MTW vs. CK

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by The Leper King
Well, the provinces (once they were founded) did stay for the most part static between 1st and 2nd centuries of the Empire (athough there was occasional division and reconstitution in some places, hence "Lycia," and "Pamphylia," becoming "Lycia & Pamphylia." ) But what do you do when Diocletian comes around at the end of the 3rd century, and turns Hispaniae from 3 provinces to 5?

But how many examples like that could you come up with during the Middle Ages?

Do a Google search for a map of medieval Europe 1066 that is broken all the way down into counties for each and every kingdom; now do one for the same map in 1250 and 1453. Good luck, and when youre done, compare and contrast. Find even a published historical atlas that does the above down to county-level. Now do the same for a map of the Roman Empire, and pick your period. All those historical atlases will have several each. The Romans brought order.

Just saying, it seems like a much bigger job to do an accurate one for the more fluid and at times chaotic situation in the Middle Ages. Regardless, youve seen the MTW map. Tyrol extends all the way from Austria to wrap around south of Switzerland (cutting it off from Italy) and border with the Duchy of Burgundy? Franconia stretching up NE to include Meissen? Holland is part of Flanders instead of grouped with Frisia? No Balearic Islands but Malta is huge? A little off; the same amount of research that produced this map could produce better results for RE I think.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

Okay, sounds to me like CK is going to be a great deal better than MTW. Great. I can't wait. I am getting pretty sick of playing MTW anyway.

One thing, though. At least in MTW you could play the Muslim sides. In CK, you can only play the Christian monarchs--not even the Muslims, the commercial republics, or the Mongol Horde. In this tiny way, at least, MTW is better than CK.

Best of course would be CK where you could play as ANY little country. But even in MTW, your options were limited. For example, you could not play the Papacy, the Mongols, the early Russians (in 1088 scenario), and some others--too bad.

Maybe later there will be a CK2 in which you can play anybody.

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Originally posted by EB.
Okay, sounds to me like CK is going to be a great deal better than MTW. Great. I can't wait. I am getting pretty sick of playing MTW anyway.

One thing, though. At least in MTW you could play the Muslim sides. In CK, you can only play the Christian monarchs--not even the Muslims, the commercial republics, or the Mongol Horde. In this tiny way, at least, MTW is better than CK.

Best of course would be CK where you could play as ANY little country. But even in MTW, your options were limited. For example, you could not play the Papacy, the Mongols, the early Russians (in 1088 scenario), and some others--too bad.

Maybe later there will be a CK2 in which you can play anybody.

Yeah well dont get me wrong just because I make dumb posts.

STW was one of my all-time favorite PC games. MTW is very impressive; the battles are even better than STW, graphics are great, etc. Im nitpicking. I started reading about CK before MTW came out and maybe expected it to be like I thought CK would.

Also, I've wanted a newer, better Roman game ever since Centurion!

 

[Snall]

I think CK will be much better then M.TW. MTW was all right, but i'm not much interested in battles, I played it for the overall strategic value and CK will be much much better for this, of course it all depends on what you want.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Originally posted by EB.
Okay, sounds to me like CK is going to be a great deal better than MTW. Great. I can't wait. I am getting pretty sick of playing MTW anyway.

One thing, though. At least in MTW you could play the Muslim sides. In CK, you can only play the Christian monarchs--not even the Muslims, the commercial republics, or the Mongol Horde. In this tiny way, at least, MTW is better than CK.

Best of course would be CK where you could play as ANY little country. But even in MTW, your options were limited. For example, you could not play the Papacy, the Mongols, the early Russians (in 1088 scenario), and some others--too bad.

Maybe later there will be a CK2 in which you can play anybody.

Well, remember in EU (version I) one could only play from a choice of 8 countries (until everyone discovered how to hack the files)

 

[Snall]

With vassals and such hacking would be much harder as it would change the game for the player alot, if there is no code for the player to be called on by his king and you play as a vassal..sounds like a good way to crash the game.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Originally posted by Snall
With vassals and such hacking would be much harder as it would change the game for the player alot, if there is no code for the player to be called on by his king and you play as a vassal..sounds like a good way to crash the game.

