Favourite Kingdoms Campaing?

[S.Selim_1]

Hey...i was searching for a poll of wut is the most popular campaign in M2TW kingdoms but i didn't find it so i thought of posting this thread. i think the Crusades campaign is the best. i think it's way better than any other campaign....and the americas campaign is the worst....sorry but it really doesn't fit in the medieval era!

[WhiskeyGhost]

i'd vote Teutonic

[Ferret]

Crusades definitely, closely followed by Teutonic (partly because of the great music). Americas wont even work for me any more though I did enjoy it when it did.

[DVX BELLORVM]

I cannot vote from experience since I only played Britannia (as England - I like their billman and longbowmen too much to resist ), but I'd vote for the Crusades.

I like the time period, unit roster, and clean desert battlefields.

The reason for not playing it yet, is the stone forts bug.

[Ferret]

That really is no reason to not play it, personally I found the Britannia campaign the most boring of them all, it just seems too similar to previous games.

[Shahed]

Crusades, for sure.
Teutonic, runner up.

Americas, not enough cavalry for Apache (for my taste)..
Britannia, same old, same old. Not enough difference from standard campaign.

I cannot vote from experience since I only played Britannia (as England - I like their billman and longbowmen too much to resist ), but I'd vote for the Crusades.

I like the time period, unit roster, and clean desert battlefields.

The reason for not playing it yet, is the stone forts bug.

The stone fort bug is solved, have a look here (<-Link).

Images courtesy of zxiang1983.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Have'nt tried it yet myself but I will once I get back to Kingdoms sometime next weekend.

[DVX BELLORVM]

That really is no reason to not play it, personally I found the Britannia campaign the most boring of them all, it just seems too similar to previous games.

No, I guess it isn't. I'm going to play it as soon I finish my HRE campaign (vanilla). Hopefully it will be fixed by then.

Well, England gets a bit dull later in the game, once you develop the economy you become unstoppable. But at the beginning it's very interesting and somewhat challenging.

Edit: Thank you Sinan, I'll give it a try!

[Shahed]

They really should have included more new units in the minicamps IMO. That said, I MUCH prefer the minicamps to the original grand campaign. I find them much more detailed and much more in depth, all round. Again Crusades stands out though followed closely by Teutonic.

[S.Selim_1]

the americas campaign doesn't even make sense to me..the spanish are far more advanced than most other factions, at least historicaly and they didn't even have a hard time conquering the aztecs or the mayans
Teutonic campaign is awesome...so much to do but i guess the crusades has more history and events in the middle of the game...when i played with the egyptians and got the mamluke rebellions (baybars) i was so amased to see how CA made such a historically acurate game..as much as possible though coz egypt had the suez canal already dug and the suez canal shouldn't have been dug until the 19 century!!!!!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Teutonic by a long shot despite the large number of bugs. Seems to be the only campaign in Kingdoms offering a challenge (if you don't blitz) and with a sense of design.

Britannia - Somewhat boring and highly repetitive but overall OK.
Crusades - Offers little or no challenge regardless of the faction you decide to play and despite it has the least amount of bugs even when including stone forts not working correctly (hardcoded). The stone fort link above offers only a partial fix. In my opinion quite pointless if generals can't construct them on campaign map.

Americas - Why did they even bother.

[Taiwan Legion]

wtf @ all the America hate. It's the best out of all cuz it's such a breath of fresh air.

And yea, Spanish was strong as hell and did not have problem conquering those civilizations. That's why you play as the Apaches. In which game dose it allow you to play as the Indians to kill some palefaces???!?

When you charge, you actually get the Indian war call (the HOOTHOOWOOHOOT)

it's just reek of awesomeness.

[Laman]

Americas, due to being the most different. Have not yet played Teutonic that much, will give it a new try later, sadly it lacks Sweden as a faction which it should have considering the time it starts. Crusades is rather fun but with the most obvious errors in starting territories (ie I can spot a few without even trying, the most obvious being Antioch owns Aleppo...). Britannia, well I have played a little, somewhat fun, and does allow a decent campaign if one wants to play with the Scots, but nah.

[Prodigal]

The stone fort bug is solved, have a look here (<-Link).

Images courtesy of zxiang1983.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Have'nt tried it yet myself but I will once I get back to Kingdoms sometime next weekend.

Its monday, horribly early, freezing cold, but you've just made my day!

[Shahed]

Cool !

BTW that fix is apparently working both on strat and campaign map, so that's the end of that annoying bug, I hope!

Actually that's true I enjoyed the Americas Apache campaign because it was indeed a great whole new experience. I loved the Armies but just not enough cavalry, for my taste, and then lack of armor and everyone has a bow means absolutely horrendous casualties. I will try it again.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Cool !

BTW that fix is apparently working both on strat and campaign map, so that's the end of that annoying bug, I hope!

Afraid not!
That fix is for pre-existing forts only (set out in descr_strat.txt). A general can construct stone forts on the campaign map but they appear as wooden forts in the battlemap.

