Should knights do less damage vs buildings?

But in Imp you already have better options if you don’t have a good militia line

siege yes - but the point is - both options are pretty crappy for Lithuanians.

I mean, I don’t mind if the only change is in the tool tip. I do think however it is a bit weird that you never really make the militia line to pressure buildings (except in Feudal). It is maybe a nice bonus for the late game, but even there I’d rather go siege to kill buildings. In some way it feels like knights do everything better than the militia line except for cost.

But isn’t that fine? Siege exists for that purpose. If the answer is “just spam more knights” than why even make rams for example (or Long Swords lol)

you shouldn’t need siege to bust down HOUSES.

1 Like

They shouldn’t.

Needing siege to break a 25 wood building is kinda cringe isn’t it?

1 Like

For me, the logical should be KT’s useless against buildings (deadly for units in general); LS deadly for wood based buildings, but useless for stone defenses; Siege deadly for all type of building.

1 Like

Not the Tatars. (char limit)

You get the point, don’t be annoying.

1 Like

Fair point. Houses are kinda OP anyway and could receive like -10/20% HP reduction in my opinion.
Still though, my main argument was more or less about taking out production buildings which is super easy with just a couple of knights.

1 Like