Which era do you play most?

[Garnier]

And which ones are the most fun, or challenging (disregarding the end date cause I'm sure most of us have changed that).

[macsen rufus]

Early - I like starting small and building the empire up from a bag of dirt and a handful of loyal retainers :2thumbsup:

[Jxrc]

Early as well for the same reasons.
Just played a few campaign in High and cannot remember starting one in Late.

[Monk]

I always liked Early. You don't get the flashy units right off the bat, but you get the freedom to shape the kingdom as you see fit, and a lot of time to do it.

Playing migration games is easiest in the Early period as well which I always loved doing, nothing like fighting off the Mongols in Russia as the English!

[Tony Furze]

Not surprisingly, Early. Gets you into the mood for the later period.

[drone]

Early, or VI.

[Ironsword]

Early. I have never started in Late... I turtle (perhaps too often) and like to spread my warring out.

[Kenshin the vega bound]

You should try the Late. Its not a problem in XL, but in VI the AI can feild better armys in late, and doesnt spam so much crappy units.

[Youngie]

I think it all depends on which faction your aiming to be. The English high/expert is my favourate, as europe is on a knife edge, They're is a chance for the formation of NWO's IMHO. :juggle2:

[Martok]

I always liked Early. You don't get the flashy units right off the bat, but you get the freedom to shape the kingdom as you see fit, and a lot of time to do it.
Ditto that. I generally prefer to build my empire from the ground up, and without having to hurry at all. :yes:

[Wasp]

Early - I like starting small and building the empire up from a bag of dirt and a handful of loyal retainers :2thumbsup:

Me too!

I should play a Late one sometime, but it's almost always Early - High doesn't really have the right 'small kingdom' feel for me.

[I of the Storm]

Early of course. The opening moves of a game are the most interesting anyway.

[jadast]

I've only started in early. Been tempted to start later but never have.

[Knight of the Rose]

Well, though some have voted "High", none have stated why. I almost always play high, and these are the reasons:

A) You have an interesting rooster of units, some will be obsolete, and still have a goal of "next generation" units to aim for. (depending on faction)

B) You have the full "rock-sissor-paper" experience, as polearms and crossbows has arrived.

C) There are two gigantic impacts on the game: Mongols and Gunpowder, that both come in High. Both are more challeging and interresting if you havn't prepared for them the last 100 turns.

On a side note, I believe that you will always have pretty much won the game, or at least controlling it before you come to 1205. That is why I always play GA and limit myself to one era - I must win when the 1320 count is made.

When I feel like a crusade where peasants can make a difference, or I want to historically play a crusade (or a defence of your homeland against the crusaders) I play Early.

/KotR

[Ravencroft]

Early, mostly cuz it's the easiest (and allows you to build from the ground up and 'correctly').

[Garnier]

I mostly play High, because I find it more challenging. The AI doesn't only have urban militia in their armies (I removed peasants, so now it's UM), they start with a bit of tech already done.

[DaVega]

Yeah I like to start in the Early period too.. You can build up your kingdom from the beginning, and you don't have to rush (due to a smaller amount of years left) in your conquest of the map. So I say Early FTW :2thumbsup:

[Kamakazi]

Yea early is rly fun to play for the basic reasons or no rushing and you can do what you want

[Heidrek]

High era.

More units available and more strategic planning necessary for army's. Good Spears being readily available means you can't just charge and smash through the spear wall like you can with inferior spears.

More planning is required, but more options are available. Only thing I don't like is some of the units being obsoleted when the High age arrives. You should still eb able to build early only units in High I think.

[edyzmedieval]

Early only. It's the most fun part of the game, building it up from scratch.

[Empirate]

I have voted Early, simply because usually I like to take my time and build up exactly what I want to build, specializing provinces and so on. But a few of the most interesting games I had were with a Late start. Ever tried the Turks, Late, VH? No? I can only say it's the most challenging start in the game, as far as I have played it (which is a lot).

