The tech tree states the knight is an all purpose cavalry unit which is strong vs. infantry and archers. As a matter of fact the knight is also strong vs. siege and buildings.
Knights deal 10+2 melee attack in Castle Age against buildings (so vs. a barracks thats 10 attack. Barracks have 2 melee armor).
A Long Swordsman, who is supposed to be strong vs. buildings deals 9+2+3 damage vs. buildings (standard attack, blacksmith upgrades, +3 vs building). So they deal 12 damage to a barracks (with 2 melee armor) and 14 with arson, another tech that needs to be researched.
If we compare the price-value ratio is way higher with the knight. The knight is almost as good at knocking out buildings as the long swordsman, but it is also very good at other things. So should the knight deal less damage to buildings to get them more in line with the tech tree description?
Or why is the long swordsman pictured as good vs. buildings while the knight is not? They have very similar performance in that regard. I think it wouldn’t be un-reasonable to reduce their attack vs. buildings to 7 instead of 10. What are your thoughts?
The values are as stated: 9 standard attack, +2 through blacksmith upgrades, +3 inherent bonus vs. buildings.
I tested it side by side with FU castle age Knights 10+2, 2+2/2+2 and FU Castle Age Long Swordsmen 9+2 +arson, 0+2/1+2. The test was run in the editor with 5 units each vs. one Castle Age barracks (no masonry, so it has 2 melee armor)
5 Long Swordsmen take 51 seconds to kill the barracks.
5 Knights take 63 seconds to kill the barracks.
For a unit titled as good vs. buildings that is not a hughe difference and I’d rather play knights, since they also offer mobility and the general strenght vs other units.
Of course the argument of cost can be made but I feel the knight could also be titled as good vs. everything then
I’m a bit confused here, but I would think it should be 9+2(blacksmith)+3(inherent bonus)+2(arson).
There are other benefits of knights of course, speed, HP, extra PA can all be important. It can be fair to say that in Castle age they are similar enough against buildings. (In fact, it’s hard to justify swordsmen in castle age in most situations, not just against buildings. Hence the swordsmen buff rants out there.)
The difference is a lot more obvious in Imperial age though. With champions which most civs get have 13+4+4+2 attack (If you’re the goths that’s another +1, but losing some PA).
Another issue is that Knights already have no bonus attack against buildings. It all came from raw attack.
Honestly it wouldn’t be thr worst change out there but how do you actually pull it off short of giving buildings more armor? If you upped bldg armor to 5 the Knights do 7 and ls with arson do 11. It’s still not much more but proportionally it’s over 50% more
Example House Wall:
900 HP / 25 Sec => 36 HP / Sec
(12-2)/1.8 = 5.55
7 Knights to break through a House Wall attempt (525 G 420 F)
6 LS to break through a House Wall attempt (120 G 260 F)
Plus it is really hard to even place 7 knights to attack a single house ;).
2 LS (40 G / 90 F) can outperform a single repair vill, while it takes 3 knights for the same (225 G 180 F).
The margin is quite high, Militia is way more effective against buildings than the knight line. While quickwalling can be effective against knights, LS, especially goth ones, can get effective “trades” by just knocking on wood and forcing repairs, especially when they force to pull more than 1 repair vill.
It’s already so easy to delay knights by just repairing houses, so no thx to a damage reduction against buildings 11
Fun fact: in the spin off of AoK for the Nintendo DS, cav does get a half damage reduction against buildings. Which means there elephants are the least cost efficient unit you could think of if you want buildings killed fast 11