Knight expan vs Swordrush 1v1

[Arntzen]

Imo if both players are same lvl, the game is pretty much over. 4 houses 3 towers and some wall +2 knights for each 3 swordsmen will make it crazy hard to get some citkills. Swordplayer will after a while try f11 15 hero and then push out, so if the knightplayer is smart he will allready have one of his own.

So my question: Do u agree that game pretty much is over if knight exp vs swordrush in a 1v1 game, if both players are pretty much equal skilled?

[lightnessking.]

It can't be denied if both players have the same skill level that the knight will win against the sword, simply because the knight is a powerfull counter against the swords, and because of the gold mining in the civ they can produce siege units easier than a sword boomer (who should make longbows or cav archer against the knights.).

What does matter is the map they start with, If the knight player has his gold mines, hunt and forage all seperated and in this story that person will have 4 fronts, it'll be easier for the sword player to hit the mines slowely. If in this story the sword player has a double iron + hunt in example, he/she will have a good chance against the knight player without the "good" map.

But yes, in my opinion its 100% over if the knight player has a double gold mine, or 1 gold mine + food/hunt.

[Arntzen]

It can't be denied if both players have the same skill level that the knight will win against the sword, simply because the knight is a powerfull counter against the swords, and because of the gold mining in the civ they can produce siege units easier than a sword boomer (who should make longbows or cav archer against the knights.).

Not only this, but the Knight player will have all the units he is going to make in his civilization (bali range). While swordslutter will have only swords+seige range.

What does matter is the map they start with, If the knight player has his gold mines, hunt and forage all seperated and in this story that person will have 4 fronts, it'll be easier for the sword player to hit the mines slowely. If in this story the sword player has a double iron + hunt in example, he/she will have a good chance against the knight player without the "good" map.

But yes, in my opinion its 100% over if the knight player has a double gold mine, or 1 gold mine + food/hunt.

Well I was thinking knight player got good knight map and sword player got good sword map (since they both chose their civilizations). However if 1 of the maps suck then its a different ballgame.

[lightnessking.]

If you were assuming everything was 100% fair than this discussion shouldn't be here since knights > swords in general :'P.

same skill, same "good" map. Just point a counter to the unit you wish to defeat and its a win right? :').

[Arntzen]

I wanted to see if some1 dissagree. If so maybe learn another trick than hero before 15/ecokilling

[lightnessking.]

Make a prophet, make barbs, plague them run into enemy base through woods?

than the finishing touch, earthquake on his stables.

[Omega]

I agree, with some exceptions.

All of the following must be true:
1) The Knight player actually has to know how to play Knights.
2) The Knight player can't play stupidly/over confidently because they're versus swords.
3) The Knight player needs to know how a good sword player typically plays against Knights, so they can anticipate and attempt to counteract common game-winning gambits. (Also, the Knight player needs to be adaptable in the case they face a gambit they've never seen before)
4) The Knight player must not over-boom at the expense of unit production.
5) The maps of both players must be roughly equal, and average or better. In the event one player gets screwed on the map, they loose. However if BOTH get screwed almost equally, swords almost always win.

These may seem like minor points, but on AoC I've easily won more than 50% of my games versus advanced to expert level players (i.e. people who honestly shouldn't have lost knights vs. swords) who've gone knights with expansionism when I've been swords without expansionism. However, I'll still most certainly agree that knights SHOULD win.