Which period(s) do you play in?

[Martok]

Strangely enough, I don't think I've ever really seen this question asked before. (Or at the very least, it's been a long time since it was.)

I almost always play in in the Early period. As a turtler, I like to take my time expanding and taking over the map (hence, I rarely play in the High period).

On the flip side, I'm not a fan of gunpowder, so I almost never start a campaign in the Late period. (Plus, starting in Late would require me to rush more than I'm usually comfortable with.)

What about you guys?

[seireikhaan]

Mostly early, unless I want to play a particular faction that I can't play in early, like the Golden Horde, for instance.

[Sensei Warrior]

For me its almost always Early as well. I like the building part of MTW a little more than the fighting part, and Early gives me more time.

I occasionally drift into High when I have become very bored with fighting Peasants, but often I'm disapointed because I'm no where near as built up as I would've been had I played from Early.

There's a Late Era? Ahem, I mean, I have no interest in gunpowder and MTW. I am able to play with gunpowder quite enough IRL so why bother in MTW? I am not able to fool around with huge swords and axes, and I have yet to finish my hauberek, so til then MTW it is, growl.

I didnt see it as an option, but I like the VI era as much as Early. I like playing against overwhelming odds (ergo I do not play as the Vikings). I have a hard enough time thinking I'm fighting fair while I am playing as the Welsh.

EDIT This is the second poll of Martok that I have voted on. I thought I would chime in with a suggestion/ or perhaps just a question. How come you don't make the polls public? I wouldn't mind seeing who voted where, I know alot of us throw up a post as well, I just thought maybe a public poll would help out with the ninja-voters. Stealth Voting FTW.

[bamff]

Early for me as well. I like to build my Empire from the ground up. I recall somebody in another thread identified me as a "turtler", which is probably right...

I also feel (rightly or wrongly) that in early, the AI's recruitment and use of units more closely matches the players - which increases the challenge. Nothing worse than riding into battle in late with your arbs, CFK's, and the like to find yourself facing round shield spears, militia sergeants, and so on...well okay there are worse things (like building a supreme kingdom and then having your king die without an heir), but you get where I am coming from I hope.

[Brandy Blue]

For me, it really depends on which faction I am playing. For instance, I like the dramatic opening for the Byzantines in the High period. The capital has been taken by the Crusaders, and eastern boarder has been overrun, and the Byzantine Empire lies in fragments. Somehow, you have to save the day. Besides, I like the high period for all eastern factions, so I will have to deal with the Mongol invasion.

Then again, if I was playing the Almos, I might pick early, because its not like the high or late roster for Almos is any more interesting anyway.

[Roark]

I used to hate gunpowder, which represented everything that I DIDN'T think of when I heard the word "Medieval", but I kinda love it now, especially Organ Guns.

I also hate rushing. I like being able to change the course of history over a decent period of time.

Finally, I kinda like having halfway decent troop production capability from the start.

Hence, I play High.

[macsen rufus]

Yet another "early" fan, pretty much for the reasons everyone else has - I like the small, simple battles (I mean simple as in uncomplicated, not necessarily easy) at the beginning. I also like the long stretch of time ahead, I'm not a great fan of rushing either. I do occasionally start in the other eras, usually when I've just finished an "early" campaign, finally teched up to some interesting "late" units, then not had a chance to use them before the game was won And also to play factions that are only available in later eras (I usually play XL so this includes Crusaders, Burgundy, Teutonic Knights etc).

When I really want to play with gunpowder - and the urge does grab me every now and again after I've had a long spell of people hitting each other with various bits of wood and iron (or bronze ) - then I'll go the whole hog and switch to Pike & Musket or Napoleonic. You see, I really like my artillery, and that's where gunpowder comes into its own

[gregori99]

All my games used to be Early games and I still prefer them. I like starting from scratch. There seem to be more strategic options. Later on, when factions are developed and have big armies, it's war, war, war.

The trouble with starting early is either I've won half-way into High, or, if I don't play aggressively, one or two Catholic factions dominate the map and they are just about unstoppable, again just into High.

In order to experience some of the the better units, I've been playing High games lately, but I still prefer Early.

[Swiss Halberd Pike Landsknecht]

Usually, I go for the early period period to build up my kingdom,

although I'm sure this doesn't count as well as it's to do with VI, but I've spent more time playing VI Campaign than MTW

[King Kurt]

I am rather partial to High - Horde on the horizon and a nicer selection of troops available. Occasionally dabble with early, but I do like to get stuck in early as opposed to a slow growth of empire. I must try late one time.

[professorspatula]

High period usually - whatever the middle period is. Usually I prefer the factions that start there. Also there are a few more teched up provinces. I found when I play in Early, many settlements in Europe just end up being stuck with little forts for most of the game because everyone is set on knocking each other back into the stone age. It's not helped that the AI prefers to build stables all the time when it should upgrade the keep or barracks instead so it struggles to get anywhere.

