Argument with a friend, want answer.

[zacen299]

Well the argument was that he was saying that it was stupid that you the main things that get you chivalry on the battlefield (and I mean like the battle map it self not after or anything) requires you to sometimes act like an idiot strategically and well what I want to know is if I was right in that back then chivalry was charging them head on and not trying anything remotely devious or you'd be shamed and especially knights believed that. Especially the French that's part of what got them destroyed in the Hundred Years War the British just shot at them with their bows and the French just charged them and got massacred time and time again thinking it was the only honorable and chivalrous way to fight. So to reiterate was I right?

[Ishan]

Are you asking this from a technical point of view or moral? That is are you asking whether charging head-on or using any devious ways affects your general's chivalry on battlefield or not?

[Maklodes]

First of all, the French won the Hundred Years War. The English Lost. The English won some famous battles, but that's not the same as the French getting "destroyed in the Hundred Years War."

I don't think frontal charges have anything to do with gaining BattleChivalry. The ways of gaining BattleChivalry and BattleDread are complex and confusing, and, IMHO, one of the more poorly designed parts of the game (whether you get Fair in Battle or Winning First is basically chance, once you have one or the other you're stuck on that path almost permanently, it's easy to get on a path opposite from the rest of your character (i.e., accidentally getting Fair in Battle in an otherwise dreadful general or Winning First in an otherwise chivalrous general), and the BattleChiv/BattleDread traits, until they reach "Champion of Honor" or "Field Tyrant," (when they start adding authority) provide no benefits but adjusting chivalry/dread, as likely for the worse as for the better.). However, I don't think any of the triggers involve specific battle tactics; I'm not sure that's even possible.

From my understanding of the files, the ways to gain BattleChivalry are:

1. Have your general personally kill 8+ people in battle (50% of the time, but only if you already have BattleChivalry; if you have BattleDread already, it'll give you more BattleDread. If you have neither, it should give you BattleDread 50% of the time, BattleChivalry 25% of the time, and nothing 25% of the time, thanks to rolling for BattleDread first (50% chance), then rolling for BattleChivalry if you didn't get BattleDread (also 50% chance))

2. Win a battle with 0.5 odds or lower, in which your general fought (66% of the time).

3. Battle in which one general is Muslim, the other general is Catholic, and they fight each other personally. (66%)

4. Battle in which the general defends against odds of 0.8 or worse and personally fights in combat. (100% of the time)

5. Battle in which the general wins an average victory or better, less than 20% of the enemy was killed, and the odds were 0.95 or worse.

[Gandalfus]

Errm... Is this some pro French Thing? at agincourt the French charged the English because the king thought he cold overpower Henry's tired and dysentric and hungry army easily with his well rested one. He didn't count for the ground he was gonna pick. That has nothing to do with chivalry, they did it because the king told them to.

[Gandalfus]

The English got bored and began fighting each other

BattleChivalry helps if you release prisoners and the like. Try and fight muslim armies if your catholic, and respond to crusades. This helps increase your chances of getting chivalry points.

[MDCCLXXVI]

Do you save before battles or something?

When I use my General heavily in combat, he gets killed before he can really get beast-mode stats.

Usually I just have him in the center for infantry support if its an infantry battle, or out on the flank with a couple other knight unit escorts if its a more dynamic battle.

[Avatar]

Do you save before battles or something?

When I use my General heavily in combat, he gets killed before he can really get beast-mode stats.

Usually I just have him in the center for infantry support if its an infantry battle, or out on the flank with a couple other knight unit escorts if its a more dynamic battle.

I dont think many people would suggest sending your General out at the front of a full cavalry charge, but you should always be prepared to pitch his unit into a melee where possible, especially in the early stages of the game. Unless you run him directly into a spear wall his bodyguard will smash a couple of enemy units out of the way before being pulled back to safety.

Also, once he starts getting things like the scarred trait line, you dont really need to worry about him getting killed unless you play in a really suicidal manner e.g. walk his unit forwards into a cannon volley.

[Silverheart]

France did get heavily battered during the Hundred Years war - England won most of the battles, and even many after France started recooperating.
Even Agincourt was a lose-lose, since you can easily say that either side won depending on how you would determine the victor. France was on the brink of destruction until Jeanne d´Arc (Joan of Arc in english) came around, and even then they only began recovering with that.
England was able to achieve so much success in the earlier 2/3 of the war, not because the french were "chivalrous"/stupid and embracing some "knights in the fray is the only way!" ideology, but because of several factors that spoke in their favor from the beginning.
1: France was politically instabile, with the king unable to rely on the loyalty of a great deal of his servants (many even straight up refused to serve the king, so called "Robber Barons") while England was much more united and could amass its´ full military strength.
2: France had their attention split on countless fronts, while England had only one (with Scotland not being much of a threat).
3: France relied entirely on heavy cavalry and had very little of any other professional troops, while England had already complemented their armies with heavier infantry and the dreadfully effective longbow.
Later on France gained some moments of calm (the war only lasted a hundred years officially, but there were several "down times") and opportunities to combat their instability, which helped them in being able to amass more troops against the english. With the Robber Barons dwindling in numbers and Frances´ strength and political stability rising, most of their frontlines disappeared or calmed down - and with the political stability came the economical growth that allowed them to finally bring their forces up to the standard of the english. The last third of the war was basically a costly but slow french advance, until Agincourt came around and the english were forced to abandon their last foothold on the continent. But depending on how you look at it, you could say that the winner of the Hundred Years war was either France, no-one at all, or Burgundy (which made use of the war to increase their own power).
So, in summary, the french didn´t suffer from chronic stupidity because of some "code of chivalry", they suffered losses because of political instability, economical recession caused by the instability, and the fact that the knights (le Chevalier) were basically the only professional soldiers in their armies.

