Direct effects of dread, chivalry and authority?

[Snipafist]

Chivalry increases both population growth rate and overall happiness (glory, I think it's called), although it seems as though each point of chiv raises the growth rate by .5% and the happiness rate by 5%. Don't forget that high growth rates can also trigger "population boom" bonuses to happiness as well though. On top of that chivalric governors tend to get traits that further lower squalor, so you can end up with a HUGE growth bonus from a high chiv governor. They tend to pick up poor taxman traits and the like because you should always keep high-chiv governors in cities with normal or low taxes to further boost their chivalry (or at least to not decrease it any).

Dread doesn't do squat for population growth, but it does increase happiness due to fear. I believe it's a 10% bonus for each point of dread, but I have yet to specifically test this yet. Dreadful governors tend to pick up traits that further decrease happiness though (harsh judges, mean character traits, etc.), so be careful. They do tend to acquire traits that further increase profit in the settlements they are in, however (harsh taxman, etc.).

So basically chivalry assists with growth and in the long term makes cities large, profitable, and happy. Dread assists with short-term happiness and immediate financial gain, but has some long-term problems as some dread-related traits lower population growth and can eventually cause unhappiness that your high dread won't be able to deal with adequately.

Of course, it's much easier to gain dread. Sack, exterminate, execute, backstab, assassinate, and set taxes to extortionate levels and you've got the makings of a dreadful bunch of characters. However, nobody can argue that you're certainly making a ton of money and raising large armies in the process. To be chivalrous you need to keep taxes moderate, don't resort to assassination, release prisoners, occupy cities if you can get away with it (or at least don't exterminate), don't mercilessly run down fleeing enemies, go on crusades, etc - all behaviors that do not bring you any good fortune in the immediate game.

As was mentioned above, dread reduces enemy morale and chivalry increases your own side's morale. This means that dreadful generals work best with armies that rely on shock tactics to hit the enemy hard and hope they break - it encourages the enemy into breaking quickly (and hopefully chains it, too), meaning your troops suffer less casualties. With troops like cavalry, this is ideal - they excel on the charge, but suffer in protracted engagements. There's a reason the Mongols are so hard to deal with, and it's precisely because they have mostly-cav armies led by high-command, high-dread generals.

Chivalric generals, on the other hand, benefit most when leading infantry. Their extra benefits to morale ensure that your troops can take a hit and keep grinding away at the enemy. Rather than an all-out charge forward against the enemy, they make better use of the old "hammer and anvil" tactic of getting the enemy stuck on the anvil (your infantry line) and then nailing them with the hammer (shock cavalry or infantry waiting to support their heavier brethren).

While high-chivalry or high-dread generals can both be quite succesful in attack or defense, it's obvious that dread lends itself better to attacking and chivalry more to defending.

Hope that helps!

[Snipafist]

I forgot Authority!

These are all impressions so I might be wrong, but I've noticed the following about Authority:
-Almost all the generals I get while I have a high-authority leader have bonuses to loyalty, sometimes quite high bonuses at that (+5!).
-Authority seems to govern the chances of defection/desertion. I have captain-led armies rebelling left and right when my authority is very low, but I can rely on captain-led armies with no problem when I have a high authority.
-Characters seem to get the "feels appreciated" bonuses more often when you have a high authority leader.

[FactionHeir]

Dread gives less than 10% a point. Probably closer to 5% every 2 points.

Authority only decreases chances of desertion and possibly has some input on diplomacy. No effect on traits your generals get at all.

[Foz]

i've read that ransoming is the nuteral option and dosn't increase or decrease either chiverly or dread

I was referring to this trigger:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

;------------------------------------------
Trigger prisoners_payer1
WhenToTest GeneralPrisonersRansomedCaptive

Condition RansomType ransom
and NumCapturedSoldiers > 80
and RansomAmount > 1000

Affects RansomChivalry 1 Chance 100

As it turns out, I read it wrong. It actually seems to be a trait that gains a general a chivalry point if he is bought back during a ransom, rather than if he is holding captives which are bought back as part of a ransom.

...On top of that chivalric governors tend to get traits that further lower squalor, so you can end up with a HUGE growth bonus from a high chiv governor.

...

Dreadful governors tend to pick up traits that further decrease happiness though (harsh judges, mean character traits, etc.), so be careful. They do tend to acquire traits that further increase profit in the settlements they are in, however (harsh taxman, etc.).

I do not believe either of these statements are correct. For the most part, the triggers in the traits file do not check for dread or chivalry points, with the only typical exception being that they sometimes are checked to avoid giving a guy opposite points of what he already has. Like, if an action would give a dread point, it often will not do so if the guy already has chivalry points. You may think you notice trends like this, but they are entirely to do with factors other than having dread or chivalry points. More than likely you are employing a tax strategy or governing strategy that, while causing strategy or dread points, also causes other effects like tax-related ones. I can say very confidently, having looked through the trait file a lot, that things like good trader, good administrator, and numerous other economic and governing traits in fact have nothing to do with whether your governor has chivalry or dread, or how much he has, and everything to do with the situation you put him in in the settlement he governs. Among those things that contribute to such traits are:

What kinds of buildings he builds
What kinds of buildings are present in the settlement
How often he builds
The tax rate
How happy the people are
Random chance

Many other things apply (and are too many for me to remember), but chivalry and dread are not among them.

[supadodo]

Kinda off topic but I had a general who got a dread knight ancillary for releasing prisoners. He also had 2 or 3 chivalry points and I think 1 or 2 dread traits. Also I had another general who was a dread beast but got the Saint title in his name. It later changed to Malevolent after some more executions.

[FactionHeir]

Also I had another general who was a dread beast but got the Saint title in his name. It later changed to Malevolent after some more executions.

Happens escpecially often for faction leaders. I think my Turkish faction leader had his title changed over 30 times during the game.

[Foz]

Also I had another general who was a dread beast but got the Saint title in his name. It later changed to Malevolent after some more executions.

This may not actually be that strange. Chivalry and piety are somewhat similar concepts in the game, so it would not surprise me if the Saint title is in fact tied to piety instead of chivalry. If that is case, as piety is entirely independent of dread/chivalry, this would be entirely possible if you have a dreadful yet pious general.

Anyone know if the Saint title in fact stems from chivalry or from piety?

[FactionHeir]

Saint from Saintly Ruler (StrategyChivalry)