Crusader Kings vs. Medieval: Total War - comparison

[Savant]

MTW is pretty mod friendly

as the files with data are essentially text files. I am playing the Sicilians and it took only the following to do that:

"Sicily = major"

There are several good threads about moding the game at the MTW site.

But (and this is a big Bertha butt), it is not as flexible as EU. You cannot have more than 12 playable nations and you cannot change the status of an original "major" (like the Almohads) and make it a minor and have another minor (like Novgorod) take its place so that it becomes playable. No switching in other words. The most you can do is add the 12th playable nation (the game starts with 11 "majors" which are the same as playable nations/factions). And, you have to add from the small set of available minors unless you wished to do major text and image editing to play a faction not included in the game.

You can do a lot though to change starting stats like province development, treasury, units available. You can also edit the map. I did that too and it was easy.

But of course all this pales compares to the mod utility / scenario editor that was added onto EU2 for free.

*Oh, and BTW, you can increase the cost of the "strategic units" (see post above) so that the AI and the player don't crowd the whole strategy map with them.

 

[unmerged(3743)]

Originally posted by Wasa


I am dirt poor---not, but RAM isn´t cheap..at least not the DDR type..

DDR no... but I got 128 MB more SDRAM for $20 USD at Circuit City. For $40 I could have gotten 256 MB. I had 128MB already but I found that I still couldn't run some battles if they got too big. Upgrading to 256MB fixed the problem right away.

 

[Havard]

Re: MTW is pretty mod friendly

Originally posted by Savant
as the files with data are essentially text files. I am playing the Sicilians and it took only the following to do that:

"Sicily = major"

There are several good threads about moding the game at the MTW site.

Is that the .com or the .org site?


I got it yesterday (late in at work today ). So far I've only tried a test-run of the strategy bit... Must look at the battle stuff during the weekend I think

 

[Savant]

Re: Re: MTW is pretty mod friendly

Originally posted by Havard

Is that the .com or the .org site?


I got it yesterday (late in at work today ). So far I've only tried a test-run of the strategy bit... Must look at the battle stuff during the weekend I think

The EZBoard site has the good Mod threads. Do a search of that forum with "mod" as keyword and you will draw up several good threads. Also, I will send you a PM with some links to message boards and a good mod site for MTW that is lost in the threads.

The file you want is in the \MTW\Campmap\Startpos folder. It depends on whether you want to edit the "start position" file for the early-mid-late era. In that directory you will find 4 files including a titorial one you can ignore. If you want Sicily for example, to appear in the early campaign, edit the "early" data file in that directory.

As you scroll through the (early) file you will see a listing of start-up nations (factions), they will be labelled "major" or "minor". Major means playable at game start. Remember, you can add a 12th, but you can switch a major and minor around.

Also, be careful because there is some hardcoded data for some of these nations so that Sicily for example, which is not present in the late age game, will make the game crash if you edit the "late" game file to make sicily a major. If you did this, you would have to edit other files as well and that is where is gets quite tedious and error-prone.

I'll PM you some other links.

 

[Savant]

Havard your mail box is full

so here is some info:

BTW, I will likely be playing some MTW this weekend myself and I am curious about your reaction to it. If like me, you will initially like it a lot and then find the game inadequate after a while bc it was not playtested sufficiently. But if you look beyond initial "fun" and the inevitable "waning of enthusiasm" you will, I think, also see how I as a naive consumer of CK info would see the relevance of this game to CK.

http://pub24.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm5

This is the address to the EZBoard forum which was the original MTW forum. They have had problems with forums, for sure! The new forums (yes, there are two) have been down frequently. This site is the best though as it has chronicled the most user reactions since game release. The other forums are very new. At this forum, search for "mod" and you will call up some good threads.

http://www.sosenkas.com/

This is a good player MTW site. It has downloads and statistics for MTW. It is a mod-centered site.

Let me know if I can be any help at all.

 

[Havard]

Thanks Savant. I have found some stuff now

I have tried my luck on Spain lately... The Strategy part is a bit oversimplified for my taste, and I suck in tactical battles... still some kind of fun though

(Oh, and some of the historic errors they made a quite fun too )

 

[Savant]

You would appreciate this little thread I have

copied and pasted here that illustrates the chaos they are having with their Forum(s).

They started @ EZboard as you know,m then openned a second one, closed that one, and openned a third. Now it's back to EZboard!

I removed the user/moderator names.

---------

Moderator
(9/18/02 8:48:40 am)
Reply
New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The links you all have should be working again in a bit. If you want an alternative, use this one: www.xmbforums.com/shogun/

As per Shogun:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This link now works the old link should work in the next few hours. Just got a call from the support dept. It was nothing to do with bandwidth and was in fact a system error. He asked me to pass on his apologies to all.

Go on back in the waters lovely!

The Shogun, bringing wisdom in an unwise world.

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

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Hakonarson
Registered User
(9/18/02 3:28:59 pm)
Reply Nope..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...all I get is "That page cannot be found" errors for each and every version ofthe new board addres that's posted here

And while we're at it not all of us are tech freaks who have to have the latest gadegetry - for me the most important thing about a board is that I got from teh message title to the message content when I hit "tab"!!

