Whats the best Med 2 mod?

[lionhard]

Im looking to play a bit of med 2 just to get used to it ready for EB2 now i tryed Lord of the rings the forth age on my last pc but since iv got a new pc now iv got a change to try something else, whats everyonse opinion on the best mod to go for? Im looking to play an indepth slightly historically accurate campaign something harder than the vanilla version with a bit more of an edge any suggestions would help loads thanks guys :)

[bobbin]

Broken Cresent is the best and is second only to EB in historical accuracy IMO. Rusichi TW and Stainless Steel are good ones to try too.

[Sarkiss]

Deus Lo Vult (DLV)!
by far the hardest mod there is. features are too many to list here. it may not be as an eye candy as BC is but it is more realistic and much, much harder.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=309

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I liked Broken Crescent but I don't like how they made spearmen ineffective against infantry. Sort of annoying. Broken Crescent relies on the rocks, paper, scissors method which I couldn't get back into after playing EB for so long.

[Cute Wolf]

I bet if you liked historical accuracy for much, I reccomend Broken Crescant, with Gamegeek2's unit balance submod..

But if you like your templars mercilessly hack the Saracen Battleline, then go up with Default EDU.

-----------------------------

Deus lo Vult is a good mod though, and vanilla mod are quite balanced if you don't like much changes

[WinsingtonIII]

Deus lo Vult is quite fun, and hard, however I've had a lot of trouble with ctds from it, and I find some of the features a bit overbearing. Luckily in the newest version you can turn off some of the more time-consuming features at campaign start, which may reduce the crashes as well, but I'm not sure (it probably does lessen the number of scripts running).

However, if you want a mod that is as historically accurate as EB, I think you're going to be hard pressed. Deus lo Vult is a lot of fun, but I always get annoyed by some very basic things in which historical accuracy is lacking. I'm talking about things as simple as inaccurate family trees at game start (not for all factions, but I've noticed it for a couple), which is just a pet peeve to me. I also have a love-hate relationship with the scripted "Dark Ages" feature (I think that's what it's called). Basically in the mid 1200's, due to scripting, your economy tanks and based on what faction you are playing, you automatically end up at war with a specific list of other factions. It creates utter chaos, which is kind of nice, but the fact that you end up at war with certain factions even if you previously had good relations with them is not for me. It takes away some of your ability to play out an alternate history and instead forces you in wars with your former allies in some cases (which, of course, due to the stubborn AI, you will have a great deal of trouble negotiating yourself out of).

I should probably try Broken Crescent, I've always heard great things about it, but I'm just more interested in Northern and Western European history during the medieval period.

I'm basically waiting for Dominion of the Sword, and have been for a long time.

[mlc82]

Chivalry II and Broken Crescent are my favorites. Deus lo Vult was #1 for me til version 5. something when the mod's creator just kind of went nuts (as in over the top IMO, not literally crazy) with some of his design decisions. Also mainly just waiting on Dominions of the Sword here, and on the day EB II is finally released I will probably faint, then become a hermit.

[WinsingtonIII]

Chivalry II and Broken Crescent are my favorites.

I like Chiavlry II a lot, but again there are some aspects that bother me, although not as much as some of the more absurd features of DLV.

[Sarkiss]

what do you mean by absurd features? i dont recall any i could call absurd... as of stability it is somewhat stabler than EB CTD wise, at least for me. Dark Age represents black death, spread of the plague across Europe. it can be removed manually if you like, though. the only major thing i wish could be changed is to remove America and add more of the East to the map.

[WinsingtonIII]

what do you mean by absurd features? i dont recall any i could call absurd... as of stability it is somewhat stabler than EB CTD wise, at least for me. Dark Age represents black death, spread of the plague across Europe. it can be removed manually if you like, though. the only major thing i wish could be changed is to remove America and add more of the East to the map.

OK fine, absurd is a strong word. Look, if all the Dark Ages did was represent the black death and the concurrent economic crash, I would be fine with it. That aspect is fine. It is the automatic declarations of war that come with it that bother me. Given the stubborn nature of the AI, this feature means that you will end up at war with specific factions every time you play certain factions and most likely continue to be at war with them (unless you do not directly border them). That sort of ruins the spontaneity of the game and takes away your ability as a player to make your own diplomatic decisions. Roleplaying and increasing historical accuracy is great, but you shouldn't be forced into the same diplomatic relations every time you play as the same faction.

