There is no other Civ that has NO upgrades or synergies for Knights other than the English and the HRE. You could argue with inspiration for the HRE, but the mechanic is way way way inferior to the one the Warrior Monk have and the Rus also have a hp tech for their knights. The English and the HRE have THE WORST cavalry in the game. And that is ridiculous.
If you like, here is a closer look (I copied that from my other thread). Keep in mind that the HRE and the English have zero unique techs for their Cav:
Letâs compare the Civs a bit more in detail:
The Rus have the Warrior Monk who does everything the Prelate does but better. They have the Horse Archer who is a mobile raid unit that is very deadly when being massed. And then they have the Streltsy, an end of medieval age unit (it shoudlnât exist in the game) that is insanely strong, much stronger than a handgunner and can only be countered by siege or longbows. If you run in there with infantry and cav, everything will die as Streltsies counter everything. After a few secs of standing still, they get a 30% increase in damage and attack rate plus they get inspiration from warrior monks. That is by far the most deadly late game army in the game if you leave out mass artillery with the Chinese. The HRE has nothing to answer that. Nothing. Aside from all that the Rus have a very unique Navy. I dunno how strong it is, but it is hella unique. Oh yeah, and ofc all their Cav has at least 20 hp more, they have early knights that are simply better than the HRE knightsâŠ
The French have extra strong knights who are also potentially the cheapest knights in the game, they have the Arbaletrier who can fight cavalry, infantry and archers due to his ridiculously high melee armor (higher than plate units!) and pavise. A jack of all trades so to speak that actually also requires you to use siege to counter effectively. They can build every Artillery unit there is in the game except for bees and most of them even come out 20% stronger if the according landmark is chosen. There is so much synergy in this army, the HRE doesnât even exist in their world. On top of that they have a unique ship that seemed quite useful. I do not know much about it.
The Abbasids have their Camels, the best spearmen in the game and all in all a very sturdy infantry. I do not see how the HRE infantry is noticeably stronger than the abbasid infantry. They have double range spearmen, they get 1/1 armor when camels are near and they have 15% more hp. That all applies to archers as well. On top of that the Imam can single target convert enemy units without a Relic. The Abbasids thus bring a very strong infantry in combination with anti horse cavalry camels and camel archers who eat everything but especially light infantry. In addition to that, Abbasid Knights or âLancersâ are stronger than enemy knights due to the synergy with Camels.
The Dehli Sultanate have their Elephants and scholars. The Elephants can be used in every situation, are very sturdy and have a place in the game as they do fulfill a very unique role. Their army composition speaks the language of synergy as well. The melee elephants can tank and eat every cavalry, the tower elephants answer to range and are like a moving tower and their scholars seem to be marathon runners. They are so quick, they are always with the army. I do not know all the techs they have, but one tech improves knights and maa damage by 3. So their knights are also stronger than the trashy baseline knights from HRE and the English, which really does my head in, and their maa are also blessed with some love as they end up dealing 22 damage to all types. Again the HRE speciality is ONLY maa and to a minor extent spearmen (+3 melee armor, herp derpâŠ). The HRE is just one dimensional, boring and lackluster. Just like the English. But they have at least the Longbow who does quite some work. The English have at least a special unit that is useful. The HRE doesnât even have that.
The Mongols have so many unique mechanics, it is difficult to list them all up here. And I probably donât even know all of them. But they have, just like the Rus and the French, early knights and the Khan that reliably boosts the army (if you look out for him) + they have defensive mechanics that allow their units to move 15% faster. And since they tend to move with their base, the 15% speed is being applied way more often than youâd think. It is save to say that the Mongol knights are better than the HRE ones. And why not? The HRE ones get nothing as I am not getting tired to point out. The Mongols are very unique mechanic wise, but do not offer many special units. There is actually only the Khan and the Mangudai that I know of. But the Mangudai is very useful and strong. I feel like this whole Civ works like a homogeneous unit. Their mobility is what gives them an edge over others because it is where all their synergies lie.
And then we have the Chinese. The defensive powerhouse with the very most number of special units and a dynasty mechanic that grants buffs on top of all their techs. They get the speedy Palace Guards, the chu-ko-nu or Zhuge nu, the Fire Lancer, the Imperial Offical (no military pupose, tho), the nest of bees, the best bombards and handgunners (except for Streltsies) in the game and Grenadiers. They have so many possibilities and by far the best artillery in the game. Their knights are either 15% faster or have 10% hp more compared to the HRE and thus have to be considered better as well. The Chinese have better knights than the HRE. What is this? This is madness. The Chinese can do so much different stuff, their mechanics reach very widely and if you compare them to the HRE, you wouldnât even know what to compare.