Crusader Kings vs. Medieval: Total War - comparison

[hjarg]

As stated before, good sides of MTW are lost under heavy micromanagement. If your empire grows too large, it's too tedious to control all aspects of it. And no-that is not realistic. Remembering where to build what and where to send what army and whith whom am i in a bloody war with... brrr, stupid.

Besides, why can't Denmark send out Cursades... after all, they got even their little flag when they were in a Crusade against Estonians (bastards!!!).

Diplomacy is a joke. Nothing more, nothing less. Sending your diplomat in an impossible quest to locate enemy king and offer a meaningless alliance... or hunting down a princess who truly likes to travel- one year in London, next in Alexandria, next somewhere in Baltic sea. Come on, at least finding another king shouldn't be a problem... walk to some inn and ask for directions, goddammit. Sending diplomat to a country instead of a king would have been a huge improvement.

All these units on the map... brrr... in later stages of the game, when all your provinces are crowded with spys, assassins, bishops, cardinals, generals, princesses etc etc. Not much of a chance to finding the unit you need.

That leaves only tactical battles. Well, they are good, i must admit that one.

 

[Kraakstorm]

Dear Chef Boyard

MTW VS CK

I read lot of the beginning of the tread. And lot of them makes me understand your fustration about the waiting of your question.

I played EU1, EU2, Shogun Total War, STW Mongol Invasion and Medieval Total War. So, if CK will be near of EU2, I think I could properly answer to your question.

Basicly, EU2 games like are strategic games when STW games like are Strategic/tactics games. It's impossible to me compare STW with Age of Empire or Risk (Just make me laugh) So don't worry about me.

Effectivly, now that I buy MTW, I'm not sure I will invest on CK (even more because HOI is coming too !!! ) )
The problem is about interest between the two games.

Why do I like EU2 ?
As a sovereign, I control economy, diplomacy, warfare industry and decisions. But till one point. It's give me pleasure because of the real-politik which is very strong in it.

Why do I like MTW ?
As a sovereign of this time, I control all of the others way but in differents means. I won't talk too much about EU2 games like because here everybody know it. The great default of EU2 (which can be a strongness too) is that we can't react in the battle. To be much near the realism, I used to play the battle in which the King (or Daimyo) is involved in, and let it automaticly goes where others generals are in command.
The differents critics which say that there's too much confusion in the battle of MTW (or STW) is for me just a compliment. We are educated to believe that a commander in a battle was mighty powerfull about the knowledge during the battle. That was really wrong !! Worst was during the Napoleonic battle where emperors and generals fight following the meanings of the clouds maked by the bullet shots.

Strategy : EU2 like is up than STW like
Tactics : STW like is up than EU2
Diplomacy : EU2 +
Economy : EU2/MTW (quite equal following what the player prefers)
Multi-game playing : EU2
Management of the strategic agent : MTW, STW. (we can not kill, corrupt or spy any generals or province in EU2)

I like both games because of there differents way. But I don't think I will buy CK because I buy MTW and I'm waiting in HOI (WWII)

Waiting your answer ..

 

[Grifman]

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.

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.

Actually, I'd say you are totally wrong in your assertions. I frequent the board at Totalwar.org a great deal and here are just a few of the discussions that refute your assertion:

1) Debates about the historical effectiveness of cavalry vs. infantry
2) Debates about the historical effectiveness of longbows
3) Debates about the historical effectiveness of armor types
4) Requests for more diplomacy options in the patch or an expansion pack (indeed the number one choice in the thread on an expansion pack is additional diplomacy options)
5) Debates about historical figures in the game
6) Debates about the historicity of the various units types in the game
7) Debates about medieval battlefield tactics
8) Debates about how often knights were dismounted as infantry in battle
9) Debates about the effectiveness of pikes vs. cavalry
10) Debates about effectiveness of xbows
11) Discussions about famous kings/generals in the game
12) Debates about the effectiveness of early firearms
13) Requests for more historical sieges, with the attackers/defenders suffering from disease if it goes on a certain length

I can list more . . .

