AOE3 Forums

GuitarHeroMatt:

The Brits shuld get melee infantry called knights, then we could test it out. They could be a cross between a Rodelero and a Doppelsoldner...

Knight

HP: 180

Melee Resist: 40%

Speed: 5

Attack: 20 (x2 vs Cav and Light Infantry)

Siege: 20

Resources: 75 Food, 75 Coin

Then we could test it out for sure...

Mmm

I would do

Knight

HP: 230

Melee Resist: 50%

Speed: 4.5

Attack: 20 (*2 vs infantry)(0.5 vs cavalry) area damage 2

Siege: 72 (the same of 2 pop unit)

Resources: 100 Food, 100 Coin

 Basically able to trash any infantry but very bad against cavalry and ranged unit at range.

A sword is useless against a cavalry charge,doppls are different because they had an huge sword,they use that ti hurt horses more then riders,but a zweihander is not so good for close melee combat.

Samurai should have a negative bonus against cavalry,since...how can you defend against cavalry charge...whit a sword lol? You need a pike or a spear.

spacepope:

In real life...samurai.  A katana would cut through a knight's armor like butter.  Plus, with all that heavy armor on, knights are slow as crap when not on horseback.  In fact, even on horseback, a samurai could kill a knight with his bow or something.  Knights suck.

knights where the most powerful and elite soldiers on the battle fields of europe, until the arvial of muskets.

sword+armour was a deadly combination, because the only way you could penetrate the armour at close range was a very powerful blow, witch is easily blocked with a sword or a shield.

knights also carried a lance, witch used the combination of the horse's momentum and a long pole witch did an excellent job at breaking a line of infantry, when used by charging in a tight formation.

knights, where good. 

Of the two, the knight would win.

Both however are best suited for the warfare each partake in. The knights needed more armor because in Europe peasents often actualy had fairly good club-like weaponry availible to them. However in feduel Japan, the sword (Katana or other) was the only realy used hand weapon. These swords were very well made, but very costly, and thus only the samurai could afford them. Because of this the Samurai had to depend less upon heavy armor. Consequently they focused on slicing clean through the armorless peasents.

Overall these topics begin to annoy me though.

Wojek_Siren:

LUIX:

i say the samurai. faster moving. clean cut to the leg or someting and the knight would be out.

What part of knight in full plate did you not understand? His legs, arms, head, chest, butt, underarm, balls, foot, knees and back are all protected by leather and steel plate. Plus knight have a shield, but samurai got two handed sword(katana).

 If the samurai try to swing his sword at the knight legs then the knight will shield bash him in the face plus it would be dishonorable to fight dirty.

Let find a video of a Samurai fighting a Knight then we get our answers.

Edit: After watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV5fontZbc&feature=related

I change my mind, but I think it should be a european in that suit not a japanese or else the knight would be bigger and stronger. :\

That video is straight out xenophobic Japanese propaganda. 

dunebug12k:

Not really propaganda, that video is just 3 guys f***ing around. Can't you hear them laughing in the background?

Also i have no idea why you'd use a shield against an opponent with a sword when you're wearing plate armor.

Are you saying you can find a better video of a samurai vs a knight? If so then I would be glad to watch it.

The fact is - we don't know. There was never an instance in History where this scenario occured, and whilst there are many good arguments from both sides of the fence, such as how the Knight had powerful armour and a strong thrusting motion, and the Samurai was very agile and could use his Katana quickly, until someone captures slaves and forces them to fight to death as a Knight and Samurai, we'll never really know.

Laz. 

Lazurath:

The fact is - we don't know. There was never an instance in History where this scenario occured, and whilst there are many good arguments from both sides of the fence, such as how the Knight had powerful armour and a strong thrusting motion, and the Samurai was very agile and could use his Katana quickly, until someone captures slaves and forces them to fight to death as a Knight and Samurai, we'll never really know.

Laz. 

 No Laz no!

Killian:

Usually in these types of threads there's always someone who tries to explain how this question is not applicable, like they're incomparable because of their time periods or something. So I'm fairly proud of this thread so far.<br>