Dismounted Feudal knights Vs Armoured Swordsman

[Freddie]

Apologies for another Vs. thread but I think I’m going made here. I'm playing the English campaign.

Can someone tell why I would want re recruit DFK over Armoured Swordsman when the Armoured swordsman upkeep is only 150 (as opposed to 225 for DFK)? I know the DFK costs less initially but that’s down to fact their defensive isn’t as good, so what’s the point of DFK in the game, they seem pretty useless if you can recruit Armoured swordsman who cost less in upkeep and have better defence.

Am I missing something here? :hmmm:

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Armored swords are better. They have one extra armor and can get one extra armor upgrade (full plate). It is just that it takes longer before you are able to train them. You will need a barracks in a fortress instead of the fortress itself which is the requirement to train DFK's.

[Pyrebound]

..and not all factions have armored swordsmen

[Wheem]

You will need a barracks in a fortress instead of the fortress itself which is the requirement to train DFK's.

This is the only reason to recruit Dismounted Feudal Knights as the English. Unless of course you've exhausted your supply of Armored Swordsmen for recruitment, and really need the heavy infantry before they'll replenish.

Generally speaking, I don't really recruit any Dismounted Feudal Knights as the English, since I find that I don't have a need for them between the time the Fortress completes, and the time I build the required Barracks.

[SaintOfTheSword]

But it's hard to compare, because in testing custom battles, it seems that whatever you choose wins. It's like the AI gives an advantage to the unit that the player is playing. If you take the knights against armoured swordsmen, you'll win. If you take the armoured swordsmen against the knights, you'll win again. So it's hard to tell... they could be normally better in some melee situations, because they have a higher defence skill.

[masterbaker]

But it's hard to compare, because in testing custom battles, it seems that whatever you choose wins. It's like the AI gives an advantage to the unit that the player is playing. If you take the knights against armoured swordsmen, you'll win. If you take the armoured swordsmen against the knights, you'll win again. So it's hard to tell... they could be normally better in some melee situations, because they have a higher defence skill.

Without any upgrades, the Swords only have 1 greater defence, so if you play as DFKs and do a proper charge while the AI runs in circles, you'll win. In a campaign, however, that 75 change in upkeep has an enormous effect.

[homefry]

Fuedal Knights sounds so much cooler than swordsmen.

Do you want knights on your team or some swordsmen.

[Larsen]

Armoured Swordsmen... My favorite unit. They're the backbone of my armies for sure, except when fighting Mongols.

[SaintOfTheSword]

There is also a considerable morale difference in favour of the knights... when fighting dreadful generals it helps.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

There is also a considerable morale difference in favour of the knights... when fighting dreadful generals it helps.

Nope. They both have 9 morale. Armored swords are better. They can be upgraded to full plate instead of partial plate and their upkeep is only two thirds of that of DFK's.