XGM vs XC???

[yiplong]

I have been playing XGM a lot and really like it. How is XC related to XGM (or are they related at all)? Which mod is better? Isn't XC included in XGM or vice versa?

[Zarax]

XC (like DTW) started over 2 years ago as XGM sub-mod.

While they share some material like artwork they have since evolved in very different directions.
XGM is more suited for hardcore players and blitzers that likes to fight several stacks, while XC uses smaller, more realistic armies and is more suited to those that wants more realism in general and likes to role-play with their characters.

In short words, they may look similar but they play very different, a more detailed summary is available here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=401465

[Metaluis90]

As far as I know, XGM is more vanilla oriented, as XC add many new features

[Rahwana]

XC has better (and more focused) in campaign terms, while XGM is still far better for their battlesystem.

[Zarax]

Err, what's wrong with XC battlesystem?

It's slower than XGM 1hp and it's more balanced for cavalry.

[Rahwana]

I Myself prefers XGM 2 HP system, that's true, cavalry charges become gimp, but that means some light cavalry must be used carefully as the "deciding / breaking" factor after some skirmishing, while catass are still strong enough for frontal breakment in formations. Plus missiles are still overpowered in XC. This is my personal opinion BTW.

[Zarax]

Well, in that case it's matter of taste.
When I started XC with CV we both were among the XGM players that felt XGM combat system changes were not in a good directions and among other things it pushed us to develop our own project.

[DragMaster]

No, the system is well 1hp, 2, archers and cavalry charge do no damage.

[nasher168]

In a nutshell:
XC > XGM

It has a better political system. Your family members and generals actually matter more. There are more units. The economy is more of a challenge. There is the equivalent of religion (culture) to ensure you can't just expand anywhere and expect to be able to hold it easily.
Loads of stuff, basically.

[MkdRanger]

2hp sucks big time!!!
i like XC it adds nice features!

[Shadurak]

It's all down to personal taste, really. I enjoy XGM more because:
1) It's got the vanilla feel
2) XC is harder and more time-consuming. Yes, I know, people play it for the challenge, but when I start RTW, I just want to sit back, relax and bash the AI senseless. That's why I play on M/M with bonuses off, too.
Now, yes, XC is better all-around. In fact, it is too good for a noobish player like me.

[Zarax]

Well, it's up to your play style.

XGM favours blitzing while XC is more for the turtle, RP kind of player.

[Funkyrobbie]

this is like saying what do you prefare Coffee or Tea??

[Spike]

this is like saying what do you prefare Coffee or Tea??

I'd said it was between cold mint tea or hot ginger tea (turtle or blitz)
but then, in 1 HP, cavalry is glass wrecking ball, while in 2HP, infantry dominates, but not in the long run

[Agamemnon]

I vote XC, purely because it was the only one I could find a working link for. I tried everything!

[Spike]

I vote XC, purely because it was the only one I could find a working link for. I tried everything!

I think both are under wmwiki hosting....

[Zarax]

Yes, they are both hosted by yours truly.

www.wmwiki.com/hosted/xgm
www.wmwiki.cim/hosted/xc

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I was just trying to decide which one to dl, what is the 2hp system?
All units have 2 hitpoints? Doesn't it make missiles and hammer/anvil redundant?

[Zarax]

It's a matter of taste.

Some says 2hp gives longer and more realistic battles but others argue that it makes missiles and cavalry charges underpowered.
Some says 1hp is more balanced and realistic but others argue missiles are overpowered in that mode.

XC is 1hp but has slower battles than XGM 1hp, it's somewhere in the middle but again it's up to one's play stile

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

But me likes missiles!!!! Nothing is more fun than slaughterng hoplite stacks with slingers!



And cav too.