That's what they said about EU also.

I guess it just depends on how it is coded really; should Serg and the gang wish it to be possible or not.

 

[Snall]

True enough to be sure.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

Doc: You are absolutely correct--I had forgotten how in EU1 you could only play a few countries. That was bad, I admit. And then I found out how to "hack" the countries to make all of them playable, and it was like a whole new world had opened up. I remember telling my friends, "it now has unlimited playability--you could play this game a hundred times, and it will still be fun!" Then EU2 came out and fixed it so that you could play every faction in the world. Brilliant game design.

By the way, I do not mean to bitch too much about MTW, as I have been playing it for about three weeks straight in my free time. It is obviously not that bad. But CK will be even better, I hope.

 

[LouisSteColombe]

I have played MTW, and then VI for 18 months now...

Those are really two different games.

Compared to the grand strategy level of EU, MTW campaign is truely disappointing.

Diplomacy is close to non existant, army management and tax collection assume that feudal kingdoms could be managed like modern state without really thinking about modelling the government form of that period. Oh yes, I wish, like many other MTW players that army could be raised by local nobility and not bought as they are today.

I am quite sure that CK will do a better job at that than MTW.

The great part of MTW is really the tactical battle. I have nearly dropped playing campaign now, and just play MP battles. Those are greatly enjoyable, not quite the RTS clickfest described here and there, mainly because morale and good positioning play a larger role than sheer power.

I am looking forward to buy and play CK. It is likely that with fellow MP MTW players we will try to play a CK/ MTW crossover. Playing the campaign in CK, exiting the game at battles (shall be rare I guess), play the battle in MTW (shall be easy to give simple rule on how to translate CK armies in MTW armies), edit the savegame in CK to reflect MTW battles result, resume CK.

I sure hope CK savegame files will be easy to edit!!!

All that in one game would be the best of both worlds...

Louis,

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Eh, you do realise that you just woke up a nine (9) months old thread...?
Anyway, MTW has great fun battles but little else, so that method of yours sounds very intressting... Great potential AAR material...

 

[Damocles]

I just discovered Medieval Total War a couple of weeks ago and have played it constantly. I must say that it is pretty good.

Tell us if you think that CK will be better than MTW and if so how?

MTW has a good balance of strategic and tactical play. The assortment of various units is wide and historically accurate. There are individual leaders and commanders with various attributes of political and military ability. There are dynasties and alliances and an economic system at least as complex as Legion's. Overall, as I have said, I was fairly impressed. If anything, however, I find that it is too easy to win as any country faction even on the very hardest difficulty settings, which is a disappointment. Poor strategic AI, though the tactical combat AI seems pretty good.

Anyway, can CK beat MTW? If so, I would like to know how. Maybe CK will have 1000 little provinces, but that might just create a micromanagement hell. I loved EU and EU2. I hope that CK will be very much like them.

LOL.

CK is 99% strategic. Whereas MTW was 95% tactical.

There is no comparison. Except they will both draw people who like the time period!

 

[unmerged(8913)]

LOL.

CK is 99% strategic. Whereas MTW was 95% tactical.

There is no comparison. Except they will both draw people who like the time period!

Hmm... Replying to a 10 month old post by someone who was banned. Somehow I doubt he'll read this....

 

[Damocles]

Hmm... Replying to a 10 month old post by someone who was banned. Somehow I doubt he'll read this....

Well.

I realized it was an old resurrected post only after I posted.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Bringout your dead!

...Threads that is...

 

[LouisSteColombe]

Hum....

Sorry

But for sure, I'll keep dreaming of CK campaign + MTW battles...

Louis,

 

[unmerged(11206)]

Forget everything I said in this thread a year ago.

Here's my new comparison between the two:

MTW: Has been out for over a year.

CK: Is still MIA.

:wacko:

 

[Alexandru H.]

True, true... CK is late...