Your favorite faction in SS 5.1?

[Landwalker]

But that was only for the beginning. Units were actually a bit overpowered. I found out that dismounted
Halluber infantry pretty much beat every other infantry in 1 on1 ( even the dismounted gothic knights ) and with a whole stack of em, I swept the floor with enemies corpses. Later on.. game became too easy.

I might play as Kingdom of Jerusalem next time.

Might I suggest self-imposed "role-playing" to lighten the easiness? After all, no army would have been entirely composed of elite units. Consider limiting yourself to a certain percentage of "elites" in a given stack. Require all stacks to be led by a general at all times. Pretend your generals have their own goals, ambitions, and faults, and try to play them up. Is your general reckless? Launch ill-advised attacks against superior foes without stopping to retrain war-weary soldiers.

Cheers.

[Inhuman One]

I agree, roleplaying is the way to go.

I personly never have too many knights around. Important generals and family members can get more knights though, and sometimes a few units of a knightly order help out a chivalrous general.

[Quark]

Don't have kingdoms, but still whats better than:

Byzantium: Jihads, Crusades, Mongols, Venice, your in the middle of everything, get a chance to rewrite history, whats not to like.

Scotland: Edge of the map, harder than playing England, lots of fun

Turks: Lots of good opponents, no easy money, horse archers, best of the islamic factions.

[Oberhut]

England:

Why haven't played them or SS before. I had a Vanilla Campaign with France one with Spain and a lot of online scrums with the HRE - so its a first.

Also its nice to kill Frenchmen with Longbows ( especially because the arrows stay on the field you can really see how much arrows where loosened unto the hapless enemy ).

[republic_bohemia]

RB you're right, but at same time this require having a good navy also ! am i right !?

Yes and the mighty navy.

[Apkairan]

Might I suggest self-imposed "role-playing" to lighten the easiness? After all, no army would have been entirely composed of elite units. Consider limiting yourself to a certain percentage of "elites" in a given stack. Require all stacks to be led by a general at all times. Pretend your generals have their own goals, ambitions, and faults, and try to play them up. Is your general reckless? Launch ill-advised attacks against superior foes without stopping to retrain war-weary soldiers.

Cheers.

No. My army was always comprised of variety of units. ( mixed combination of sword brethren, order spearman, dismounted hallubruder and cavalry and archers ) And all my armies were always led by generals. Know that there is a higher chance of your captain commiting treachery if you dont have a general in your stack.

I believe we can all play in any way we want. You probably want to pursue in fulfilling your general's career and prefer some role play but I focus on mass attacking and annexing the cities as fast as possible without caring too much on general's career. ( but i still like the traits features of generals )

I actually laughed ( don't worry not at you ) when you mentioned ' roleplay' because in my game so many general spawned that I ended up having a full stack of generals everywhere. There were so many that I considered them as 'expendible'. Don't get me wrong. It is probably just my game and your game can differ.

And in terms of overpowering, think about how dismounted hallubruder can be recruited at fortress level and can easily beat the other units from citadel especially in the late era campaign. I still believe dismounted hallubruder is 'slightly' overpowered compared to other fortress level units.

While the enemies were spamming their full loads of elite citadel units, I only used order spearman and sword brethren and 'some' dis hallubruder to take em out. ( dismounted ritterbutter? dis hallubruder is already going well )
Like I said earlier, we all can play in anyway we want as long as the victory is achieved.

[Apkairan]

4

[Landwalker]

Fair enough, just thought I'd throw the idea out there and see if it piqued your interest. To each his own and all that good stuff. I haven't played as the Teutons, so I haven't quite run across the proliferation of generals; then again, in my current Byzantine campaign, my generals request adoptions with such frequency and persistence that it's almost makes me wonder if adoptions are more addictive than crack and they're just getting their fix...

From your initial post, I was under the impression that you wanted to make the game more challenging, hence my suggestion. However, if speedy conquest is more your style, and I'm not utterly misguided in my assumption that you're after a good challenge, consider that the Teutonic Knight infantry roster is insanely powerful. Perhaps you would enjoy giving a "weaker" faction a roll?

Cheers.

[Sevachenko]

I'd say Byzantine Empire is my favorite. I like there units and they are the remnant of the Roman Empire in a sense.

[Apkairan]

Fair enough, just thought I'd throw the idea out there and see if it piqued your interest. To each his own and all that good stuff. I haven't played as the Teutons, so I haven't quite run across the proliferation of generals; then again, in my current Byzantine campaign, my generals request adoptions with such frequency and persistence that it's almost makes me wonder if adoptions are more addictive than crack and they're just getting their fix...

From your initial post, I was under the impression that you wanted to make the game more challenging, hence my suggestion. However, if speedy conquest is more your style, and I'm not utterly misguided in my assumption that you're after a good challenge, consider that the Teutonic Knight infantry roster is insanely powerful. Perhaps you would enjoy giving a "weaker" faction a roll?

Cheers.

Sure. That's why I started this thread.

