Medieval 2 Continue or End Battle Chivalry Dread
-
June 25, 2008,05:31 AM #1
Dread vs Chivalry
I mean what's the best thing to have. My opinion is that dread is the better one because you can win heroic victories by just charging your general and causing mass rout(little bit more complicated but I've seen it in my own campaigns and it is possible), then chop them up with your cavalry. While as with chivalry your units are maybe almost unroutable but this may only come in handy when the odds are extremely against you and you won't win anyway.
What do you think is best to have?
btw how do I add a poll?
Last edited by fritsje5; June 26, 2008 at 03:44 AM.
-
June 25, 2008,05:33 AM #2
-
June 25, 2008,05:42 AM #3
it all comes down to the tactics u follow afte you win a battle.... dread is easier to build up (kill all prisoners .... i still miss the killing sound from shogun
, assassinate ppl) whereas chivalry is a lot harder (attend crusades/jihad, free prisoners, no assassinations) so i would say whatever suits your playstyle
i usually end up with dread, coz i hate facing the same enemy troops again and again and again...
-
June 25, 2008,05:49 AM #4
Libertus
-
June 25, 2008,06:12 AM #5
i would say Chivalry fromt eh way u talk lol Dread long live the EVILOriginally Posted by Akimbo
"An enemy that runs away lives to fight another day" So kill them, kill them all, kill -everything-
can you guess which is higher on my general, dread or chivalry ^^
-
June 25, 2008,06:19 AM #6
Is there no advantage to chivalry? Does this mean my hard earned full chiv general is useless?
"Human beings have neither the aural or psycological ability to withstand the power of God's true voice. Your head would cave in and your heart would explode. We went through 5 Adams before we figured that one out." - Metatron
-
June 25, 2008,06:27 AM #7
like u said armies with high chivalry rout a lot harder so yes it could be quite advantegous when you are heavily outnumbered and defending a city... or if you want to tie down superior numbers of enemy troups with a few units
the second tactic was widely used in the ancient and medieval era while your thinned out center (and maybe only flank) would hold the enemy and fight a defensive battle while your beefed up (with shock troops) flank(s) would rout their counterparts and eventually turn around to attack the enemy from behind.
a very easy way to do this is to place all of your cavalry on one flank (preferably not against spearmen) and when your battle lines meet wheel your cavalry to attack the enemy from the side causing his units to rout one by one (your infantry should be about 3 lines deep do extend ur front and make it longer than the enemy's so that your cavalry wont have to actually fight anyone - keep 1-2 units at your other flank in 4-5 ranks formation so as not to get outflanked - and your cavalry should be at square formation for maximum impact)
-
June 25, 2008,08:04 AM #8
Each "point" of Chivalry is worth +0.5% population growth; so a governor with maxed Chivalry gives +5% growth to any settlement he's in. This can get a little annoying once your settlements become really massive, but it's fantastic in the early part of the game (and to help recover from the Plague if you had settlements that weren't at maximum size before it hit).Is there no advantage to chivalry? Does this mean my hard earned full chiv general is useless?
I always prefer to play "the good guy," so I avoid Dread whenever I can. I literally never exterminate settlements or execute prisoners.
-
June 25, 2008,08:09 AM #9
But all things considered dread is better?
"Human beings have neither the aural or psycological ability to withstand the power of God's true voice. Your head would cave in and your heart would explode. We went through 5 Adams before we figured that one out." - Metatron
-
June 25, 2008,08:19 AM #10
lol, I'm exactly the opposite. Settlements are always exterminated, to keep them quiet for a while. Prisoners are always executed.I always prefer to play "the good guy," so I avoid Dread whenever I can. I literally never exterminate settlements or execute prisoners.
There's no point in being chivalrous imo. You have to assassinate around 3 assassins every turn to defend your governor in a border settlement, and merchants of AI factions seem to win 90% of the acquisitions, so you end up killing them too.
It's definitely dread for me!
-
June 25, 2008,09:40 AM #11
-
June 25, 2008,09:58 AM #12
I prefer chivalry, but my faction leader always ends up being dreaded because I have these 4 really good assassins(no substitute for a man with a blade for a finger and long sword, though) that are slaughtering the Islamic priests and the enemy Catholic factions' generals (but the Pope made me stop war with them even when I didn't start it and he was my Cardinal! That back stabbing bastard! At least he's dead now... wow, this parenthesis thing took pretty long to write. Is anyone still reading this? Hello? Hello? Helloooooo?) but aren't chivalrous knights won't be as loyal if the faction leader is dreaded? And will sabotaging and spying add dread?
-
June 25, 2008,12:08 PM #13
There is one thing that you forgot, a king with chivalry increases loyalty among his generals while a dread king increases disloyalty among generals. But each has its pros and cons. I myself prefer chivalry but i always keep one or two dread generals so they can liquidate problems in my empire.
-
June 25, 2008,12:19 PM #14
Wasn't it that generals with high chivalry had an easier time routing units, since the enemy knew that by running they would have a chance to be released? While dread generals have a hard time routing enemies since they know routing means execution for them.
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.
Aristotle
-
June 25, 2008,12:21 PM #15
My gaming rig nicknamed The Beast. OMEN by HP Obelisk Gaming Desktop Computer, 9th Generation Intel Core i9-9900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8 GB, HyperX 32 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, VR Ready, Windows 10 Home (875-1023, Black)
-
June 25, 2008,12:28 PM #16
No, the AI is too retarded to know that. It does the exact opposite.Wasn't it that generals with high chivalry had an easier time routing units, since the enemy knew that by running they would have a chance to be released? While dread generals have a hard time routing enemies since they know routing means execution for them.
Chivalry = morale boost for your troops
Dread = less morale for other people's troops
-
June 25, 2008,01:07 PM #17
I especially prefer dread in battle, also because of these long politically correct speeches chivalrious guys tend to do. And I think it is better to have chivalry on the campaign map because of the public order/growth bonuses.
-
June 25, 2008,04:42 PM #18
Actually, my most chilviorus (meh I'm tired of spelling it right) general gave the most crazy @$$ speech (It actually involved @$$E$!)
-
June 25, 2008,05:14 PM #19
Chivalry's harder to get, but the benefits on campaign I'd go for any day. Growth, for me is the most important factor, if you have a working economy.
More growth=more people=more money and soldiers= domination.
-
June 25, 2008,05:30 PM #20
...=more dread=less growth=collapseMore growth=more people=more money and soldiers= domination.
what i usually do is build up certain generals to be chivalrous and most others the be dreaded. the chivalrous ones will rotate settlements as to increase the population growth to the next level while my dread ones go to rebellious cities and calm down the population for a while--- Theseus1234
Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of PrussiaThe Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
^Human hubris knows no bounds.
whiteheadfewillic.blogspot.com
Source: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?173810-Dread-vs-Chivalry
0 Response to "Medieval 2 Continue or End Battle Chivalry Dread"
Post a Comment