complaint about Feudalism/Chivalry is that some yoyo gets Feudalism and right away the bararians start having pikeman and if anyone has ever noticed they also seem to have their own private Tsung-Tsu's. If you don't kill the sucker then your vet 2 move unit is toast if he ever gets back to even yellow let along green. And not long after feudalism rears its head you start seeing caravels dumping out 5 or 6 knights on your doorstep.
One thing that I do find useful about the situation, if I could only control it better, is finding several huts on that the opposition missed amoung their cities and having 8 knights pop out when you tip the hut. That way I don't have to waste troops attacking their cities. The barbs will do that for me and then for a modest fee I get the city and the some of the remaining knights.
Ken
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2000 11:00
) is notorious for leaving lots of cities thinly defended. If you do run into a stiff defense, the extra 1.5 attack factor can be crucial. According to the generally-accepted algorithm for combat resolution, any difference between atttack factor and defense factor is effectively doubled, so seemingly small differences in attack can make a big difference in practice.
|