Are Feudal Knights and Chivalric Knights the same?

[bigshot3754]

I'm using UAI 1.5 and I'm playing as the Spanish. The year is 1239.

My issue is that two units appear to be the exact same in abilities and numbers...

Fuedal Knights and Chivalric Knights are nearly identical. The only differences are the looks, the recruitment cost (Fuedal Knights are 100 florins cheaper) and the description text.

Their abilities (like the wedge formation, "good morale") attack, charging bonus, upkeep, defense values are all the same. Maybe its just me? I can post screenshots if thats necessary.

If its a real issue then maybe it could get changed in the next version
Chivalric Knights clearly should be better, they cost more and the Dismounted Chivalric Knights are better than the Dismounted Feudal Knights.

If this was done on purpose for UAI I want to know the reason just out of curiosity

[Garnier]

Thats the way it is in vanilla as well. It's really stupid, and one of the reasons M2 gets boring, cause all the units fight so much alike. There's no difference between FFK and armoured swordsmen for england, and yet the FFK have 225 upkeep, while armoured swords have 150...

[The Good]

That is a problem I have with Vanilla Medieval II. All of the Knight units have very similiar stats to each other, but for some of them (Armoured Swordsmen), they have lower upkeep. I always hated how Feudal Knights have too similiar stats to Chivalric Knights, I mean, the stat points for the Chivalric should be higher, they have Plate armour, the Feudal has just Chainmail armour! CA should really fix that problem in the next patch, which no doubt there will be a next patch. 1.2 just doesn't cut it, it still needs to be fixed.

And if anyone from CA is reading this post, do not take it offensively, I am just constructively critisizing you. I think you are the best game company out there in my opinion.

[bigshot3754]

couldn't this be changed via UAI or some other mod?

i only ask because i'm in quite a mania for modding to be more authentic/playable lately

[mkk]

They're just a slightly different type of knights and only a few factions gets them. No big deal.

[Point Blank]

I think Chivalrics have higher morale also

[ME2_junky]

My thoughts on the subject are that Feudal knights are knights that gain lands from the local king or whatever in return for military duty. They have lordship over small counties etc. They are expensive.

Chivalric knights are knights that serve the king out of loyalty rather than rule or posession.

In my games I always make the chiv knights better by 2-4 points in att & def since they require a much more constly stables building and thus also take more time to be produced.

In practice chiv knights should be the elite of the feudal knights.

[nameless]

Vanilla Stats.

Feudal Knights
10/16

Chivarlic Knights
13/17

Dismounted versions have similar ratios.

Dismounted Feudal Knights I would say are the "top" basic knights with the other ones in a much higher elite level.

Though chivarlic knights if I remember correctly will charge without orders.

[Africanvs]

Feudal knights represent the early knights. They were required to serve their Lord during times of war and were generally very violent, and brutal men. Their lives were full of sin, and they were in essence professional killers. The word knight in this context basically means, 'those who ride the horses.' They became prevalent in the middle ages, after the stirrup was invented, thus connecting horse and rider and the frankish charge was born. It was incredibly expensive to outfit a knight and the feudal system was basically created to fund these mounted warriors. Many of them went on the various crusades to the holy land to try and gain salvation for their many crimes against humanity. It was the first time they could actually gain salvation by doing what they did best... killing.

Chivalric knights however were raised in the medieval culture of courtly love, told heroic tales of brave deeds performed by members of the first few crusades, such as Godfrey de Boullion and Richard the Lionheart. They were mostly nobles who attended knightly tournaments, and they are the sourse of the 'knights in shining armor' with bright barding upon their horses and magnificent armor and heraldry upon their shields. They were not the rugged knights of the early middle ages, but proud and valiant men steeped in chivalry. They were actually quite impetuous, forsaking common sense in the vain search for honor and personal glory. This is the reason that in an attempt to retake Constantinople from the Turks, they were crushed by the Sultan's Janissaries and then paraded before him and decapitated by the hundreds.

Due to their brutal nature, and high cost, I would say feudal knights deserve a higher attack than chivalric knights, but chivalric knights with their superior armor and chivalric ideaology should have a higher defense and morale, but suffer from charging without orders in their search for personal glory.