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 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.

Although Feudalism and Sun Tzu followed rapidly by Chivalry and Knights is an excellent strategy for early conquest, I find that it's utility on large maps (and now Giga maps - thanks Julius) is less than that of the 'happy route' racing for Monotheism (Crusaders) and Mike's. I use these (the Crusaders) to take out my immediate neighbours while I am still in Monarchy - then we go for the long haul probably leading to AC unless the great sleaze actually reaches the distant neighbours (not a common thing on a Giga map).

You are of course correct - given a simple choice a Knight is almost always superior to a Crusader, but in this game nothing is ever that simple!

P.S. added in Edit - and as far as 'perhaps beating a Phalanx' goes, my vet Crusaders have successfully taken walled cities with Musketeers (thankfully not vet) in defence - you lose some Crusaders, but you get the city!
____________
Scouse Git[1]

Ouch! I'd rather have barb archers and horsemen anyday!

BTW. Stacking a catapult with a knight hampers the knights mobility, n'est-ce pas?

I have found that knights stall far more quickly and suffer horrible losses to pikemen, whereas you will lose a few , but not nearly as many crusaders.

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.

quote: Originally posted by Sieve Too on 12-15-2000 11:44 AM The Knight's additional defense generally isn't a factor...

I would totally agree with that. If you are concerned with the defensive capabilities of either unit, don't be. While the Knight's defense is slightly better, it is still not strong enough defensively to survive 100% of the time on the terrain types that they usually travel on - flat terrain. Either unit is used best in wide open spaces, so it really makes since to bring along a defensive unit or two during the charge forward.

quote: Originally posted by Like2frolick on 12-16-2000 11:55 PM Hmmm..... Must try Crusaders, then.

Good Idea

Knights are good OUT of your city because they can take an attack (usually) if they end their turn close to a city and are attacked by an Archer or Catapult or even a Crusader.

So I vote for both.

quote: Originally posted by Ken Hinds on 12-17-2000 09:47 AM 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

This is an interesting observation. I, too, find horsemen to be not worth the time and effort. If I'm playing a strict ICS game, I make a beeline for elephants. Then, with Leo's and Mono, voila!!

As an added note, I also like to head for Leadership if I have a sizable supply of Crusaders. Dragoons are a nice upgrade.

quote: I, too, find horsemen to be not worth the time and effort.

Horsemen can be good for early exploration. I generally build warriors for early exploration, since horseback riding isn't on my peaceful science tech path and warriors are so darned cheap.

quote: Originally posted by Edward on 12-18-2000 10:55 AM Horsemen can be good for early exploration. I generally build warriors for early exploration, since horseback riding isn't on my peaceful science tech path and warriors are so darned cheap. In a recent game, I obtained horseback riding in a stupid trade with the Vikings. I found that the lowly horsemen could ride out of my border cities and attack almost any early invader. They even stood an even chance against the mighty legion. (Admittedly the horsemen benefitted from open ground.) I have a new respect for these cheap, fast units.

I don't usually research horseback riding until after I've got the science wonder techs, engineering and invention. But if I find a horseman I'll use it but generally don't ever build them.

quote: Originally posted by Edward on 12-18-2000 11:41 AM Off-topic meta question: How do you include quotes in your post which name the original poster?

The easiest way is to click on the "Reply with Quote" button above the particular message to which you wish to reply. It is possible to key in the proper commands also.

Maelhavok

P.S. Pikemen are evil

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.

I never met a barb Pikeman or a Phalanx.

---------

SG (2)

BTW. I founded a town with a goody hut within the city limits, expecting to get a no-barb tip. It disappeared! Was I too slow or what?

This could be what happened in my case except with the barbarians capturing the city instead of myself. Also I have bribed barb cities that contained pikemen.