How come the conquistadores are weak?

**henyo10** · February 20, 2009, 11:10 PM

They're the special unit of Spain and they're weaker than a feudal knight? Back then the conquistador was superior to the knight and how come now they're nerfed?

**hagio55** · February 20, 2009, 11:19 PM

A feudal knight has thicker armor, a bigger shield, and a bigger and thicker sword. The conquistador on the other hand, has lighter armour and a small shield, making him not as prominent in a melee as a knight, but much faster and more endurant. Therefore he may be weaker but is a longer fighter.

**henyo10** · February 22, 2009, 06:29 AM

Btw why did conquistadores replace knights in real life?

**Caesar Clivus** · February 22, 2009, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by henyo10

Btw why did conquistadores replace knights in real life?

Changing technology. Firearms were becoming much more effective at piercing armour, so much so that it was not longer worth riding into battle wearing 60-80 kilograms of metal when it wasn't going to protect you that well anyway. That's why later cavalry would wear a breastplate and perhaps a helmet but that was usually it.

**Tacitursa** · February 22, 2009, 07:29 AM

And because of expansions and empires such as Americas. there technology was very minor in terms of weaponry and armor

**TheLastPrivate** · February 22, 2009, 03:32 PM

If you're campaigning in the South/Central America... you woudln't want to wear that much armor

**Awellesley** · February 23, 2009, 10:55 AM

Side note: Didn't the original conquistadors also have firearms?
I can see where this thread is coming from because they do seem weak compared to the heavy knights. A solution to this is RR, where the older units become more obsolete with newer armour and lower recruiting rate. Plus the influx of truly effective pike, halberds and firearms make the old knights less and less effective and conquistadors and demi-lancers more effective.