There are a couple other features that I think feel "gamey," as in though they are an attempt to increase the the historical accuracy and roleplaying, they sort of backfire and reduce the realism of it. The major one is the use of hording to keep factions alive. Now, this is fine when it is a faction that I could see hording, the obvious example being the Mongols. I however, cannot imagine a historical situation in which the Venetian Republic, after losing their last city, gathers together a vast horde of troops and goes rampaging off across Northern Italy to eventually settle in Milan. A settled people whose wealth, power, and livelihoods are based around a combination of agriculture, trading, and manufacturing are simply not going to up and leave en masse. Now, I realize that this is certainly a good faith effort to represent the survival of governments in exile and allow factions to survive and potentially re-emerge, but unfortunately, it really takes away from the realism for me to see a nomadic Venetian horde.

I actually like DLV a lot, and I think most of the features they implemented are great for the roleplaying aspect of the game. But a couple of them, despite being implemented with good intentions, actually reduce the realism in my opinion. I am certainly not trashing the mod though, it is very well done.

By the way, if you wish to play DLV without the Americas, download DLV Europa, it takes them out and adds Wales and the Kingdom of Ghana as factions. I don't think it expands the map east though, and it's based on DLV 5.0 I believe, so some of the newer features are not in it.

[Tenebrous]

I like Thera the best, and version 3 is awesome! It is nice for people who are historically minded, and who, like myself, found it weird conquering half of Europe as any state, as it jsut didn't make much sense. The middle ages just weren't and age of empires. It has a wide range of diverse factions, even a vampire faction, Renaissance factions, native north American factions, a pirate faction, and the romuli, a roman faction. No historical value, just a fun and different campaign map with a wide range of units. I find it extremely fun and immersive.

That being said, BC is pretty damn good as well.

[Olek]

DLV lost me when I had to convert a part of my population to the Jewish faith just to be able to create Merchants.

[Sarkiss]

OK fine, absurd is a strong word. Look, if all the Dark Ages did was represent the black death and the concurrent economic crash, I would be fine with it. That aspect is fine. It is the automatic declarations of war that come with it that bother me. Given the stubborn nature of the AI, this feature means that you will end up at war with specific factions every time you play certain factions and most likely continue to be at war with them (unless you do not directly border them). That sort of ruins the spontaneity of the game and takes away your ability as a player to make your own diplomatic decisions. Roleplaying and increasing historical accuracy is great, but you shouldn't be forced into the same diplomatic relations every time you play as the same faction.

the script can be removed manually. im not a big fan of it either, but i think it adds a bit to the game screwing your plans and making it more of a challenge to survivel if playing a smaller faction. you will be at war with every neighbor and plague will ruin your every region for some time. then its over and its time to rebuild.

There are a couple other features that I think feel "gamey," as in though they are an attempt to increase the the historical accuracy and roleplaying, they sort of backfire and reduce the realism of it. The major one is the use of hording to keep factions alive. Now, this is fine when it is a faction that I could see hording, the obvious example being the Mongols. I however, cannot imagine a historical situation in which the Venetian Republic, after losing their last city, gathers together a vast horde of troops and goes rampaging off across Northern Italy to eventually settle in Milan. A settled people whose wealth, power, and livelihoods are based around a combination of agriculture, trading, and manufacturing are simply not going to up and leave en masse. Now, I realize that this is certainly a good faith effort to represent the survival of governments in exile and allow factions to survive and potentially re-emerge, but unfortunately, it really takes away from the realism for me to see a nomadic Venetian horde.

agreed. thats another thing that with could do without. though there are plenty of people who really love this feature and think it makes the game harder and gives dumb AI an extra chance for survival.

I actually like DLV a lot, and I think most of the features they implemented are great for the roleplaying aspect of the game. But a couple of them, despite being implemented with good intentions, actually reduce the realism in my opinion. I am certainly not trashing the mod though, it is very well done.

By the way, if you wish to play DLV without the Americas, download DLV Europa, it takes them out and adds Wales and the Kingdom of Ghana as factions. I don't think it expands the map east though, and it's based on DLV 5.0 I believe, so some of the newer features are not in it.

i havent tried that. i do not think that adding such a minor semi-independent (?) faction as Wales will bring anything to the game though.

luckily, at the start of the game a player given an option to enable/disable most of the games unique features so everyone is able to play it the way he likes.

[WinsingtonIII]

Yeah, I think we're pretty much in agreement, Sarkiss. I just wish I could remove the automatic declarations of war from the script while leaving the rest of it. Which may be possible, but I'm unsure. Plus, I think I'm going to check out Thera now anyways, it's always interested me.

As for Wales, it is a fully independent faction in DLV Europa at game start (as it should be, it was not under English rule in 1180), and it's roster is just the reskinned Welsh faction units from the Kingdoms Britannia Campaign. I've never played as them, but it does seem like the British Isles might be a bit too crowded in DLV Europa, with Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England all vying for power. But the mod does get rid of the Americas, which is nice.