User blog comment:RSV 123/Mongol vs. Knight/@comment-26074921-20120810230138

Lets do this


 * Close-Knight- The mace would be rather effective against the knight. The damage in can inflict can break bones and possibly punch through parts of the armor, and even if not, it'll still damage him. Hoever the Broadsword is more versatile, and has far longer reach. It has more options in combat, stabbing, perrying, lunging, ect. Not to mention the lack of effective defense for it on the part of the mongol.


 * Mid-Knight- The Halberd is the better weapon here, horses involved or not. If horses are involved, the Glaive would be a good weapon, but the Halberd can act in a similar fashion for dismounting the horseman. Without horses, the mongol is at a very distinct disadvantage. The Halberd has both the functionality of a spear and an axhead, and unlike the knight, the mongol once again has no effective defense for it.


 * Long-Knight My initial thoughts are doubting whether the Mongol's arrows have the penetrating power to pierce the knight's armor. I'm no historian, so I don't know, but I'm leaning towards doubt. Normally, I prefer Bows over historical crossbows due to the trouble and time of reloading them, but I'll trust EA's judgement here.


 * Special-Knight I also agree the morning star vs Mace and Ild sword vs Broadsword would have been better. Bit anyhow, the morning star will deal pretty good damage against the mongol, but the Ild will have trouble dealing with the knight's armor.

Deadliest Warrior-Knight The knight takes this match extremely easily. The mostly unarmored mongol is at a distinct disadvantage here. Because of the armor the weapon edges all favor the knight. Without it the knight is still better quipped.