Which Kingdoms campign did you like the least?

[BananaBob]

The topic title says it all. Of all the Kingdoms campaigns, which was your least favorite? Why?

The campaign I liked the least was the Americas. Although I love all the Kingdom games and think they are an amazing addition to M2TW, The lack of variety between the natives really bothered me. You have New Spain, the Mayans, the ComancheChichimec and lets not forget the AztecTlaxcalanTarascans. I know it is historically accurate about how the culture was very similar, but it is kind of boring when their are really only 4 factions. I still love the Americas campaign, It just does not stand up to the other three.

What do you think?

[phonicsmonkey]

Americas - once the novelty wears off it becomes very boring fighting stack after stack of the same half-clad warriors with clubs

[Fookison]

Americas - once the novelty wears off it becomes very boring fighting stack after stack of the same half-clad warriors with clubs

DITTO!

[Mek Simmur al Ragaski]

Teutonic, it annoys me how the empires are so large, where i like extending my empires from the start, and i dont really like the shrines either...

The Americas was ok, i found that custom battles can be very entertaining, and many of the soldiers are the same, but the main difference i realised was how much more effective archers are in Americas than in M2TW the original, i cut down maybe 200 infantry with my infantry, and killed perhaps 500 soldiers with arrows, mainly because the natives have next to no armour on

[ataribaby]

If you install the Retrofit Mod then archers will be more effective in the normal campaign too. It's one of the reasons why I like the rebalance: suddenly peasant archers and archer militia are worth recruiting again.

[Shadebeard]

I honestly like all of the campaigns. Sure they each have their bugs and flaws, but they're all cool.

Anyways, I voted Crusades, because Broken Crescent does its job better and it's free.

[Sigismund]

I liked Teutonic campaign the least.... It's quite boring to play as every1, from the start, has somethin' agains Lithuania... allthough, I do like Dievas' Guards....

P.S. I liked America campaign the best...

[Ozzman1O1]

I realize that Alot of culture and ancesrty goes back to brittania,But we already had england and scotland,Ireland was just rediciulous mess that the spanish hadn't maped since the sixteenth century,And wails obviusly isnt a match for 3 factions surrounding it.And the barons alliance is exactly the same thing as england!Brittania was just "to small and cramped" to be in kingdoms.

[PBI]

Don't underestimate Wales, their starting position may look hopeless but their unit roster is formidable.

Personally I quite liked the rather parochial feel of Britannia, with vicious life-or-death battles being fought over places like Cardiff and Lincoln, but I can see it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes. I suppose that's why they went for the format they did in Kingdoms, so they could have a mix of the huge open expanses and vast empires of Americas and the cramped, intense, localised warfare of Britannia and Teutonic.

Personally my least favourite is probably Teutonic, but that's mostly because I haven't given it a fair chance yet, I really must get round to doing a full campaign.

[Lamprey]

I like Britannia. My favorite is the crusades campaign, but Britannia is my second. And the funny thing is, it's because I like playing Wales so much :) You have a tough challenge to start, a boy-vs-world deal with your little faction against England but you get such wonderful toys to compensate. Saethwyr just rock - a 112-man longbow unit - plus cool spears.

[Old Geezer]

Dang, this poll is like asking which of your children do you like the least? Actually that would be much easier for me.

America's is my least favorite, but I even love it. My wife really liked the silly guys dressed up like birds and kitty cats, esp. when they fly in the air when the conquistadores slam into them sending to their just reward.

[Iñnsomñni]

I agree with you, Poor Bloody Infantry, the battles seem much more auxhilarating, if you lose a certain battle it could mean the downfall of your entire nation, if you lose a certain city your money could go from 10000 to -500 very quickly, a very startling game, in my books

[Vladimir]

Sorry, cant' read.

[Iñnsomñni]

Personally, for me it was Crusades, i dislike deserts, the units were a bit iffy, and overall i just didnt generally like it, compared to Britannia, it was terrible

[Quintus.JC]

Americas. same reason as phonicsmonkey stated. Anyway, I was really looking forward for the Crusades campaign, because of the turbulent times of the Crusades historically, but the heroes were less exiciting and the game was not as good i hoped it would be, I was rather disappointed at it in fact. Really enjoyed the Britainia campaign. The Teutonic campaign was ok, not made much better by my lack of knowledge about the history of Eastern Europe.

[WhiskeyGhost]

Americas. Got bored pretty quickly, especially when playing the Apache.

[ataribaby]

Americas. Got bored pretty quickly, especially when playing the Apache.

Man, that's a shame. I really like the change of pace that the Apache run offers. I'd never entertained the idea of a purely Dread-based faction before playing as them - Chivalry always seemed the better option in the long run for growth.

Now I've transferred my experience of developing Dread Generals to the vanilla game; they're great to govern once your settlements have reached max capacity as they don't cause over population.

The New Spain campaign is a bit dodgy simply because it's so easy to blitz the whole map with the Jedi 2 and 3 HP cavalry. Unless you discipline yourself the map ends up being peppered with Famous Battle icons from Heroic cavalry victories. There seems to be very little challenge there.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

The New Spain campaign is a bit dodgy simply because it's so easy to blitz the whole map with the Jedi 2 and 3 HP cavalry. Unless you discipline yourself the map ends up being peppered with Famous Battle icons from Heroic cavalry victories. There seems to be very little challenge there.

Change all the Spain/England/France units to 1 HP (generals 2HP) while keeping current unit size. Lower the Morale of All the native elite units from 25 to 13 (or to 11 while keeping Gen Bodyguards and Priests at 13). Have fun.
Oh and I don't like Teutonic cos it's buggiest.

[ataribaby]

Change all the Spain/England/France units to 1 HP (generals 2HP) while keeping current unit size. Lower the Morale of All the native elite units from 25 to 13 (or to 11 while keeping Gen Bodyguards and Priests at 13). Have fun.
Oh and I don't like Teutonic cos it's buggiest.

Good idea. Two or three units of Conquistadores with 2 HP and a New World Bodyguard with 3 HP is all you need to conquer all atm. It's just daft.

[Abokasee]

Americas - once the novelty wears off it becomes very boring fighting stack after stack of the same half-clad warriors with clubs

You REALLY need to try it the other way round,

my least faviourite has to be brittania, its just one long slug fight and with the current AI it wont stop, also the forts only support 2 free slots I personally think about 10 is better

[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.

[Quickening]

I found the Britannia campaign to be a bit bland so far. I really hate the unit selection that the Scots get early game. It's utterly pathetic.
The Norwegians were a lot of fun to play since it forces you to "raid" for lack of money.
You are pretty much unbeatable as the Irish since no-one attacks Ireland once you own it.
Haven't played as England yet because I hate starting off with a massive empire. A soon as the patch is out, I'll try with Wales.

Im having loads of fun in the Crusades campaign as Egypt so far and that says a lot because I have literally no interest in the Crusades.

The Teutonic campaign seems like a lot of fun. I briefly tried a campaign as the Teutonic Order which I enjoyed. I was really looking forward to playing as Lithuania but they didn't impress me much.

As far the Americas campaign goes, I only enjoy playing as the Spanish. Playing as the natives is quite interesting for a while but gets repetitive quickly. I do love the black mask over the map. Nice touch.

[Ferret]

despite my heritage I voted Brittania. I always found it very boring, maybe because I played Viking Invasion too much...

[Shaka_Khan]

Do I need to beat one of the campaigns to unlock the other ones? I can only play the Americas. But it's odd when G^2 was able to play Britannica without playing the Americas campaign.