dismounted knights get the shaft :(

[Ambrosius]

i was really disappointed when i found out they dont get any experience upgrades from buildings.

ie: 'experience bonus for knights recruited'.

erm, yeah. apparently not for dismounted knights. too bad, since i hardly ever train cavalry at all.

does it apply to militia cavalry?

[nicotine]

Well why would dismounted knights get experience from a jousting field?

Also last time I checked militia calvalry != knights

[Papal_Knight]

Well why would dismounted knights get experience from a jousting field?

exactly.

[nicotine]

exactly.

At least I know that someone else thought the same thing I did when I saw +1 experience for knights on the jousting lists.

[Wurfspiess]

Militia Cavalary gets more xp from large merchant guilds

[Ambrosius]

theyre temporarily dismounted.
why wouldnt they gain experience from jousting/training?

i was speaking of the swordsmans guild actually, if memory serves.

[nicotine]

The swordsmans guild gives them better weapons. Yeah but they fight dismounted so why would they gain battle experience from practicing mounted.

[Ambrosius]

yes, the swordsmiths guild upgrades weapons.
but it also gives experience bonus for knights recruited +1 (global bonus).
thats +1 damage and defense right there, which dismounted knights are not getting. are they not knights?

the jousting field gives +1 bonus to CAVALRY. that is understandable, but im talking about the swordsmith's guild.

[DavidtheDuke]

Well if knights were DISMOUNTABLE there wouldn't be any silly Dismounted Knights business, anyway. Really we should call them Really Strong Infantry.

[Ambrosius]

it would be quite nice. you could have an army of very high mobility cavalry, lead by a general with the energetic trait and a drillmaster (ugh, why are these non transferrable)... and pretty much have your run of the map, with twice the mobility of an infantry army. when faced with anti-cav troops like spearmen, or during sieges, you could dismount half or all of your cavalry.

[Wurfspiess]

Some things would be alot better if knights simply could dismount in the deployment phase like in MTW
its a shame

[thomonkey]

i like it this way.
if you could dismount, then you could just build an all cavalry army, and just dismount them as you pleased. With the system in mtwII you have to actually think about which units to produce.

[Wurfspiess]

i like it this way.
if you could dismount, then you could just build an all cavalry army, and just dismount them as you pleased. With the system in mtwII you have to actually think about which units to produce.

Iam sorry but this is complete bs
in Medivial total war kights where able to dismount and i guess no one used complete mounted knight armies there

[DavidtheDuke]

You could only dismount most of them in sieges, which I think was the perfect solution

[Hodor]

Personally, I never bothered with dismounting cavalry in MTW1. Sure, it might occasionally have been useful with knights, but was almost completely pointless with non-Catholic factions (it made little sense to trade a full unit of heavy Ghulam cavalry for less than half a unit of Saracen spearmen).

It's a shame that it doesn't work in MTW2 any more though, as it would really have been useful for assaulting walls.

Anyway, its sort of odd that they chose to call all those units "dismounted knights" and "dismounted sipahi" this time, which suggests they used to ride horses at some point.
In MTW1, dismounted knights were simply called "foot knights", which fits much better as a general term for horse-less knights - a foot knight might be a knight that chooses to fight dismounted, but also one that is too poor to afford a war charger.

[Beld]

I don't mind it at all, besides, dismounted knights are stronger than regular knights, right? I think they have a couple/few more points on defense, and maybe 1 or 2 more on offense? I'm away from my gaming pc right now, but are they also cheaper upkeep? Not sure about that one.

What would make sense is if, on the campaign map, they got movement bonuses like cavalry, since, presumably, they are riding around all the time until the battle begins anyway.

So if you had an army of General Unit, Mounted Knights, and Unmounted Knights, they would move on campaign map just as fast as an all cavalry army.

[Ambrosius]

theyre significantly better, at the expense of mobility.

normal knights, around 13-15 defense. dismounted are 22-23.

i wish someone would come out with some hard data as to how horse barding affects mounted knights though. their survivability, for the most part, seems much higher than knights without barding.

[nicotine]

I like the idea of the dismounted knights and it seems to fit, but I don't agree with the name. Like Reeve said there were many knights that chose to fight on foot or were not wealthy enough to afford a horse, but were still wealthy enough to afford arms and armor to fight as a knight.

[crazyj]

Yea they should be called foot knights. For me, I just see all these dismounted knights as knights who can't afford a good charger, just some old nag to ride to battle on...a nag they don't practice jousting on...I like the recruitment system, becuz you get a larger foot unit than if you could just dismount them, they just needed to call them foot knights.

[Zenith Darksea]

You can't dismount knights before a battle? That's rubbish. It's like CA have put in a huge amount of effort to make progress in some areas, and then when they come to nifty areas like being able to dismount cavalry, they think, "That was a good idea in the last game. Let's get rid of it!"