When it comes to Knight Rushes, Bloodlines is generally one of the most important techs for this strategy. However, there are a few civilizations that can get away with going for a Knight rush indirectly even if they don't have access to Bloodlines (*cough, cough* Vikings with their free Wheelbarrow and Hand Cart).
That being said, in regards to going for a Knight Rush on a civilization that do not have access to Bloodlines, there is usually a lot of decision making when it comes to going for a Knight rush on a civilization that don't have access to Bloodlines, but there are a few questions that I want ask about this:
1) Which situations would be appropriate for me to go for Knight rush and which situations willnot be appropriate to go for a Knight rush? For example, if my opponent is a civilization that excels in this strategy (i.e. Huns, Berbers, Mongols, Franks, etc.) while I play a civilization that generally have one of the weakest cavalry units (i.e. Byzantines, Britons, Ethiopians, etc.), should I still consider going for a Knight rush, or should I avoid it?
2) Suppose I'm playing as the Vikings and I commit to a Knight rush to shut down my opponent who has access to Bloodlines (let's say, the Berbers) in the early Castle Age, my opponent manages to get his important upgrades after a while (including Bloodlines). When my opponent obtained all of his Castle Age upgrades for his Knights along with me getting the important upgrades for my Viking Knights (since they don't have Bloodlines), should I stop committing to Knights and transition to counter units like Pikemen and Monks, or should I still continue committing to Knights?
3) Across from the Vikings, what other civilizations that don't have Bloodlines can still go for a Knight rush even when their cavalry is considered suboptimal, and what bonuses do the civilization have that helps compensate them lacking Bloodlines when it comes to their Knight rushes (not including the Malay since the Malay should mostly go for their cheaper Battle Elephants over their Knights)?
4) Do you think that if there was another DLC expansion, do you think there should be more civilizations that should be encouraged go for a Knight rush even if they can't research Bloodlines? If so, what civilization bonuses/unique techs that would encourage them to go for a Knight rush and at the same time, would cause them not to have access to Bloodlines for gameplay reasons, and what hypothetical civilization would go for a Knight rush without Bloodlines both gameplay and historical perspective? A good meta example would be the Malay somewhat. I think the civilization design for the Malay is the best example of going for a cavalry rush even when they have the weakest cavalry in the game thanks to the cheaper Battle Elephants and faster Age advancement that encourages the player to go for a Battle Elephant rush (and unlike the Vikings, the Malay civilization bonuses are more direct for their Battle Elephant rush strategy).
EDIT: I want to share an example in the fourth question that will help out in the discussion. Suppose the Tibetans are implemented as a cavalry civilization (note that the devs will never include this civilization for obvious reasons, but this is a hypothetical discussion). The Tibetans have access to all Stable unit upgrades such as Hussars, Paladins, Heavy Camels, and Husbandry (except Battle Elephants obviously) and have a civilization bonus where their Stable units get extra pierce armor per age (+1 starting a Feudal Age up until Imperial Age where they get +2 instead, for a total of +4 pierce armor in Imperial Age) and they have access to all cavalry Blacksmith techs (historically Tibetan cavalry soldiers wore heavy armor that were so durable that they deflected arrows). However, because this civilization bonus is incredibly powerful, that would warrant them not to have Bloodlines. Do you think from a gameplay and historical perspective that it would make sense not to give the hypothetical Tibetan civilization Bloodlines to balance out the extra pierce armor civilization bonus for their Stable units (IIRC, I think someone who made Age of Kings: Realms mod had the Tibetans not have Bloodlines, but forgot the reasoning behind it)?
That being said, in regards to going for a Knight Rush on a civilization that do not have access to Bloodlines, there is usually a lot of decision making when it comes to going for a Knight rush on a civilization that don't have access to Bloodlines, but there are a few questions that I want ask about this:
1) Which situations would be appropriate for me to go for Knight rush and which situations will
2) Suppose I'm playing as the Vikings and I commit to a Knight rush to shut down my opponent who has access to Bloodlines (let's say, the Berbers) in the early Castle Age, my opponent manages to get his important upgrades after a while (including Bloodlines). When my opponent obtained all of his Castle Age upgrades for his Knights along with me getting the important upgrades for my Viking Knights (since they don't have Bloodlines), should I stop committing to Knights and transition to counter units like Pikemen and Monks, or should I still continue committing to Knights?
3) Across from the Vikings, what other civilizations that don't have Bloodlines can still go for a Knight rush even when their cavalry is considered suboptimal, and what bonuses do the civilization have that helps compensate them lacking Bloodlines when it comes to their Knight rushes (not including the Malay since the Malay should mostly go for their cheaper Battle Elephants over their Knights)?
4) Do you think that if there was another DLC expansion, do you think there should be more civilizations that should be encouraged go for a Knight rush even if they can't research Bloodlines? If so, what civilization bonuses/unique techs that would encourage them to go for a Knight rush and at the same time, would cause them not to have access to Bloodlines for gameplay reasons, and what hypothetical civilization would go for a Knight rush without Bloodlines both gameplay and historical perspective? A good meta example would be the Malay somewhat. I think the civilization design for the Malay is the best example of going for a cavalry rush even when they have the weakest cavalry in the game thanks to the cheaper Battle Elephants and faster Age advancement that encourages the player to go for a Battle Elephant rush (and unlike the Vikings, the Malay civilization bonuses are more direct for their Battle Elephant rush strategy).
EDIT: I want to share an example in the fourth question that will help out in the discussion. Suppose the Tibetans are implemented as a cavalry civilization (note that the devs will never include this civilization for obvious reasons, but this is a hypothetical discussion). The Tibetans have access to all Stable unit upgrades such as Hussars, Paladins, Heavy Camels, and Husbandry (except Battle Elephants obviously) and have a civilization bonus where their Stable units get extra pierce armor per age (+1 starting a Feudal Age up until Imperial Age where they get +2 instead, for a total of +4 pierce armor in Imperial Age) and they have access to all cavalry Blacksmith techs (historically Tibetan cavalry soldiers wore heavy armor that were so durable that they deflected arrows). However, because this civilization bonus is incredibly powerful, that would warrant them not to have Bloodlines. Do you think from a gameplay and historical perspective that it would make sense not to give the hypothetical Tibetan civilization Bloodlines to balance out the extra pierce armor civilization bonus for their Stable units (IIRC, I think someone who made Age of Kings: Realms mod had the Tibetans not have Bloodlines, but forgot the reasoning behind it)?
[This message has been edited by DarkPaladinX (edited 07-16-2018 @ 09:21 PM).]