As for the game, since I believe that is what the OP was actually about (:S), it seems to me that chivalry requires for you to act like a good guy, and such a thing does require to do some weird things if you think about it...
Your Family Members can gain increased chivalry best by Not hunting down fleeing enemies, releasing prisoners, not pushing your units to the limits (like I often do with my cavalry, by using them until there´s hardly any left of them), occupying (but not sacking or exterminating) settlements, joining + completing crusades and governing settlements where you build lots of buildings that improve happiness (churches, town halls and even farmland I think, are the best for that).
Basically he does things that are considered noble and honourable, and that the people serving him likes - chivalrous, in other words. This may be strategically unwise in some situations, but in most cases it isn´t (for example, increased chivalry strengthens morale and increases public order and population growth).
And even the times when it is, I think you can sometimes take that expense and take consolation by the fact that chivalrous actions increases your reputation and may make your allies less likely to betray you.
That last part is only speculation, though, but I remember often seeing how increased chivalry in a couple of FMs coincides with improved relations and reputation.
So there are certainly plenty of reasons to act like a nice guy and gain some chivalry points, since there are several factors that are affected by it - and in many cases, those factors may actually be more strategically wise to adhere to, instead of the merely practical ones...

[candi81]

If you lose Chivalry points via running routing units down, I'd prefer to stick with dread. No way am I going to let 750+ men escape when my Cavalry could just flatten them instead.

[Maklodes]

I don't believe there's any evidence that chasing routers gives you BattleDread. If someone has done a bunch of tests that show me to be wrong, then link me to them. From the trait triggers, though, chasing routers has no effect.

[Sitalkes]

If you lose Chivalry points via running routing units down, I'd prefer to stick with dread. No way am I going to let 750+ men escape when my Cavalry could just flatten them instead.

You don't lose chivalry for running them down unless it is after you are given the option to end the battle - that's what gains you the "winning first" attribute, not ignoring the advice to "run them down" and ending the battle when you first get the opportunity. This also deprives you of the opportunity to get some experience points so it's up to you to decide which is more important, certainly if you want the game to be more of a challenge doing the chivalrous thing will make the game more difficult in the short run.

You also get the "winning first" attribute for attacking in overwhelming numbers, which is a wonderful twist to the game I think - you actually get rewarded for atttacking at odds of around 1:1 or worse. The purpose of strategy is to get you into an advantageous position when you are in a battle ie you have more troops than your opponent so this is completely counter to the modern way of thinking. The medieval way of thinking is epitomised by such events as
1351, March 26—Combat of the Thirty: Thirty Breton knights from Chateau Josselin under Beaumanoir call out and defeat thirty English and pro-English Breton knights under Pembroke and Sir Robert Bramborough, Bramborough was killed.

By the way, nothing was mentioned above about the role of cannon in the change in French fortunes. The French were among the first to make extensive use of cannons in sieges and it was this that led to the sudden and rapid English defeat as it was no longer possible to hold land using castles - the cannons meant sieges lasted days or weeks that would have lasted months or years otherwise and small garrisons were no longer viable.

[Maklodes]

You don't lose chivalry for running them down unless it is after you are given the option to end the battle - that's what gains you the "winning first" attribute, not ignoring the advice to "run them down" and ending the battle when you first get the opportunity.

Once again, I'd like to see some sources for the theory that pressing "continue" rather than "end battle" gives points of BattleDread. I don't think it's in export_descr_traits. It's possible that there's some hardcoded trigger, although that seems like asking for trouble. (What if you'd hardcoded a trigger for BattleDread and some modder removes BattleDread from the game entirely?) Has someone conducted tests, fighting the same battle from a save file, ending the battle five times and continuing it five times, so determine that Winning First was gained in battles that were continued, but not ones that were ended, or something like that?

[SturmChurro]

Once again, I'd like to see some sources for the theory that pressing "continue" rather than "end battle" gives points of BattleDread. I don't think it's in export_descr_traits. It's possible that there's some hardcoded trigger, although that seems like asking for trouble. (What if you'd hardcoded a trigger for BattleDread and some modder removes BattleDread from the game entirely?) Has someone conducted tests, fighting the same battle from a save file, ending the battle five times and continuing it five times, so determine that Winning First was gained in battles that were continued, but not ones that were ended, or something like that?

