Britannia or Teutonic Campaign?

[Rodrico Stak]

While I'm still waiting for my copy of Kingdoms to arrive, I'm trying to decide if I should play the Britannia or Teutonic campaigns first. They both seem like they'd be fun, but having never played them I'd like to get an opinion on which I should do first.

[Emperor Leo]

I imagine this will boil down to personal opinion for you. Why not install all of the campaigns and give them all a quick test run? Personally, I only got the expansion a few days ago and I was immediately drawn to Britannia, followed by The Crusades, then Teutonic. Americas doesn't intereset me in the slightest. I'll probably fire that up when I'm bored.

[pwijnands]

My personal taste are the Teutonic and the Americas campaign. They have maps with more factions in them then the Brittania and Crusades campaign (both have 5 factions in them). I like to have some diplomacy options for my games. My most favorite is the Teutonic campaign because I really like how the dismounted ritterbruder from the Teutonics look like.
In terms of new gameplay the Crusades has the least new stuff to offer (you can train a unique unit).

[Salahiddin Ayoubi]

In my opinion, you should start off in the Britannia campaign, because it is not as intense as the Teutonic Campaign.

The Teutonic Campaign is a fun medley of diplomacy and totl war, but I would not suggest starting off at it because of this. Unless, you decie to be a faction which isnt at the pinnacle of the swinging sword, like Denmark.

Britannia is in no way easier or harder, but is a nice base from which you could go on to other campaigns.

So in my opinion, Britannia would be a good way to start off, and have fun playing

[Kip]

These are actually my two favorite campaigns, you can't go wrong with either.

Each provides a level of uniqueness in factions I feel the others are lacking. I love the Crusades/Americas campaign, but it feels like I'm always fighting the same things (there isn't a ton of variation between the Indian tribes or between the Crusaders/Muslims).

In Britannia and Teutonic, no two factions are too alike, providing tons of new experiences in each campaign.

[Tajir]

Britannia for the win.

Personally, I thought the Teutonic Campaign was a mistake. Maybe I'm just not interested in the hideously boring theme or maybe its just boring. I really just thought of it as all-war, no real substance. Its just too hard, and its one big land mass, you're constantly under attack, it just sucks, and you can't really rely on diplomacy.

Best campaign is Britannia, always cool to play as the Celtic factions, even England is fun.

#2 is the Americas, gotta love the variety of factions.

#3 is the Crusades Campaign, it has factions that differ in pretty big ways and the campaign is really chock full of surprises, even until the end.

Teutonic...shameful indeed.

[Kip]

#3 is the Crusades Campaign, it has factions that differ in pretty big ways

.

Evidence? To what extent do you define pretty big differences? I think we both have different definitions here, and that's why we disagree. For instance, Jerusalem and Antioch may have some different units, but they are essentially the same. IE Hospitallers vs. Templars, Knights of Antioch vs. Jerusalem, even the Squires of Tripoli and Squires of Anitoch fill similar roles on the battlefield. I feel the Muslim factions are similar as well...maybe Egypt relies on heavies more than the Turks, but the playstyle is not a huge difference.

So for me, in the Crusades, there are really only 3ish factions. If he wants diversity of enemies, I think Teutonic is the way to go.

p.s. I love the Crusades campaign, I'm not dissing it in anyway. I just want the original poster to know what he's getting into.

[Lamanz]

Go for Britannia first. Faster campaign (using my skill on vh/vh as reckoning).

England gave me the first Western Roman Empire experience I've had in a few years now, and it was really refreshing (so much, in fact, that I went back to BI and played some Western and Eastern Romans )

I actually really enjoyed Americas. It gave a different flavour than the others (obviously, having Natives and whatnot), and I found it fun (playing as Spain) racing France and England to try and colonize the Americas, while meddling in Native politics to create the best conditions to reap land for myself using my limited troops (and the King of Spain missions made me really feel like I was a colony and not a Kingdom of Jerusalem in Mexico )

[trench]

Britannia b/c of the Barons Alliance.

[eggthief]

@ the OP
Go for the Teutonic I did it three times and I enjoyed every second, especcially as novgorod

@KippyK
He probably meant the difference between the factions with different religions you are comparing factions with the same.

[cfmonkey45]

Teutonic > All IMHO

I loved it so much that when it actually started to get boring I finally decided to mod it with huge success. I downloaded a custom patch (i would give you the URL but I'm in Honolulu airport in a 6 hour lay-over) and then edited some files to enable Norway and the Mongols. The best is with the Hotseat... you get some crazy action going on because you can "reason" with them. In that one, the AI isn't completely retarded as well.

I had some fun with the Crusades campaign, but really, I felt underwhelmed. I only truly liked the Byzantines because of the kick-ass Greek fire throwers. The Crusaders states were like... eh... and I haven't really tried out the Muslims.

Britainia is pretty good too. Ireland is surprisingly easy to be good with. If you unite all of Ireland, you will get like 10,000 + florins within like 10 turns if you keep upgrading Commercial and Agricultural buildings. The Norse are pretty hard though.

Americas is alright, I guess. It's something different. You have to rely on light infantry and archers in dense Jungle terrain. Personally, its not my cup of tea, and the AI is not as bright in that one. But hey, w/e floats your boat.

[Rook_US]

Fact is, it is already mentioned... everyone tends to have a different play style. If you are an immersion player, like myself, then nearly every Campaign has some good material. The Crusades have some great Scripted events that help with "Roleplaying", not to mention some decent mods out there to spice it up if you are not satisfied with the Vanilla setup. I have heard the Teutonic campaign is "the best", tryed it, wasn't too drawn into the whole setup. To me, it felt like mindless slaughtering, as well, I enjoy massing armies and crushing mine enemies using the Small Army setting . Truth is though, I wasn't familiar with the time period and had a Britannia campaign underway. I'm a fanatic for that Island's history... go figure, I'm from Texas. That being the case, I can get into the game a little more and when things seem to get boring, I can watch some Braveheart. :tooth:

[Kip]

@eggthief

Ok, I can see that. The Crusader States are very different from the Muslims, and each of those are very different from the Byzantines. However, that still only leaves 3 distinct playstyles, which in fact gives more diversity to the Teutonic Campaign.

[eggthief]

I can´t enjoy the turks, egypt and the byzantines playingstyle and your right about the teutonic campaign it´s a shame tho that u can´t play the mongols.

[KozaK101]

Teutonic and britannia!...nice to hav ur nationalities represented if ur british and the feel, look and music of the teutoic campaign is brilliant...though major improvements could stil b made with some campaign specific mods which id love 2 see....

crusades isnt that interesting as it isnt the challenge for the crusaders that would make it fun and americas...they literally all look the same to me...basically 3 factions...southern indians, northern indians and europeans...just happen to fight each other

[Lone rider]

Teutonic is the best for me, allot of funn being the order or lithuan or just dennmark, may be slow and easy with dennmark and easy with order as long as you dont get to much upkeep units.