Dreadful or Chivalrous?

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Just a poll, which one do you prefer to have as your main army general, the one who will face battles, not keep settlements and why do you prefer?

[Hopit]

Chivalry.
Funniest to "role play"

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

Im sure that 80% will vote dread, no one wants his armies to hold a line for long on a field battle when you can just rout the enemy with a single hammer and anvil, then chase them down with your cav. High dread is definetly best for any commander in an offensive, and even on the defensive - the enemy would probably rout just barely making it into the city.

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Im sure that 80% will vote dread, no one wants his armies to hold a line for long on a field battle when you can just rout the enemy with a single hammer and anvil, then chase them down with your cav. High dread is definetly best for any commander in an offensive, and even on the defensive - the enemy would probably rout just barely making it into the city.

I voted dread, but not because of the rout, mostly because I like to chase, execute the prisioners and exterminate their settlements, easier to play that way, they bother you less. But I prefer chivalrous, it's just harder to play, it's difficult to be "nice" in war.

[painter]

I voted dread, but not because of the rout, mostly because I like to chase, execute the prisioners and exterminate their settlements, easier to play that way, they bother you less. But I prefer chivalrous, it's just harder to play, it's difficult to be "nice" in war.

Chivalry is not negatively affected by chasing down all the routers; I do it all the time. As for executing prisoners, a chivalry alternative is to have a lot of superior archers and draw out the battle because the opposing army tends to break after about 80% are dead (in normal difficulty) and use ransom for a chance to kill the survivors. And exterminating settlements makes it more difficult to play, especially if you want citadels and huge cities and their tier of units and cannon towers to welcome the Mongols and Timurids. Extermination sets a settlement development back by perhaps 20 turns.

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Chivalry is not negatively affected by chasing down all the routers; I do it all the time. As for executing prisoners, a chivalry alternative is to have a lot of superior archers and draw out the battle because the opposing army tends to break after about 80% are dead (in normal difficulty) and use ransom for a chance to kill the survivors. And exterminating settlements makes it more difficult to play, especially if you want citadels and huge cities and their tier of units and cannon towers to welcome the Mongols and Timurids. Extermination sets a settlement development back by perhaps 20 turns.

But who cares it will take 20 turns to recover? As long as it's already a Large City, I rather have low populace than a lot of ungrateful bastards that will keep bothering me because of their mewling bollocks such as their religion is not primary on the settlement, or there is too much squalor, or there is no guarrison and they think they can piss about and make whatever they want since no one will be there to punish.

[painter]

But who cares it will take 20 turns to recover? As long as it's already a Large City, I rather have low populace than a lot of ungrateful bastards that will keep bothering me because of their mewling bollocks such as their religion is not primary on the settlement, or there is too much squalor, or there is no guarrison and they think they can piss about and make whatever they want since no one will be there to punish.

Pacifying a large city full of ungrateful bastards isn't all that hard to do if you know what you are doing and planned ahead. And why are you even forced to leave a settlement without a garrison? At the least build a peasant unit and it will save you from the -15% public order penalty! Or leave a unit from your army behind. Please don't tell me that it is because your treasury is empty. Because if it is, perhaps your tendency to exterminate settlements is creating a self-perpetuating cycle that traps you in this self-destructive cycle?

[Kaiser Nonsense]

Im sure that 80% will vote dread, no one wants his armies to hold a line for long on a field battle when you can just rout the enemy with a single hammer and anvil, then chase them down with your cav. High dread is definetly best for any commander in an offensive, and even on the defensive - the enemy would probably rout just barely making it into the city.

But it's amusing you mention that, you see, just now I was with my 10 dread skulls general, in an open grass field in France, fighting the french. Thrown rotten cow at them. Night attack. Flaming arrows. So you see, all the factors, there is rotten cow, it's night, my general causes the enemy to fear him, flaming arrows cause terror and they are french , I barely stepped at the field, they ran.

[PapaRosario]

Dread all the way. Chivalry is for pansies.

Im sure that 80% will vote dread

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[FountainGuard]

[QUOTE=PapaRosario;12292026]Dread all the way. Chivalry is for pansies.



Pansies? Quite the opposite, I think, at least.

[FountainGuard]

I think I messed up that reply in some way, but you get the point, however.

[Consulo]

Chose Chivalry. While there is a place for dread in campaigns, I prefer chivalry. It's harder to maintain and the rewards from it actually nice. Defender of the faith...forcing vassals...I've never been able to gain that last bit without the highest diplomatic reliability. That and like someone said, chivalry is good for holding lines, but not for handicapping the enemy. I like the longer, drawn out battles.

[Sitalkes]

I prefer chivalry, as it is harder to get but has better long term benefits. Releasing prisoners allows you to build up your command stars more quickly as you attack and defeat the same army more than once. After you capture a city, a high chivalry general will find it easier to keep it happy. If playing TATW though, I always have to go for dread as releasing orcs, goblins etc is just not within the spirit of the story.

[PapaRosario]

I prefer chivalry, as it is harder to get

If you're playing a Catholic or Muslim faction, chivalry is a whole lot easier to get than dread. But yeah, as an Orthodox faction it is kind of a pain.

[The Despondent Mind]

Exterminate is one of the least useful things in a TW campaign , at least for me . I do it only in specific scenarios .

[Maklodes]

I'd prefer dread for an army general. I like chivalry too (in fact, overall, I prefer chivalry to dread), but for its other benefits, not primarily for its battlefield effects.

[Steward Denethor II]

Chivalry, because I hate exterminating settlements and losing reputation from doing evil. If I am desperate though I will do what is needed for victory.

[Aeratus]

This poll is about battlefield performance only, and in that regard, I think dread is the notably more useful trait. The only situation where I'd prefer chivalry is again Mongols/Timurids whose high experience troops won't be afraid of your dread general anyways (but if you have a high chivalry general, you can get your men to fight to the last man without routing even against the Mongols).

On the campaign map, however, I think chivalry is clearly better in most mods.

[shikaka]

For a fighting man it is hard to be chivalrious: usually I don't micromanage it (find it troublesome) and I end up being non-dread non-chivalrious. No bonuses at all, so dread all the way is better.

Also, as byzantines/russians you really don't have a choice, it is very hard to build a 10 chivalry general without crusade/jihad.

[Senaron]

Sadly guys, its a half and half. I tend to RP chivalry for my crusading lords( i am a man of honour) but i without a doubt see the positives of being dread, i just wonder about the families of the people im crucifying ( i am officially lame)