Crusader Kings

[Dooz]

For anyone disappointed with MTW2, or even the original MTW and who wants a deep medieval sim, check it out.

http://crusaderkings.wargamer.com/

You'd be hard pressed to find anything deeper. It just doesn't have the RTS battles of the TW series.

[lars573]

What I missed most from Crusader kings was turns. Not the RTS battles. That ticking clock Paradox uses in their historical sim games is trying.

[ShadesWolf]

What I missed most from Crusader kings was turns. Not the RTS battles. That ticking clock Paradox uses in their historical sim games is trying.

Thats half the fun and I must admit I hate turns.....
I find the clock a far better idea, as you can vary the speed or at lazy periods speed it up.

[lars573]

I didn't really get into it. One of those thing that needs like 5 hours (at a stretch) to devote learning it before it will get good. I only tried as Sicily and Denmark. Plus I could seem to ever be able to load a game.

[AntiochusIII]

I knew of this before, but never went out to get it. Forum talks say it is the most straightforward of all the Paradoxes, is that true?

The clock thing, in my opinion, is brilliant. I'd die if Hearts of Iron 2 was turn-based. It gives a whole new "real" dimension to the role-playing.

[Nikpalj]

I played this for about a month, got into it and then found that there realy wasn't that much to get into at all... You mostly spend your time sitting and watching the game play itself, making a few "do you choose this or that" decisions from time to time, choosing what next to research from a non-branching tech tree and getting dissapointed with the strategic combat...

This simply didn't work for me, not even with your own dinasty building.

On the other hand, if they incorporated something close to this into TW, this would be a game I'd die for... as it's 2006 now, 5 years after STW I've expected MTW 2 to be something like this MTW/CK combo, not another build another building, get another unit, feel real happy because of this kind of game.

[frogbeastegg]

AntiochusIII: I've played and enjoyed Vicky and EUII. I was expecting something with that kind of detail and complexity in CK, to the point where I brought a copy from Paradox's online shop to ensure I got it as soon as it first came out.

I didn't find it very deep. To make matters worse its lacking many historical aspects which would have improved it and made it more complex (female inheritance for one, non-linear and multifaceted liege/vassal relationships (e.g. hold this county from the King of England, that duchy from the King of France) for another. There are many more, and viable ways to implement most of my wants were suggested over a year ago, only to be dismissed out of hand for no good reason). Combined these two things made me lose interest completely, even though I really liked the game when it was new and in its 1.0 incarnation. Back then it had potential, and it took me time to see that the game basically consisted of compensating for random events, finding brides with good stats, and watching my armies march about slowly conquering.

I preferred 'Knights of Honour' when it came to the grand medieval campaign thing. That game had several distinctly different ways to play it, ranging form the straightforward and easy conquest path to the tricky espionage route. And overall it was much more fun to play! More to do, more variety, less tedious chore type work, and my actions determined events, not a random number generator. The game was held back in my eyes by two things:

1. The AI: Simply put, it needed work in a patch. It wasn’t hopeless, it just didn’t offer much challenge after you’d finished a campaign or three.

2. The field battles. Not a patch on MTW’s, and I found them difficult to control properly. Nothing has beaten MTW in this aspect; I still long for one to combine a complex and deep campaign with an equally complex and deep battlefield.

KoH isn't a wonderful game. It's a very good one, with flaws which, if fixed, could have made it damned good.