[professorspatula]

I used to go for Early, but when I switched to the XL Mod, I go for High, mostly because I prefer the factions that start in it. I also now prefer the AI to have built up it's kingdoms a bit before I take action. In Early you run the risk of fighting nothing but rubbish armies for ages with an AI that is always knocking itself back to the dark ages before they can field a decent army against your superior one. At the same time, I like to have a bit more development in my own territories to speed up production of useful troops because I seldom intend to play the campaigns for that long so I don't want to be training lots of rubbish miltia and spearmen for the opening day's play.

[Matrim]

I start Early 80-90% of the time. I never really liked the VI campaign, but it is interesting now and then. I've recently started a couple in High, and one in Late. I should probably branch out a bit more, learn some new tactics.

[Roark]

When I first started playing MTW, I invariably played Early for the same reasons as everyone else (crafting an Empire "from the ground up") as well as the fact that I didn't like the idea of gunpowder in a Medieval game.

Then, as time went by, I decided that High was more fun (bigger unit roster, Horde).

Now, I almost always play Late! I like the time limit factor, and the idea of actually FINISHING a campaign at 1453 in GA mode, haha... Plus, I dig polearms. I think they give the weaker factions a bit of an advantage against rockstar knights, and make the challenge more worthwhile. The starting buildings for opponents are also improved, which enables them to train other quality troops, resulting in better army composition for battles.

I can't imagine going back to Early now and starting with... err, a fort. I find that all a bit tedious now (too much coffee maybe).

The only thing I do miss are Swabians, Avars, Kerns and the like, which are phased-out by Late.

[Ciaran]

I agree with Roark, maybe apart from the point of missing the phased-out Early era units. They´re exotics anyways and my armies are highly standardized (you could call them "boring"), straight from Frogbeastegg´s Beginner Guide. I´m very conservative.

[caravel]

Early would be the best era but the amount of construction required per province is ridiculous. Every single province should start with at least a fort, a port (for coastal provinces) and maybe one or two other basics such as a spearmaker, horse farmer, town watch or bowyer. It's bad enough with developed provinces getting razed to the ground and you having to rebuild anyway without also having to start entirely from scratch in a province. There's also the matter of those provinces that aren't really worth developing such as the Sinai or Cyrenaicia. :dizzy2:

Luckily most of this can be resolved through modding, but then that's not the point is it?

~:cheers:

[Ironsword]

Started playing late/expert recently. Quite a different experience, had a lot more battles and the AI is much better equipped. In fact, the first time I played as aragon, I lasted 15 turns. (But took the spanish king with me...)

[Empirate]

Actually, Sinai and Cyrenaica are very much worth developing, for excellent Mamluk Horse Archers and Saharan Cavalry, respectively. When I play Egypt, I find myself finishing the castle in Sinai before anywhere else to get my hands on some great mounted archers. And Valor 2 Saharans are scary, fast and deadly. Fantastic medium cav and very, very cheap, and available to all Muslim factions.

[Roark]

I agree RE: V2 Saharans. Lots of fun... and a whole lotta frantic, whirling misery for any Christian invaders, haha...

[Geezer57]

Another vote for Late - I find the unit mix provides greater tactical challenges and more varied combat situations. The transition from Early to Late seems greater than from Late to High, IMHO.

[Martok]

Welcome back, Geezer! Good to see you again. ~:cheers:



The transition from Early to Late seems greater than from Late to High, IMHO.
I largely agree with that assessment. I think the increased proliferation of gunpowder units along with the AI having access to more advanced troop types (thanks to their higher starting infrastructure) makes for a more marked change than between Early/High.

[Geezer57]

Welcome back, Geezer! Good to see you again. ~:cheers:

Thanks for the welcome - it's just too hard to resist visiting once in a while. MTW's siren call is firmly embedded in my brain! :laugh4:

[caravel]

Welcome back geezer. ~:cheers:

caravel

[Kamakazi]

i work the early part of the campains all the time whats better than growin from nothing to an undefeatable superpower?