Favorite Kingdoms campaigns?

[Kitsunegari]

So i've had M2TW since 2006, but i just got around to getting Kingdoms:
1) Americas- Very challenging and fun, i played as the Spanish on hard campaign/vh battle. The Mayans were like Rasputin, impossible to kill. What i didn't like was how the mercenaries didn't carry the same weapons as shown in their icons and how you had the same mercenaries almost everywhere (guys with mahaquitls in North America?) and how the French got three or four stacked armies with modern units that just sat in the NE corner of the map then finally decided to attack, i think IRL their expeditions were pretty small in general.
2)Teutonic- Played as Novgorod h/vh again, another good challenge but much more manageable. I didn't like not being able to play as the Mongols (well you can but they have few unit responses). Also the Teutonic Knights have stereotypical Russian accents?
3)Brittania- Played as Wales h/vh and haven't finished yet, very, very tough and i don't like how the victory conditions are to hold a huge number of regions including London and Dublin.
4)Crusades- I was really looking forward to this one, but was sorely disappointed. Two years per turn? Only 5 factions (well at the beginning)? Very unrealistic as no one Turkish state controlled both Iraq and most of Anatolia. Kingdom of Antioch includes Edessa and is much larger than it would have been at the time. I'm playing as the Byzantines, and Kingdom of Jerusalem has already conquered most of Arabia and the Sinai in a fairly short time, doesn't accurately reflect the actual state of affairs. Also smaller provinces would be nice in some areas.

[Aeratus]

1. Teutonic. This campaign is just pure war, with every corner of the map contended. It's like a miniaturized version of the vanilla map, but with the Baltic instead of the Mediterranean. Also, this campaign features entirely new factions with new gameplay (Lithuanians, Teutonic Order), the Mongols, and the factions with some of the best and most exciting rosters in vanilla (now rebalanced under Kingdoms) are now fighting it out.

2. Britannia. The sound and feel of the campaign is really good. It's a close call between this and Teutonic. Teutonic has better action, but Britannia has a better feel to it. I gave the edge to Teutonic because it's been less done, whereas we've already had a Britannia expansion back in Medieval 1.

3. Crusades. The map is totally historically inaccurate. Where to begin? As said above, the Turks and Antioch Principality have completely inaccurate boundaries. Another issue is that Nuradin died in the first year of the campaign, and all of the Syrian muslim territory was inherited by Saladin. Third, the Mongols are way too weak, since historically, they conquered 2/3 of the Crusades campaign map, including vassalizing everything in Asia Minor other than Nicea and Smyrna their vassal. Instead, the Mongols are weaker than they were in the vanilla campaign, and still wander in the desert looking for Antioch (instead, there should be two massive invasions, one to Ancyra in 1241, and another to Baghdad in late 1250s). Yet another issue is that the map contains an annoying stretch of desert, which is extremely boring to fight over (which you must because the Byzantines and Antioch must destroy every Turkish province, and the Turks will have wandered into the desert at some time). They should've made the desert inaccessible, with no settlements, which would have been realistic and better for gameplay. The bottom line with this campaign is that they tried to fit too many things into the campaign to make it popular history compatible, including a balanced crusader/muslim map, simplified factions, and having the characters of Saladin, Nuradin, Richard, and Philip all at once. The only redeeming quality of this campaign, which edges it above Americas, is that it includes a lot of new units that greatly improve the depth of existing factions (including the Khassaki, the most bad ass unit ever), while adding two new colorful factions.

4. Americas. The problem is that all of the natives are the same thing over and over again. Playing as the Spanish is somewhat interesting, but playing as the natives is boring when everybody has the exact same units, except for a few minor differences in the battle priest units.

[13lackGu4rd]

In general I much prefer the vanilla's grand campaign over the smaller kingdom's campaigns. So, from kingdom's alone I pretty much agree with Aeratus' list. Teutonic campaign is the most well built, without too many historical inaccuracies and in general give the best feeling. I personally don't like the Britannia campaign nearly as much as Aeratus but the other 2 are worst, so it has to be second by default. The Crusades campaign seems like a classic case of "more is less". The America's campaign has the most potential Imho but it was way underdone, with all the natives being the same, Spain not needing to rely on mercenaries and diplomacy at all, the French and British expeditions being utterly pathetic, etc. Overall I'm was very disappointed with the kingdoms expansions and still much prefer the grand campaigns vanilla offers.

[PrestigeX]

Probably Teutonic and Brittania were the best I thought.

Crusades was the most dissapointing -- Big Map, but its huge stretches of land with such limited movement points -- the Crusader Factions have a lot of random units, and things like... armor line of buildings all buildable, but then no units that actually upgrade!!! (okay, one or two but otherwise zilch!)... Too many knights, just pointless because they all generally have the same stats and relatively close cost / upkeep there's no reason to choose one over another... atleast with KoJ
Having to 'hold' a number of cities for 10 turns, its just stupid -- like I already conquered well over the number of provinces I need and have to wait ,, 10 turns to get a victory message? not to mention, they deliberately start to riot in those cities once u near the completion. I hate the crusader factions, they're just so .. bad, ugly, incomplete.