Score 1 for EZboard over the newcomer for that.

And about a zillion more for being able to easily read the text!!

Moderator
(9/18/02 6:06:59 pm)
Reply
Re: Nope..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cannot reach it through this link as well


Registered User
(9/18/02 6:57:29 pm)
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No luck I'm afraid....

...dang!...have to go and do some work!

Cheers

Registered User
(9/19/02 12:13:02 am)
Reply Re: New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO IT ISN'T.

DOESN'T WORK.
David


(9/19/02 12:36:43 am)
Reply
ezSupporter

Re: New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

Just got this from the forum host

"Aventure Media has had news that 2 of their servers will be closed by the datacenter currently hosting them because the datacenter itself is closing. Aventure Media are moving sites to a NEW server which will have DOUBLE everything you signed up for and more features.

Your email has been received and a sales rep will contact you as soon as possible to talk to you individually on what to do next.

Regards"

I will keep you posted and look into alternatives as well. Sorry guys!

The Shogun, bringing wisdom in an unwise world.


Registered User
(9/19/02 1:11:49 am)
Reply Re: New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing worse than a company that promises you the earth and then mucks you about like this... why did they make promises - surely they knew in advance the datacentre was closing??

Not to worry at least we do have this forum to fall back on for the time being. Except now I'm getting loads of popup advertisements everytime I access the pages - which is a bit frustrating!

Registered User
(9/19/02 2:58:24 am)
Reply Re: New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got this:
Account owner, please contact the following email address : 180902.xmbforums@aventure-media.co.uk immediately.

Registered User
(9/21/02 3:53:25 pm)
Reply Re: New Board is back up!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up , down, up, down ............

 

[unmerged(3743)]

Having played MTW now for a couple of weeks, I can say that it definitely doesn't live up to the hype. Is it better than Shogun? Yes, by far. Is it as good as EU? Not even close. Will it be as good as CK? Probably not, depends on what you're looking for.

MTW really feels like an expansion pack on Shogun. Despite all the promised strategic features they were supposed to add, the basic game mechanics seem pretty much the same. Some of the strategic elements are woefully underdeveloped (e.g. like generals and princesses); and other elements don't seem to have much effect at all (e.g. religion, royal marriages, alliances). The diplomacy aspect is especially pathetic. Alliances seem to mean nothing, the AI will attack on a whim, even if half their daughters are married to your princes; and there's no option of vassalizing smaller powers, or diplomatically annexing another nation (except on the off chance that a king dies without an heir - which rarely happens). Yes there's many more buildings, and a new trade system (which easily breaks down since even friendly fleets can blockade your trade routes), but by and large I had the impression in the the strategic game that I was doing things just to do them and not because they were actually important in helping me "win" the game.

Speaking of winning the game, despite what the previews said, and what some of you argued on this thread, MTW really is all about world conquest. While the Great Accomplishments (or whatever they're called) are an option for victory, the "standard" game is about conquest. To win you must conquer 70% of the map by the end of the time period. Not that I'm necessarily complaining, I like world conquest games. However, I think it'll be pretty obvious to most players that the goal of CK is radically different from this.

The tactical side of the game is as good as ever of course, with a few tweaks that make it more manageable than Shogun's system. It still looks the same though; and it still uses the same basic "paper-rock-scissors" approach where infantry beat cavalry, cavalry beat archers, and archers beat infantry. However, it's still the most realistic battle simulation I've ever played. I love how choices you make about terrain, elevation, timing of attacks, hidden ambushes, and out-flanking your enemies can make a real, tangible difference in the outcome of the battle. The battles to get a little old though, especially the really huge ones that just go on and on with new reinforcements. By the later stages I find myself increasingly using the auto-resolve for the big battles.

In short, while I enjoy playing MTW, I expect I'll get tired of it as quickly as I did with Shogun. To be fair though, I played Shogun for several months before tiring of it. IMHO, the Total War games are the second best strategy games on the market (after the EU games). They are very different from EU however. It really is comparing apples and oranges. TW is a war/conquest game while EU is much more subtle and offer a far greater diversity of ways to "win". EU is also far more complex diplomatically and economically, while TW has elements of tactical control that are not even included in EU. When I'm in the mood for a good battle simulation/take-over-the-world game I'll play TW. When I want a subtle game of grand strategy I go to EU. Overall I've found that I go back to EU far more often than I do to TW. Shogun lasted a few months on my desktop, but it took me over a year to get tired of EU. If CK is anything like EU I know that I won't be disappointed or fear that it's too much like Medieval Total War.

Just my $.02 ....

 

[Savant]

I'm there man

In short, while I enjoy playing MTW, I expect I'll get tired of it

and it's been less than 3 weeks. I'll admit, the first week I was modding it and playing it a lot. But then I hit the WALL. You know, where the game's limits become too hard to overlook and the novelty of the game doesn't compensate.

I've been back in EU2 mode and while I may dabble with MTW, the great romance with the game that I experienced with EU for the last 18+ months is no where matched by MTW.