Grifman

 

[Drakken]

Yes, forums on totalwar.org are MUCH better than on totalwar.com.

Drakken

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Grifman


Actually, I'd say you are totally wrong in your assertions. I frequent the board at Totalwar.org a great deal and here are just a few of the discussions that refute your assertion:

1) Debates about the historical effectiveness of cavalry vs. infantry
2) Debates about the historical effectiveness of longbows
3) Debates about the historical effectiveness of armor types
4) Requests for more diplomacy options in the patch or an expansion pack (indeed the number one choice in the thread on an expansion pack is additional diplomacy options)
5) Debates about historical figures in the game
6) Debates about the historicity of the various units types in the game
7) Debates about medieval battlefield tactics
8) Debates about how often knights were dismounted as infantry in battle
9) Debates about the effectiveness of pikes vs. cavalry
10) Debates about effectiveness of xbows
11) Discussions about famous kings/generals in the game
12) Debates about the effectiveness of early firearms
13) Requests for more historical sieges, with the attackers/defenders suffering from disease if it goes on a certain length

I can list more . . .

Grifman

If those are the top discussions then it would appear that most of the discussions are not about the depth of anything (maybe the diplomacy is an exception) but just about how their troops can do better in battle in the tactical part of the game.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Grif: My comments referred to .com forums, not .org. Before the redesign, there were only a few historical/accuracy/realism-type threads, and they were immediately answered with "who cares", "go read a book if you want history", "if you dont like it dont post here," and so on; typical leg-humping fanboy crap.

Even in the tech support forum, bloated with people seeking help for real problems, you'd see "your computer sucks, buy a real one", "it works for me so you dont know what youre doing", etc (with the exception of Erado and a few others who really tried to help).

After the redesign, all those threads disappeared. So I quit reading the .com forums and found .org. I must admit theyre infinitely better, with alot of editing stuff (.com had very little), discussions like those you listed, and none of the "Shut up CA rules you $*#@" flame wars. Apparently thats not just my opinion, since the devs spend way more time there than they ever did on the officials.

 

[Damocles]

Agreed.

I'm not much of a game forum person, but I had high hopes for MTW. I stopped frequenting it because of all the arcade kiddies.

The EUII forums are rather special. Probably because EUII is such a niche product that it draws people who are on a somewhat similar slant (but by no means, mindset) who are more agreeable to communicate with.

 

[unmerged(255)]

Originally posted by Damocles
The EUII forums are rather special. Probably because EUII is such a niche product that it draws people who are on a somewhat similar slant (but by no means, mindset) who are more agreeable to communicate with.

That's definitely the case for me as well; I probably have more in common with Yannelis in terms of gaming and hobbies than I do with the d00dz on various EQ forums

 

[Damocles]

Aye. I consider the average EUII poster on this forum worthy of being liked and listened to, until they prove otherwise.

Whereas in almost any other forum, the worst is always assumed.

 

[unmerged(703)]

Hmmmm....

... been playing MTW and it's a fairly good game. Not as impressive as the Shogun was when it was released. Can still not see any competition what so ever between CK and MTW though..... Simply two different games....

 

[Moogel]

i agree with bmolsson, ck and mtw are different games

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Moogel
i agree with bmolsson, ck and mtw are different games

But the ordinary schmuck (or his mom) won't know that they are different games when it comes down to having to select only one for Christmas.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Sonny
But the ordinary schmuck (or his mom) won't know that they are different games when it comes down to having to select only one for Christmas.

Since only one of them will be available this Christmas they can get both - MTW this year, CK the next

 

[unmerged(9440)]

Heh, advertise CK as a historically accurate game. Hey, you can even put my testimony on the box: EU2 enlivened the entire 400 year history it covers for me - before, that time frame was all about a bunch of colonial whiners and bizzare aristocrats with triangular hats that wore bad wigs. Nothing at all interested me. Now I'm fascinated by the period and enjoy contributing my two cents when needed, even doing research for the AGC.