[ReiseReise]

Americas is my fav because it is so different. The battlefield is dominated by the bow instead of heavy cav (when the Spanish aren't fighting) so it has a bit of a learning curve, but it is refreshing to do something besides "hold with infantry, flank with cav." Also there are many different faction styles to choose from. Apaches = no city defenses, massive numbers, mostly archers, VERY low upkeep, Chichimec = Apache style units but with cities and normal upkeep. Mezoamericans (Aztec, Maya, Tlaxcallan, Tarascan) = city based, massive numbers, melee troops. and finally the Spanish = small unit size but with 2 or 3(!) HP. Quite a relief from the "same infantry, same archers, ooh ooh i get to chose between knights or HA and fight the same way as I always do"

[PseRamesses]

Crusades closely followed by the Teutonic. I only wish that they where more epic like max provinces, huge map and strong muslim states/ presence. And it would have been more appropriate to start the game with a fleet packed with troops and all the lands control by muslims and minor factions. Same setup for the Teutons. That would be... Total War!

[Shahed]

Afraid not!
That fix is for pre-existing forts only (set out in descr_strat.txt). A general can construct stone forts on the campaign map but they appear as wooden forts in the battlemap.

Damm ! Oh well, I guess if we really want them we'll have to set up a few in destrat. I'll try it as soon as I get some time.

[Prodigal]

Afraid not!
That fix is for pre-existing forts only (set out in descr_strat.txt). A general can construct stone forts on the campaign map but they appear as wooden forts in the battlemap.

True, & by the looks of things its only a couple of them rather than all the forts in the files, but still, a retro's a helluva lot better than the diddly squat we have currently.

And so as not to keep drifting off topic.

Crusades easily, then Teutonic, Brit feels very small & haven't really tried america yet, (not really my time period or location).

[Fookison]

Crusades then Americas.............For all the reasons noted before.

[Jasper The Builder]

Ive only played 3 of them, Really enjoyed the America's one at first but it became somewhat boring and repetitive, Really sucked how the apache wasn't able to build better defensives or build up a fleet. I made tons of money with them and yet could only toss out stack on stack of soldiers to fight endless amount of battles with the others who had stack upon stack...The battles like said before are so different, And it was a breath of fresh air, Over all 7/10.

Britannia was much of the same as m2, I started my first game with Wales, And the war with England brought only ramble lead by no generals. I was expecting and awaiting for King Edward to arrive with 4 full stacks to enslave us, With a fleet ready for my leave, But it never came...Built up the economy and with the help of the Barons took out England...Went to war with Ireland and by the end of my first game, I cleaned up the map..Started a fresh game with england, Got incessantly bored by the amount of settlement under my control...The downfall of Britannia...To many f**k**g settlements...I mean what is places like grrr and making it look like a map of America for, so boxed and stupid and yet no Stafford?? I think i know now why they sing its a long way to Tipperary..Disgrace 6/10

Crusades is alright and better than Britannia for Kings and princes attacking you, But the same i got bored with it pretty quickly...7/10

Haven't played the other one, Dont care about that part of the world at all, Have no interest in boche, what so ever.

[Niterider613]

Crusades for me all the way!!

[Quickening]

So far probably the Teutonic. It's awesome. Then the Americas campaign just because as people have said, it's so damn fresh. The Brittania campaign comes next although I agree that it's pretty much more of what we got on Med 2 but some people might appreciate that.

EDIT: Forgot to say, it's so annoying for me that CA gave the Welsh English accents and the Irish, Scottish accents. I know they do this kind of thing a lot but coming from Britain I notice this example more than any. It's really grating especially in the case of the Welsh who have a completely different accent from the English. I can understand how people could confuse an Irish accent with a Scottish one if they're not from around here so that one isn't so bad. But English and Welsh? No chance.

[marrow]

Ha ha, you're being a touch naiive although I know exactly what you mean. When I went to stateside with my mates from Coventry and Wigan (I'm a Londoner myself) most people there really thought we were all from London! Fair enough, Britain ain't too big, but I agree that to our ears there's a world of difference between northern and southern Welsh accents, let alone English and Welsh! Oh, well, CA have been known to cut corners a little in this respect so I'm afraid we should just get on with it somehow (even though I die a little inside every time I hear Irish faction heir talk glaswegian...). An off switch for all those little annoying speeches should be included for sure.

Merry Christmas!

[adembroski]

As an American, to us the Irish-Scottish difference is a lot more obvious than Welsh-English. Scottish can be very difficult to understand for us at times, it's very harsh and gutteral, where as Irish is a soft, pleasant, almost song-like accent that's difficult to mistake.

I think Irish is more similar to English than Scottish.

I think they did it the way they did based on cultural considerations. The Scots are Irish, if you go back far enough. The Welsh aren't either, but they've lived alongside the English long enough.

On topic, my favorite campaign so far (and I've only had the game for a week now) is Crusades, mostly because I've hyped myself up for it. I find Americas far more fun than I assumed I would (being part Chippewa myself, it's pretty fun to play as the Apache, the closest to that culture we've seen in a Total War game thus far).