When I first picked the Teutonic order I was somewhat astonished by their unit's superior stats but their upkeeps were very costly and the starting position was outright aweful. I thought it would be challenging to be surrounded by 4 nations while you only have two cities and units which are expensive to maintain.

The Teutonic order faction did not have the luxury of buffing up the economy in the beginning. But as the time passes and cash starts flowing in, few enemy units were able to withstand against your superior units ( hallubruder for example ), your army pretty much becomes unstoppable ( reminded me of irish faction in dlv mode. they gave irish faction a 'horse archer' and england and scottish faction didn't have any good counter against it )

In conclusion, the faction I considered the hardest in the beginning became the easiest faction, which is ironic. Still, it doesnt matter much to me as unit stats can simply be adjusted in the next patch. Or something else can be done. Moreover, I still believe SS is an excellent mode despite some little problems.

[republic_bohemia]

No. My army was always comprised of variety of units. ( mixed combination of sword brethren, order spearman, dismounted hallubruder and cavalry and archers ) And all my armies were always led by generals. Know that there is a higher chance of your captain commiting treachery if you dont have a general in your stack.

I believe we can all play in any way we want. You probably want to pursue in fulfilling your general's career and prefer some role play but I focus on mass attacking and annexing the cities as fast as possible without caring too much on general's career. ( but i still like the traits features of generals )

I actually laughed ( don't worry not at you ) when you mentioned ' roleplay' because in my game so many general spawned that I ended up having a full stack of generals everywhere. There were so many that I considered them as 'expendible'. Don't get me wrong. It is probably just my game and your game can differ.

And in terms of overpowering, think about how dismounted hallubruder can be recruited at fortress level and can easily beat the other units from citadel especially in the late era campaign. I still believe dismounted hallubruder is 'slightly' overpowered compared to other fortress level units.

While the enemies were spamming their full loads of elite citadel units, I only used order spearman and sword brethren and 'some' dis hallubruder to take em out. ( dismounted ritterbutter? dis hallubruder is already going well )
Like I said earlier, we all can play in anyway we want as long as the victory is achieved.

I could never play your game style,but thats my opinion.

[republic_bohemia]

Fair enough, just thought I'd throw the idea out there and see if it piqued your interest. To each his own and all that good stuff. I haven't played as the Teutons, so I haven't quite run across the proliferation of generals; then again, in my current Byzantine campaign, my generals request adoptions with such frequency and persistence that it's almost makes me wonder if adoptions are more addictive than crack and they're just getting their fix...

From your initial post, I was under the impression that you wanted to make the game more challenging, hence my suggestion. However, if speedy conquest is more your style, and I'm not utterly misguided in my assumption that you're after a good challenge, consider that the Teutonic Knight infantry roster is insanely powerful. Perhaps you would enjoy giving a "weaker" faction a roll?

Cheers.

Exactly what he said,pick a faction with a weaker unit roster and also do you play this game with reality or without unreality?

[Okocim]

I always loved playing with Byzantium because of the challenging location. But I've played as Lithuania since 5.1 came out, I don't know why... could be the re-skin.

[Apkairan]

I could never play your game style,but thats my opinion.

Yep. We all play in a different style. I mercilessly mass attack. You can call me a villain who destroys everything in the wake.

do you play this game with reality or without unreality?

Interesting question. I'd say reality with challenge, but maybe you want to be more specific. Reality in terms of unit stats or campaign setting? In terms of units stats, you recommended picking a faction with weaker unit roster. It seems like you do agree with my initial posts pinpointing that Teutonic order faction was slightly overpowered. You do know that real combat implemented in SS adjusts the unit upkeep costs based on the equipments they are wearing. Right? Upkeep costs was a trade-off for the unit's high quality.

For the campaign setting I chose the teutonic faction to be faced with a bitter reality of facing 4-5 hostile factions. SS did a good job in intensifying the campaign.

[jmack-]

i love aragon right now it owns in early era with just teh spearmen . it makes it intresting,
and they got the best units good archers , inf , and cav

[republic_bohemia]

Yep. We all play in a different style. I mercilessly mass attack. You can call me a villain who destroys everything in the wake.



Interesting question. I'd say reality with challenge, but maybe you want to be more specific. Reality in terms of unit stats or campaign setting? In terms of units stats, you recommended picking a faction with weaker unit roster. It seems like you do agree with my initial posts pinpointing that Teutonic order faction was slightly overpowered. You do know that real combat implemented in SS adjusts the unit upkeep costs based on the equipments they are wearing. Right? Upkeep costs was a trade-off for the unit's high quality.

For the campaign setting I chose the teutonic faction to be faced with a bitter reality of facing 4-5 hostile factions. SS did a good job in intensifying the campaign.

Well yes in Medieval one I did the same exact thing you do,Massive domination,a lot of fun too.
But in Medieval two in my opinion it"s just too much management.:hmmm:

[Stinkfloyd]

The teutons are my favorite especially with the new skins they are the best ive ever seen. Any faction you play becomes increasingly powerful to the point of utter domination as you expand. Once I get around 25-30 provinces than it is usually smooth sailing form there, and rather boring.