I also edited the game so if I want to play in Late I get a few hundred extra turns because there isn't enough in my book.

[drone]

Early, when I'm not playing VI. I just think it's more for when starting with nothing.

[Tony Furze]

Always Early for me. I feel out on a limb when I start at any other era. I like the time given to develop and make mistakes.

[macsen rufus]

Wow, very strong preference for early so far! Looks like people like to start from the ground up, possibly a useful piece of information for modders

Nothing worse than riding into battle in late with your arbs, CFK's, and the like to find yourself facing round shield spears, militia sergeants, and so on...

It's not much fun the other way round either

[Agent Miles]

I'm with the Early crowd. I tried Turks on Late once. It was a real rush to conquer the whole map. Just made it by 1451.

[Kaidonni]

Early all the way for me, unless it's a faction I can't start as in Early. Generally, I feel like starting in a later era, it's not so orderly a start. Like the buildings and units are all over the place, like a patchwork pattern. Or like some of the work has been done for me, or nothing at all has been done where it should have been.

Anyway, it's always nice to build from the ground up. Unless you're playing XL, as the Bulgarians in High. Gotta love bribing Constantinople. You wouldn't get a gem like that in Early, seeing as how it's less developed when starting in Early.

[Ciaran]

High or Late, the last few games were all Late games.

I did play an Early game once, but it was finished somewhere in the High era and even then before I could utilize all the shiny new units. I like the larger variety of units which a High or Lae game offers (Halberdiers and Pikemen allow and require different tactics than the Early spear and sword troops) and I´ve taken (after a bit of learning) a liking to gunpowder. Starting in Late also gives me the challenge that, for a large part, I´ll have to make do with what I have, as opposed to an Early start, where I can optimize my empire from the very beginning.

[Innocentius]

I went with Early anf High. Early for the same reasons as everyone else already mentioned (building from the ground etc etc), and High since some great factions aren't available in Early (Teutonic Order, Bulgarians and the Serbs have an entirely different unit roster and gameplay). And yes, I have come to consider the XL Mod as the original game.

[Prussian1]

Early - always early. . .

I love the challenge of literally digging out of the dirt and building an empire in my image

[Geezer57]

I prefer High, less often Late, almost never Early. The later unit/tech base is much more appealing, with greater variety. Just seems to have more flavor!

[Passatempo]

early, always early

i just don't feel like starting a game with so much already done...
starting at early i can choose where i want to build each thing and stuff like that

[Noir]

Eversince i found out about the -ian mode, i usually give all the factions to the AI and press autorun until 1204 or something near that.

Then find one relatively weak (or sometimes very weak) faction from the ones that i can take over and play. This tactic has given quite some interesting games so far, with totally new "high" eras everytime.

early suits the trick better for obvious reasons - heh

[Seabourch]

Early! Everyone in High or Late is crammed in more advanced castles and its difficult for me in assualting castles in MTW so I go for early so I can smash their toothpick houses to bits with a catapault or mangonel if its mercenary. You also feel as though your not in a hurry to get things over with like in Late. I'm a bit of a mix really. I build up for a bit before attacking a faction. OF course if it one of those big factions with huge armies mid way through game , I simply attack one province, conquer and wait forthem to tire themselves out attacking me, trying to reclaim their provinces.

[Bregil the Bowman]

early, always early

i just don't feel like starting a game with so much already done...
starting at early i can choose where i want to build each thing and stuff like that

Agreed - Early. Otherwise you are just finishing off the AI's game.

Love VI too but it doesn't the scope of playing the full map for nearly four centuries.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Early, for the prolongued enjoyment. Most of the time, I extend the end date too.
.

[Laman]

Mostly early. Can go with high (or even late) if there is some faction I would like to play that doesn't exist in early (or has a much more interesting position in one of the later starts)

[gaijinalways]

Almost every time I have played has been early for many of he same reasons mentioned;

I like building up slowly (my last campaign had me worried about winning as the years passed and I had only 20 countries on the map, but I came on strong at the end).

I like the manuevering more than the battles sometimes.


Building up income and trade is fun.

Finally, the battles are intrigueing, especially as I tend not to farm for general virtues and just look for battle wins via good strategy and balanced armies for the terrain.

[Martok]

.
Early, for the prolongued enjoyment. Most of the time, I extend the end date too.
.

To what year do you usually play then?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
1648, Peace of Westfalen.
.

[Alvar Nuñez de Navarre]

in campaign mode it's Early for pretty much the same reasons everyone else stated.

i like the feel of starting from scratch. i don't like starting with loads of builds when i don't know what they are without checking each one. starting out in Early with (almost) nothing, i find it easier to remember what i've built and what i need.

but, i play mostly Custom Battles rather than Campaigns and for that it's nearly always Late period. just love it when my handgunners get caught out in the open in a downpour....