And I've been wondering, most of KT's power is supposed to be in their military, they're supposed to have really good units to make up for their eco. And one of their key units the chevalier, is actually worse than the Sofa. I think the only reason it does well in matches is due to it's very low food ratio(1.18 :1). But it drops off significantly as the game goes on. Not only does that low food ratio become more punishing. But it's actual stats don't compare.   


Sofa with imported armour have 2 more armour. Are faster, do much higher damage to infantry. Have the same dps per cost vs 0 armour, but sofa dps per cost goes up as armour increases. Chevs cost per dps vs sofas in castle age is 20 resources per dps, Sofas in return (a low gold , pseudo anti infantry cavalry) is only 17.2. That means Chevs are 20% more expensive than sofas to get the same dps. 

So chevs are not only worse vs infantry (especially archers), worse against buildings (low PA) worse against armoured units, but also a high gold ratio relying on map control.

I posted previously about the genoese xbow also being possibly the worst unit line upgrade in the game (lowest return on value)   


But I've been wondering if it's possibly a civ wide issue. From Teutonic knights actually being pretty bad, to Condos mainly working because they're bugged (units do inconsistent damage to them) And most of the heavy lifting being done by either ultra aggression in feudal, or overtuned szlatcha.  
  
Yes their eco is bad, mainly low Elo where KT does well outside of specific maps (water or POI are the only maps KT does well), the people that let them freely boom and dump keeps everywhere. Or people try to FC or boom when KT is being aggressive (and they would've lost if any aggressive civ did likewise)

I was looking at Malians units and comparing them to generic, which made me compare them to Templars.