What did Kingdoms add to the main M2 campaign in the way of features and enhancements

[Furunculus]

I loved the original Medieval, and hated Rome, so I was apprehensive about the arrival of M2.

I wanted to love it because of its forbear, but feared it would suffer the rubbishness of its immediate predecessor.

So i played M2 and immediately failed to fall in love, rather than being seduced by medieval europe once again i was driven away by awkward Rome style mechanics.

I never played or bought Kingdoms!

However, I loved Empire, and think Shogun2 is likewise awesome, so I am curious to see if my newfound familiarity with modern total war game mechanics will allow me to see M2 in a different light.

But M2 still felt crude compared to the sublime pleasure of the original Medieval, so I want to know what the Kingdoms expansion did to enhance and sophisticate the main M2 campaign.

I'm not bothered about what the new mini-scenarios brought to the party, I always the play the full campaign in total-war games, nothing else.

So did Kingdoms improve the main game in any manner at all?

Cheers

[A Nerd]

As far as I know, the kingdoms expansion did nothing for the main campaign except patching it up to 1.4. Just 4 mini campaigns. Don't quote me on this however. There are a few nice kingdoms mods out there that do spice up the main campaign though. Check out the TWC when you have some time! :)

[tanker]

I just picked up the Gold Edition recently, which has Kingdoms included. I loaded the whole thing all at once. As best I can tell, the main campaign does not have any of the changes introduced in the Kingdom modules. That's really too bad. But the mini-campaigns are quite good, especially the Brittiana campaign. It feels more like the original Shogun to me (still my favorite for its simplicity) - no Pope, no Crusades, smaller land mass with a more detailed map. Just power diplomacy and lots of battles unimpeded by excommunications. Very nice.

There are mods that use the Kingdoms features and units in the main campaign. I think Stainless Steal is one. I've not played it, but it does seem to be highly recommended in these forums. There are others too.

[Beggarman]

One thing I can think of is the ability to control AI reinforcements. Normally, I'm not too worried when I get reinforcements and they come under my control(i.e. I don't have a full stack, and the general's bodyguard and a few other units get to come onto the battlefield), but I am absolutely LIVID when I have a fullstack, and the reinforcements are under AI control, ESPECIALLY if it contains a General's Bodyguard. Too many times I've had a Family member under AI control charge into the middle of a spear horde and get butchered. If I'm using infantry, it's pretty much inevietable: I can't intercept it. If I use cav, I can intercept it, but it can make for a hard time and reduce the manuever I need to win the battle with minimal casaulties.

The kingdoms campaigns all allow yo uto set the "stance" of your AI reinforcements, allowing you to, for example, tell that General's Bodyguard and three militia units to be "defensive", and not to engage. That's pretty nice.

Also? Why the trouble with the Papacy? I've had very little issues with him. Once you figure out how he ticks, you can generally manipulate him into supporting you. I guess some people don't like having to deal with him, but in the time period, the Pope was an important guy, and you couldn't just get away with ignoring his commands.

[Furunculus]

cheers all.