Routing units.

[Ishan]

Choosing to continue the battle doesn't increase your battle dread, it's the actions that you do after clicking continue is what affects his traits.

[Sursion]

First of all, the French won the Hundred Years War. They were getting destroyed on three fronts by the HRE, England, and Burgundians, but they managed to mount an amazing comeback and not only retake their former land, but also kick England out of continental Europe for good. This is written fact, and no amount of famous victories will change it.

Now onto the actual point, yes. Chivalry did result in dumbed down strategic play in exchange for more 'honourable' tactics. I believe one rule of chivalry was only being able to fight a knight one-on-one. Ambushing and overwhelming a knight would probably get you some cold looks.

[zacen299]

First of all, the French won the Hundred Years War. They were getting destroyed on three fronts by the HRE, England, and Burgundians, but they managed to mount an amazing comeback and not only retake their former land, but also kick England out of continental Europe for good. This is written fact, and no amount of famous victories will change it.

Now onto the actual point, yes. Chivalry did result in dumbed down strategic play in exchange for more 'honourable' tactics. I believe one rule of chivalry was only being able to fight a knight one-on-one. Ambushing and overwhelming a knight would probably get you some cold looks.

You know after remembering to come back and check this after being not able to use my comp for the last while. I should point out the French were losing the Hundred Year War because the royals alienated most of their population and as you said were fighting on more than one front the main reason they were able to come back was that people like Joan of Arc managed to get the average population to actually help the unstable political situation and as someone pointed out that the Chevalier were their only professional soldiers, have you considered why the Chevalier were their only soldiers? I'm probably in the wrong here but either way I just wanted to say what I think and thats about it. Also in my original post I did just mean on the battlefield because almost always my entire family ends up chivalrous because of how I govern my town but strategy wise while fighting you pretty much have to just charge head on at them and hope you have the bigger better equipped army (which is actually how most of them did it at that time in battle, or so the history books said for a long time, though in reality they were wrong most General were not stupid enough to attack unless they had some sort of surprise or other advantage. Now I'm gonna shut up now because I'm rambling at this point so I'm sorry.

[SturmChurro]

I could actually care less about chivalry, though my Generals don't really gain either chivalry or dread anyway. I just occupy and ransom prisoners, because I care about my reputation.

[Sitalkes]

Well I always used to continue the battle until I read the chivalry guides, and I always got the "winning first" attribute even if I was doing other pro-chivalry things. Now that I don't continue the battle, I don't get "winning first" any more and I think that whoever wrote that is correct.

[Ishan]

When a battle is concluded various triggers for traits are fired, called "PostBattle" triggers. Winning First is a first level trait for BattleDread. And none of them have a condition for activating when someone chooses to continue the battle. I can provide all the conditions for this & then someone can try to fight, win & then continue the battle and i assure you that general won't have the winning first trait, if, those conditions are avoided.

It's a common and easily achievable trait so that's why it's gained easily and thus believed to have been gained by just pressing the continue button, it's a myth.

Bah, lol it's too hard to resist, i love such discussions:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So lets look at those BattleDread triggers:

Trigger battle3_Dread_fighting
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle > 8
          and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0

    Affects BattleDread  1  Chance  50 
    Affects Bloodthirsty  1  Chance  10

So in a battle avoid using your general or if you use him then make sure he doesn't kills more than 8 soldiers. Keep in mind that in this trigger there's only a 50% chance of having it, there's another similar trigger for Battlechivlary so if a general kills more than 8 and doesn't have a first level of either of BattleChivalry or BattleDread then he can have anyone of them. Either "Winning First" (1st Level of BattleDread) or "Fair Fighter" (1st Level of BattleChivalry).

Moving on to 2nd trigger:

Trigger battle3Dread_PickingOnWeak
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition WasAttacker
          and WonBattle
          and BattleOdds > 1.5
          and PercentageEnemyKilled > 50
          and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0

    Affects BattleDread  1  Chance  100

In this trigger, you were the attacker, you won the battle and battle odds were greater than 1.5, meaning you had a larger army. Your general doesn't have any battle chivalry so if he continues and manages to kill\capture more than 50% of the enemy then you gain the winning first (BattleDread level 1) trait. This trait is the main reason why our general ends up with the winning first trait. It can only be avoided if the general somehow achieves the fair fighter trait first.

3rd trigger:

Trigger battle3Dread_TotalAnnihilation
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition WonBattle
          and BattleSuccess >= crushing
          and PercentageEnemyKilled > 70
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and IsGeneral
          and BattleOdds < 0.95
          and not Trait BattleChivalry > 0

    Affects BattleDread  2  Chance  100

In this we achieve a heroic victory (crushing victory), we managed to kill\capture more than 70% of the enemy, our general fought in battle & battle odds weren't in our favour by less than 0.95.

These are the only considerable (rest are nonsense like random ones we get for adoptions and stuff) triggers that will give your general BattleDread. Avoid these conditions and no matter how many times you continue the battle you won't get the winning first trait.

[tudor93]

Ishan, you're the man