That'll get a mom's attention Christmas season.

But yeah, the EU crowd is concerned with the historical accuracy of the political sphere - what province was owned by whom, did such and such an event occur as it's modelled, etc. (Heck, I just did some research earlier today to figure out the major culture and city of Sochi province for somebody because they wanted to more accurately portray the Caucassus region and if that's not demand for political accuracy I don't know what is.)

MTW is concerned with military accuracy - the effect of crossbows, long bows, seiges, how disease influenced the tides of war, etc. It looks like it's more of a tactical wargaming crowd than a political, strategic crowd. I fit into both at times, so I may just invest in MTW once I get my computer upgraded.

If CK wants to compete with MTW, the only method I can see is to provide more diverse units, or allow commanders/generals to gain combat experience: if they do a lot of seiges, give them an extra seige point; if they do a lot of cavalry fighting, give them an extra maneuver point, etc. Unless, of course, those are in already - I haven't checked up on these boards in a while. In the mean time, I would say that trying to compete with MTW head-to-head is a bad idea. If CK is orthodoxy, and MTW is monophysticism, you'll just end up creating a heresy that neither party wants.

 

[unmerged(8303)]

I have M:TW. It is a good game. Not as accurate historically as I'd like but I have to consider that they want as wide appeal as possible and the target group probably is more interested in conquest and warfare than in history.

on a reverse note I hope CK can emulate the success of EU2. You were learning history but learning it in a way that was fun and made you realize you werent learning it.

To you it could have been just a casus belli against poland, free gold, inheriting another country. But you learn to identify these events and they become part of your memory.

Thats the fun part.

I hope CK and its events can try to emulate this.

I would love to walk away from a game being both entertained and educated. To me that is the ultimate game. In games like the Carmen Sandiego series you get the feeling ( or I do ) that you're in a classroom. You end up looking up little known facts just to finish a case.

in EU the facts were given to you not as a necessity but only to add flavor to the game. And because it empowered or made your game difficult you payed attention and learned without knowing you were learning. It is just part of the game.

That is a wonderful thing.

 

[LordStark]

I hate MTW. Its redundant and, compared to EUII, simplistic. Im trading it in tomorrow for HOI

 

[PSYCHO V]

my2bob

Whilst MTW isn't exactly Chess, it can trounce you and it does have feel / atmosphere which can reap unexpected benefits.

Point in case, for the first time in my life I have managed to get a woman to play a military PC game with me on a regular basis.
Jen my fiancée is as girlie as girls can get but she has gotten hooked on not just her Turkish campaign against Byzantium but on history in general through MTW.

IMHO I believe the interest was greatly assisted by the tactical side, general ascetics and character development engine. As much as I have personally loved and appreciated the work of Paradox, I don’t think I could ever keep her interested in the likes of EUII, CK or HOI ....not yet anyway. I’ll work on it

So for that, if nothing else, I must give credit to Creative Assembly!


Cheers

 

[Aetius]

I think the big problem in MTW is the small amount of provinces. With more provinces it would be a great deal more historical. On the other hand I don't know how well it would scale in that case.

 

[Grifman]

Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Grif: My comments referred to .com forums, not .org. Before the redesign, there were only a few historical/accuracy/realism-type threads, and they were immediately answered with "who cares", "go read a book if you want history", "if you dont like it dont post here," and so on; typical leg-humping fanboy crap.

Good, then I politely suggest you post a bit more accurately before you make inaccurate broad assertions about a group of people. Then there won't be any misunderstandings

Grifman

 

[Grifman]

Originally posted by Sonny
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.

This post is so self congratulatory and "pat myself" on the back that it can't be taken seriously. I still don't know why some people have to put others down to feel better about themselves, but it seems to be quite common among pseudo-intellectuals

Grifman