Knights or Swordmen?

[Gio L'Uomo Focaccina]

Which one suits you better in your playstile?

[hazekel]

I usually have 12 knights and 100 swordsman. The knights are just too expensive to produce in large quantities and 100 or more swordsman, with proper backup and protection, are essential to taking down one of your opponents.

[Joe Coffee]

Originally posted by hazekel:

I usually have 12 knights and 100 swordsman. The knights are just too expensive to produce in large quantities and 100 or more swordsman, with proper backup and protection, are essential to taking down one of your opponents.

Wrong. They are only expensive if you're sitting around not develping your economy. If you have a very efficient stockpile/granary/distance to resources, you can levy +4 taxes with the tradefoff of + so-and-so to your pub, church, and food to your populace.

Knights are much stronger than swordsmen but, as you pointed out, more expensive. You could just pump out swords and zerg the enemy, provided they aren't countering with crossbows. Knights on horseback are more mobile and can close the distance to the enemy lord before the horses are shot out from under them and then they can trudge in close for killing.

Personally, I love seeing the enemy lord crap himself when a huge Templar force climbs to the top of his perch and begins to make scrambled eggs out of his brains.

[Gio L'Uomo Focaccina]

Originally posted by Snidely Whiplash:

Originally posted by hazekel:

I usually have 12 knights and 100 swordsman. The knights are just too expensive to produce in large quantities and 100 or more swordsman, with proper backup and protection, are essential to taking down one of your opponents.

Wrong. They are only expensive if you're sitting around not develping your economy. If you have a very efficient stockpile/granary/distance to resources, you can levy +4 taxes with the tradefoff of + so-and-so to your pub, church, and food to your populace.

Knights are much stronger than swordsmen but, as you pointed out, more expensive. You could just pump out swords and zerg the enemy, provided they aren't countering with crossbows. Knights on horseback are more mobile and can close the distance to the enemy lord before the horses are shot out from under them and then they can trudge in close for killing.

Personally, I love seeing the enemy lord crap himself when a huge Templar force climbs to the top of his perch and begins to make scrambled eggs out of his brains.

Okay, I used to do this on Stronghold 3 because knights costed x2.5 of a swordman and Honor was easy to get. But here they cost as 5 swordmen. The total melee capability of 1 Knight is inferior to 5 swordmen.

I am not sure about the total missile resistance compared, i will test it. Still, they seem a bit too expensive to me. The only advantage you get is that they can be fully healed back (if they survive) and that they can ride horses.

[hazekel]

Since we are on this topic, how do the Sergeant at Arms compare. I used to ignore them but have found that they may be almost as powerful as the Knight but a little cheaper to produce. I haven't done much with them yet so I don't really know if they are worth it, but they buff power is great. I learned that the hard way when I tried to take out the Wolf. He always uses Sergeant at Arms to protect himself.

[Gio L'Uomo Focaccina]

A Sergeant loses to a Swordman and costs 4 times as him. Simple as that. But yeah they aura is great so having 3 or 4 when sieging is good. Also they are very useful when put on a tower to buff bowmen.

[76561198250602744]

100 swordsmen vs 12 fire carts = ?