Bring on CK!

 

[Endre Fodstad]

I'll agree to the statements above. MTW feels so very...limiting, somehow. You get the impression, as in STW, of playing a badly designed boardgame, without the social experience (single or multiplayer - I do not consider networking an especially social activity). The tactical bits are fun for a while but one gets very tired of it quickly. A more thorough attention to historical detail and attempts at authenticity would have been able to prolong the game(for me), but that baby went out with the bathwater early, I believe...

I hit the aforementioned wall after a week.

EF

 

[Norgesvenn]

Re: I'm there man

Originally posted by Savant


and it's been less than 3 weeks. I'll admit, the first week I was modding it and playing it a lot. But then I hit the WALL. You know, where the game's limits become too hard to overlook and the novelty of the game doesn't compensate.

I've been back in EU2 mode and while I may dabble with MTW, the great romance with the game that I experienced with EU for the last 18+ months is no where matched by MTW.

Bring on CK!

Although I tend to be chronically in disagreement with Savant over everything, I find myself agreeing 100 % for once.

MTW... it's just too simplistic. As a game, it's a medieval battle simulator, not a strategy game.

 

[unmerged(8345)]

heh This reminds me of another agruement I settled a week ago on another game board. They were comparing these 3 games, Dyansty Warriors 3, Dyansty Tactics and Romance of the 3 kingdoms 7. They were all about the same topic, Ancient China after the fall of the Han Dyansty. In Dyansty Warriors, you controlled one guy and you fought hundreds of men trying to turn the battle to your favor. In Tactics you controlled the fate of everything. Whatever you did changed history. Same in Romance only you needed to micromanage a lot more, the focus was taken away from the battles.

You got the same thing here, M:TW focuses on battles and preparing for battles, while CK has a lot more maganging your own lands. The solution to all this? Buy both Like i am now.

 

[TJW]

MTW is like a pretty woman with no personality!

 

[Savant]

Bah !

Although I tend to be chronically in disagreement with Savant over everything, I find myself agreeing 100 % for once.

The occassions of our disagreement were only rumours!

 

[Norgesvenn]

Ssshhh....
Don't tell anyone!

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Slayzer2


You got the same thing here, M:TW focuses on battles and preparing for battles, while CK has a lot more maganging your own lands. The solution to all this? Buy both Like i am now.

And so say all of us.

I will definately be getting the pair. Of course I already posess one of them so the rest shouldn´t be an issue.

 

[unmerged(9167)]

I second Idiotboy!

(I also have MTW and enjoying it.) I would definitely buy CK.

You should try it

 

[unmerged(11206)]

The ultimate solution would be to combine the two; a game with CK's EU2-style historical-diplomatic-strategic depth, way more detailed and accurate map than MTW, that also allows players to control tactical battles. Unfortunately, it wont happen soon!

Im sure CK will be much better-liked by the historical crowd (including me), but that doesnt mean I dont enjoy re-fighting the Battle of Legnano (of course I win this time)!

The other thing I notice, and no offense intended, but the MTW forums boast a much larger percentage of arcade/teenage/who-cares-about-history-I-just-want-to-fight players than EU2's or CK's. People here seem to be smarter, more educated, way more knowledgeable about history, and therefore alot more concerned with questions of accuracy and realism.

I personally am a little irked by MTW's lack of depth, accuracy, and realism, but it seems that many of MTW's forum-goers dont want more detailed diplomatic & economic models, a more realistic map, deeper strategic play, and so on. They like it light and fluffy and simple. In the end, that will make the difference between the two games' fanbase.

Most of us here may buy both, but will almost certainly end up spending alot more time replaying/modding/discussing CK than MTW...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
......................

The other thing I notice, and no offense intended, but the MTW forums boast a much larger percentage of arcade/teenage/who-cares-about-history-I-just-want-to-fight players than EU2's or CK's. People here seem to be smarter, more educated, way more knowledgeable about history, and therefore alot more concerned with questions of accuracy and realism.

................

Well, duh!!!

Just kidding - I agree with your assessment. It almost goes without saying that the majority of folks who play a game without much depth are the folks who themselves do not have much depth. There are of course exceptions and most of those are the people who just want a fill-in-the-time kind of game to relax with etc. Hope too many are not offended.

 

[unmerged(3856)]

Be careful about what you are saying here. My main complaint about MTW is not its lack of depth. Rather it is the weak AI and some play balance issues which make it too easy to conquer the whole known world. (Diplomacy is also totally lacking.) These COULD be adjusted without major effort by the developer. Whether it will be done remains doubtful.

The major advantage of MTW over CK is the tactical battle engine. I only ever fight the really close or very important battles. Still this is a big feature IMHO. However don't forget that MTW has a significant province development side to the game. This is also a major plus which will be lacking in CKs. Indeed, apart from the Diplomacy part of the game I am not all certain that CK will be superior. I'll probably buy it anyway since good strategy games are few. I hope I am wrong with my prognosis about CK but I have misgivings. What worries me is that CK will be just an EU clone. Won't be very impressed if it is!