Which Kingdoms campign did you like the least?

[Sentinel]

Least favourite – America
I have played as the Spanish and as Apache. Both were too easy, and too repetitive.
The Spanish units are too strong and easily outmatch most of the native units. The artillery is devastating in a siege. I once killed over 600 of an enemy garrison with just a couple of cannons.
The apache were just the opposite, very weak units made worse by the armour upgrade bug. Their only advantage was that they were cheap and with the warpath you could easily swamp your enemy. Having to learn new technologies was too erratic and added nothing to the game. Although this did result in the excellent mounted thunder braves, the only good unit the Apaches had.
I did not play as any of the other native faction because I did not relish the idea of using infantry to chase down the enemy cavalry at the end of each battle.
The concept of British / French troops suddenly arriving was good and added a little more excitement, but it was too simple to predict when and where they were due to land and therefore plan a counter to it.

Next Least Favourite – Teutonic
Apart from tweaking some of the unit’s stats this was just a smaller version of the main game. I played one campaign as the Danes, but I couldn’t see a reason to start a second using this map rather than the main game map.

Next to Best – Crusades
Crusades, like Teutonic’s, is very similar to the main game, but you get another chance to go toe to toe with the Mongol hoard. The new hero’s mode is an interesting, if minor, feature, as is the reinforcement that arrive when you take key cities. The ability to make permanent forts seems to be a waste of time, due mainly to the bug. If you could built better forts (like the ones in Britannia) it would be an advantage even if they were not permanent.

Favourite – Britannia
I liked the system of linking the religious level with the type of units you could recruit and degree of unrest you got. Blitzing suddenly got a lot harder.
The forts were a lot better than the usual type that your generals units could normally build. I don’t usually use forts much in the main campaign, but these were fun to both defend and siege.
The emergence of a new faction also enhanced the game. It reminded me of the re-emergence of destroyed factions in the original M1TW game.
It’s a pity that the reinforcements for Wales didn’t arrive. I think they caught the programmers plague or some other bug.

None of the campaigns were bad. Most could have been better (less bugged). Overall a good expansion.

[Quintus.JC]

Least favourite – America
I have played as the Spanish and as Apache. Both were too easy, and too repetitive.

The Spanish and Apache are the easiest in the campaign. Try the Tlaxcallans, they're a handful.

The Spanish units are too strong and easily outmatch most of the native units. The artillery is devastating in a siege. I once killed over 600 of an enemy garrison with just a couple of cannons.

The Spanish units all have 2 HPs, that's quite hard to understand for me.

[Old Geezer]

The Apaches are the only faction I gave up on. I just can't stand the slow movement of units through vast areas. Their territory is far worse than Russia. I guess if I had used the warpath that the armies could have moved faster and reduced my boredom.
As far as the Spanish having 2 hit points, they probably should have 3 to make things work out more historically accurate as far as expansion goes.

[The New Che Guevara]

Teuronic Campaign for me.

I've just played through short versions of each one, and I have to admit, that crusades and teutonic are the worst, yet still amazingly good. I loved the americas campaign and found britannia campaign completely interesting. (standard brit)

although I did start trying to play MTW2 with high graphics on. Then my friend advised me to low grpahics and it was still good. At any rate I suppose it depends on who you're playing as. Crusades, I tried playing as Byzantium and found myself bored.

[Sentinel]

originally posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
The Spanish and Apache are the easiest in the campaign. Try the Tlaxcallans, they're a handful.

I took your advice and gave them a try last night. Played only about a dozen turns, then stopped after destroying the Aztecs and Tarascans.
This faction is easier than the Apacheans. Although they start the game with only one city they have bags of money, lots of strong infantry units (much better than the early game Apaches), and about 10 rich provinces to conquer, within a couple of turns. The Apaches take 4 turn just to reach their nearest neighbour. Conclusion - Less tedious, but no harder.

[IvarrWolfsong]

America was the weakest for me. The AI just sprints giant globs of inf at you and the easiest way to counter it is to do the same thing with more/better units. I felt like i could pause, sick each unit on an enemy unit and go make a sandwich. The europeans called for different tactics but I felt like they could just be drowned in inf.

Tuetonic was my favorite! Some of the battles I had there were the most exciting I have had in any TW game. Lithuania can be suprising difficult in the field, as you slow pokes will have difficulty with skirmishing cavalry. The mongols are even worse of a go. Also, the other European factions tend to tech up and send balanced quality troops at you later on.

The best fight I ever had in M2TW:K was when my "Flying Column" of 1 general, 4 Ritterbrudders, 4 Halbruders and 2 Sword Brethern were caught by a huge polish force of 1.5 stacks of quality troops (Polish Knights, Noble, Hussars, dismounted knights and nobles+ 3 generals) on a wooded hill side.

Charging down the slope en masse, I was able to route the vastly superior enemy cavalry force which, in a vain quest for glory, had surged past its support leaving the infanty behind. Next I attacked the infantry. I took terrible loses as I had to "pin" the enemy spears with my heavy cavalry, but I finally routed them all by repeated charges down the steep mountainside.

Just when I thought it was over, a large force of hussars from the reinforcement army smashed into my men from the flank. In the desperate struggle, I lost my Livonians to the man, but the Ritters dominated the lighter hussaria once they were bogged down in a melee. The rest of the reinforcements were soon crushed under my hooves (lots of dismounted knights and woodsmen but only a few spear militia thank God).

In the end, I had 3 half strength ritters, my bodguard in the single digits and 3wrecked halbrudder units left. It was however a heroic victory and one that I did not think i could pull off considering the number of enemies and the wooded terrain. All in all, it was a very fast paced and hectic fight where every charge could mean victory of destruction and I had to exploit every angle of attack, several fiegned charges and numerous tactical retreats up the hillside. It was crazy fun

[G^2]

Can't vote yet b/c jr. member still, but Britannia. I enjoyed the Viking Invasion allot more with the Saxon House Carls and the initial raiding of the Vikings. Don't get me wrong the Britannia campaign was fun but after the first twenty turns or so it seemed to get repetitive. I played as Norway and Whales and quickly had 15 provinces on M/M. Stopped after that because of the repetition. I would have rather seen a Hundred Years War campaign or even Thirty Years War campaign which would be a great change of pace.

PS: Haven't played the America's campaign yet, seemed like the least interesting one to me. Loved the Teutonic Campaign, even more than the Grand Campaign.