 |
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:27
|
|
Ok in most games it's essential to have Knights - they run over anicent era opponents and upgrade cheaply to Cavalry, BUT in my recent game i discovered a distinct advantage in NOT researching this tech.
I was on a map where I had a lot of Room to expand, even afte the Ancient era i was still building settler's here and there, so war at this point was daft. I knew soon however, I'd need to take some blood, but my cities werent developed. My Answer? Skipping Chivalry and beelining for MT
This meant that I coudnt build Knights but as I already had leo's the steep upgrade woudnt be too bad afterall. So in the coming turns I got many cities producing Horsemen, because horsemen are so cheap I managed to get my Top cities churnign them out every 2/3 turns meaning that when MT came round I had dozens of Horsemen to upgrade. Since I find Gold easier to come accross than Shields it was no problem raising the neccesary for all the Upgrades.
The Beuty was that for those few turns where science went to raising that extra gold I got back when after a very sucessful war I got many techs out of my opponents.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
monkeyman
|
 |
Monkeysville, USA
Sep 2001 time: 23:27
|
|
Being by nature, a pacifist builder-type, I almost never researched Chivalry, but instead built up my cities and went straight to MT. Only in a recent game as the Aztecs, where I was constantly liberating opressed citizens of the other, evil regimes , did I accidentally acquire Chivalry. It was helpful to keep the liberation campaigns running and was worth giving up my jaguar warriors for (I deliberately didn't hook up iron so I wouldn't have to build swords). I think when you expect that large break in action, though, Knights are pretty redundent. I am thinking that maybe Chivalry/MilTrad is an either/or choice in most of my games, unless I can extort them from someone...
I recall, soon after Civ3 was released, it was widely told that Knights were useless. Does anyone remember that? I don't think they are useless, but they certainly aren't critical for me...
--mm
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Nor Me
|
|
I often skip Chivalry. If you're fighting at the right time a horse-knight upgrade can be useful but if not don't research it.
In my current game, I made the mistake of building horsemen instead of warriors. I could then have researched straight for Navigation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
King_Henry
|
|
Auburn Correctional Facility
Nov 2002 time: 00:27
|
|
Sorry to go against y'all, but Chivalry is major to me. I have a very early offensive, then a short break to replace my casualties. Then straight to Chivalry,upgrade all and boy, I control a third of the world! Basically, I need Chivalry.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:27
|
|
Depends on Game circumstances as well i Spose. Map size, # of opponents and difficulty level are major factors.
I just found it prefferential to have a different focus early medieval age than war, I've usually upgraded to Republic too which means i need to focus on having all my cities having good infrastructure.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
Rothy,
It boils down entirely to your playing style. Be a warmonger and you'll need Chivalry and MT, play a peacenik and the most powerful unit you'll ever build is often a spearman! (see the AU207 thread for an example).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002 time: 05:27
|
|
I'd have to say that I do most of my annexing during the middle ages, so I generally research Chivalry. And I always trade something to acquire it - perhaps Theology AFTER I build Sistine's, preferrably something less advanced - in case I get attacked out of the blue and need some knights to deter the attackers.
My research path is typically:
Feudalism - Monotheism - Theology - Engineering - Invention - then if I've got Sun Tzu's already and I'm ready to take on my neighbors, esp. ironless ones - Chivalry. But I'll gladly put off Chivalry and take Education, Music Theory and Gunpowder.
Still, the knight is a wonderful unit, and used creatively can take down even a powerful opponent. True, beelining for MT will net you the Cavalry. But is it worth veering that far off the beaten research path?
For the mediterranean powers, definitely so. Ain't no takin' on Carthage or Greece unless you can really pound 'em. Still, I like to prevent my enemies from building the big, great medival wonders, and that means using knights to either destroy, or permanently cripple, their empires.
If I've got a chivalry-related UU to trigger my GA with, I will research chivalry right off the bat, and then, as Mark (Groucho) said, "It's war!"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ephesos
|
|
For me, it really depends on the circumstances. I'll usually get Chivalry eventually, it's just when I'm at war that I really dash for it. Let's face it, often enough, the AI just never gets around to building Pikemen, so Knights can pretty much mow down any Ancient Age defense. Generally, in peaceful games it's just best to get Chivalry last and eventually get Military Tradition (I'm usually doing this). Cavalry are really a good quick strike in the later ages.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I tend to take out a neighbouring civ in the late ancient era using mainly swordsmen. That works very neatly as PTW allows a cheap upgrade to med inf so I usually have a lot of those about. I only go for chivalry if I need knights for further wars to clear my continent. Intercontinental invasions I generally leave until airpower becomes available.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002 time: 05:27
|
|
The more I play, the more I learn, and I recently I've gotten better at my knight assaults. I too consider the middle of the game the most important phase. I'll almost never SKIP chivalry... I'll certainly trade for it at the least... and in 66% of my games, I'll use knights for assaults on 1, 2 or 3 nations (one at a time, of course).
There are a FEW exceptions, however, that might make me skip chiv and go for MT. Notable are the Russians, and the Ottomans, with their wonderful UUs. Also, certain neighbors make me hesitate:
1. The Spanish, unless they're weak, give me pause. They seem to always be well defended. Of course, it's either knights vs. pikemen or cavs vs. muskets, which is a pretty close situation. Still, I want to make sure I can TRULY OVERWHELM the well-defended Spaniards.
2. The Celts seem to always be behind in tech, but have a beefy army. If they have iron, and I know I have to take them out, I'm likely to wait until MT, as I don't want to suffer counterattacks from GWs. Of course, wait 'til MT and you suffer counterattacks from Knights, so... (the plus side of the Celts seems to be that they're not real big on defending)
There are some others I'm queasy about, namely the industrious types, but for the most part, bring on the knights. I couldn't stand another turn of daylight.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Don Giovanni
|
|
quote: you cant? never noticed that before |
You can, unless you are playing the Indians (Iron is not needed for War Elephant).
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|