Both Crusader kings and Medieval total war a very similar. Apart from the obvios lack of tactical combat, what does CK have that MTW does not and vice versa? How different are the two games?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, I have to admit I haven't played either game (!) but from the reading I've done on both I'd have to say that really the only thing similar between them is the timeframe they're both in.
MTW is much more focused on the tactical battles, although there is a turn based diplomatic/strategic element as well. CK is focused more on the high level strategy of your dynasty, the battles are not tactical (in that you don't control them) and the actual point of the game is for your family to be successful, rather than just accumulating land.
MTW is much more focused on the tactical battles, although there is a turn based diplomatic/strategic element as well. CK is focused more on the high level strategy of your dynasty, the battles are not tactical (in that you don't control them) and the actual point of the game is for your family to be successful, rather than just accumulating land.
The strategic aspect of Medieval isn't really that developed.
its more of a not so random battle generator.
but its still a great game and lots of fun. play both
its more of a not so random battle generator.
but its still a great game and lots of fun. play both
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.612
- 106.030
Medieval Total War lasted about 45 minutes on my HD until it was uninstalled and box given away. It felt like playing risk with slow boring 3d-battles to break it up.
Hunting the bloody princesses all over Europe and trying to make a undisturbed trade chain from one edge of Europe to another...
I didn't like the interface, i didn't like the gameplay, only thing that was good were the battles... rest wasn't worth a shit.
I didn't like the interface, i didn't like the gameplay, only thing that was good were the battles... rest wasn't worth a shit.
I think Medieval Total War was like RISK, if you know (very) old strategy game. Your goal was to conquer all Europe nations. IMHO, it was nice game few hours, but lacked serious strategy and realistic goals. Total War engine suited to Japan, but conquering whole Europe is just too unrealistic. If you think MTW was strategy game you have to redefine word strategy game with Paradox games.
I'm sure Crusader Kings will be more realistic game about medieval Europe. Yes it's a game not simulation but surely we will hope it will simulate medieval time better than any other games. And we should have more goals in game than conquering all Europe.
El Savior
I'm sure Crusader Kings will be more realistic game about medieval Europe. Yes it's a game not simulation
but surely we will hope it will simulate medieval time better than any other games. And we should have more goals in game than conquering all Europe. El Savior
Johan said:
hahahahaha - That exactly how i felt about it. I was lucky that my seal on the game was faulty so i was able to reseal the game and return it. I remember thinking thats an hour of my life i'll never get back.
I found the RT aspect of the battles to be boring (to be fair i dont like RTS games) and the strategy part just too risk like.
ANd yes I know paradox makes RTS games but they dont feel like they are real time.
I don't thinkk the 3d battles where boring, they where one of the best ever. but it can't be compared with CK as it basically was a tactical game with a simple strategic game attached to it.
only fun with MTW were the battles, and after you had fought some of them they became boring aswell, and then the game became like a broken pencil, pointless. The game is to simpel and arcadish to be called a strategy game.
MTW
I liked the way of building some structures and then you could build troops and the crusade was fun. I think i will play some today.
CK
I haven't seen much but I am still waiting to play it. I want it as much i wanted EU2 when it was finished.
I liked the way of building some structures and then you could build troops and the crusade was fun. I think i will play some today.
CK
I haven't seen much but I am still waiting to play it. I want it as much i wanted EU2 when it was finished.
The best thing about MTW was fighting defensive battles, searching for the best place to place your units and than wait for the best moment to release them running down a hill and crushing those infidels...har har .
But I didn´t play it for long, cause the strategy aspect of dynasty and diplomacy were so poor I could cry. I always had to send my miserable sons into a battle to let them die there, so they couldn´t get on the throne, while in CK the possibility of changing the inheritence laws is a much better way to handle it. I never understood why MTW got such high ratings, besides the battles its gameplay is very weak.
.But I didn´t play it for long, cause the strategy aspect of dynasty and diplomacy were so poor I could cry. I always had to send my miserable sons into a battle to let them die there, so they couldn´t get on the throne, while in CK the possibility of changing the inheritence laws is a much better way to handle it. I never understood why MTW got such high ratings, besides the battles its gameplay is very weak.
One good thing about MTW
Actually, there is one more aspect of gameplay except tactical battles which makes MTW clearly superior to CK: MTW is already released while CK is not. And this is very important aspect for me now....
Actually, there is one more aspect of gameplay except tactical battles which makes MTW clearly superior to CK: MTW is already released while CK is not. And this is very important aspect for me now....
horragoth said:
Fair point, except that CK will be released soon and so that issue will no longer be. MTW, on the other hand, isn't going to get any better.
The genre "RTS" is bugged, in that sense that most RTS's (Starcraft/Dune2/C&C) has absolutely nothing todo with strategy.
[austinpowers] It's all about tactics baby, yeah! [/austinpowers]
What STW had that, and that MTW lacks, was feel, attitude, call it whatever you want. Though they didn't make an intro, but ripped the movie "Ran" (by Arkira Kurosawa, great movie, go see, even if you don't like STW), the feel of the game were very much, IMHO, "shogun-ish". Not like MTW where it's like TW without M.
[austinpowers] It's all about tactics baby, yeah! [/austinpowers]
What STW had that, and that MTW lacks, was feel, attitude, call it whatever you want. Though they didn't make an intro, but ripped the movie "Ran" (by Arkira Kurosawa, great movie, go see, even if you don't like STW), the feel of the game were very much, IMHO, "shogun-ish". Not like MTW where it's like TW without M.
when I played shogun = total war (a discounted version) I had one battle where I had to cross a river, men that was frustrating I pledged myself only to try the Roman TW demo and still then,
CK vs MTW
hi all,
this is my first post. years ago I bought EU, then EU II than HOI and last year Vic. Now I preordered CK. last year I extensively played MTW,
and I think I got a very valuable Game for my bucks. To say it`s like RISK is to easy. In MTW yua are able to build a lot of different stuff, you have tactikal 3d battles and on highest level ist very hard to win. I think MTW is one of the best Games I ever played.
fels
hi all,
this is my first post. years ago I bought EU, then EU II than HOI and last year Vic. Now I preordered CK.
last year I extensively played MTW,and I think I got a very valuable Game for my bucks. To say it`s like RISK is to easy. In MTW yua are able to build a lot of different stuff, you have tactikal 3d battles and on highest level ist very hard to win. I think MTW is one of the best Games I ever played.
fels
Hmmm, still not tempted personally. I've played Shogun TW and didn't enjoy it very much. I just found the battles got in the way of the (very limited) strategy that I was enjoying more. Give me EU/EU2/CK any day.
MTW wasn't THAT bad. You could have just auto-resolved every one of the battles and focused only on the strategy (though the battles are really the point of the game) Better AI and a better strategy system could have made it an awesome game, as it was conquering the whole continent was too easy.