America campaign - same idea, not enough movement points for huge regions. Endless waves of native armies - its just repetitive and dull, and the heavy scripting like having the English or French show up with 4 full armies with cannon and muskets and everything, meanwhile you are still just training "Crossbow militia" because you have to wait until you get your better troops. All the New world factions are identical, except Apache and Chichmecs


Brittania - wasn't too hard, but was a good challenge , everything felt good balance, and fun - each faction different from the other.
Teutonic the same thing - -good map, good factions, everything balanced =)

[Grymloq]

Exactly the same as Aeratus and for the same reasons

[Sweger]

I haven't played the game that much, but I can say this about the campaigns, I did enjoy them very much, they weren't exactly "bad" but there are off course things to improve.

Americas: Yes, the natives are barely different (except chichimeks and apache as said above) more work on separate rosters. English and French expeditions smaller (or somewhat bigger with increased difficulty) and more active. For me there were a little bit too many rebel areas in the south (below aztecs after defeating Mayans).

Crusades: Have only played as Byzantines this far, but there was little less battle than expected. Somehow that area did not fell that populated, especially not after defeating one or two fractions. They could easily have added mor factions such as Kingdom of Armenia, Persians/Khwarezmians, some more arabic faction and maybe Edessa as an own faction, a third crusaderfaction. Mongols weaker than in actual history, yes, but i find that OK for gameplay reasons, a campign named "crusades" should be the clash between Muslims and invading Christians. If by adding those factions you could completely leave out the Venice-event.

Teutonic: One of the best. What they would need to do, just add Sweden and Muscovy for more historical accuracy. Novgorod actually had a lot of troubles with Muscovy and was at this time not the only Russian faction. Novgorod, was actually at guite a few times rather friends with the TO and Poland-Lithuania against Muscovy. And as for Sweden, sure of course I miss them since I am Swedish myself, especially when focused on this area, but they were quite active in that area at that time. Sure "Kalmar Union" does content Sweden, but my suggestion would be to exchange Sweden for Norway - Norway is just in the campign for gameplay reasons in order to make the Kalmar Union if you're playing as Denmark, but instead of having Sweden (as playable off course) and have the work to create another faction, they just took Norway since it was needed anyways for the Britannica campaign. But having Sweden there would make much more sense, you have the faction to form Kalmar Union (as either faction) and it would add some slightly more other gameplay value to that map.

Britannica: As said, probably the best together with the Teutonic, Enough factions for the area with different styles and conditions. I loved playing as Norway here, and it was a decent challange. (And it makes all the sence in the world to have Norway here instead of Denmark or Sweden). And the BA is also a very well done feature, firstly as an historical aspect and secondly as a gameplay factor to make it an according challenge playing as England.

[Kitsunegari]

Spain not needing to rely on mercenaries and diplomacy at all, the French and British expeditions being utterly pathetic, etc.

What difficulty level did you play on? On hard i had to ally with the Tlaxcalans and Tarascans or i would have been smashed. The French sent 4 huge powerful armies but they just sat in the northeast corner of the map until finally deciding to attack Florida

just add Sweden and Muscovy for more historical accuracy.

Agreed, it is kind of annoying how Sweden is just a huge rebel area that falls to Denmark or Norway

They should've made the desert inaccessible, with no settlements, which would have been realistic and better for gameplay.

Agreed, KoJ just wondering over and conquering Arabia? Also as mentioned above when playing as the Byzantines the Turks' western settlements fall one by one with extreme ease (guess their busy in the desert lol) and KoA is all of the sudden expanding into the Caucasus to block my path to Iraq! It would be so interesting if they had included Lesser Armenia, Edessa, Sultanate of Rum, Georgia, Zangids, etc.

1 turn per year

Yeah that's totally unforgivable not having that (or even 2 per year) for a campaign such as the Crusades :/

[Macunaíma]

I'm playing Crusades as Egypt and I'm having fun. Well, for me, that's what matters . Doing pretty well on that. But there could be more factions, I'm feeling a bit lonely now that I'm late on the campaign.

And I thought England and France pretty easy to defeat in Americas (maybe because I play in medium). Actually, for defeating them, I just got one general to recruit a full stack of natives and attacked them fiercely. Playing as Spain, btw. I just think there should be more kinds of mercs available, and the Aztecs and Mayans look the same (didn't fight Tarascans/Tlaxcallans yet).

Teutonic, what to say. I didn't play that one much, since my economy is (I'm only in turn 16 though). I see much of the vanilla campaign on Teutonic, mainly because everybody hates me (guess because I played vanilla as HRE), and I predict I'll be at war against 3-4 factions at the same time soon.

Britannia is fun, economy is being hard to deal though. Battles are the BEST.

[13lackGu4rd]

What difficulty level did you play on? On hard i had to ally with the Tlaxcalans and Tarascans or i would have been smashed. The French sent 4 huge powerful armies but they just sat in the northeast corner of the map until finally deciding to attack Florida

vh/vh, as I always do. The thing is that by the time the first French expedition arrives(around turn 40 or so) the Spanish king already allows me to develop all my cities into solid recruitment centers(mounted and dismounted conquistadors pretty much) and of course gunpowder troops from Havana(he even gifted me the building), so by the time the French come with their 3-4 stacks I can instantly crush them with mounted and dismounted conquistadors backed by muskets and/or crossbows, which I didn't even need due the AI's terrific tactics(as always). In 1 campaign with new Spain I didn't destroy the French as soon as they spawned(like I usually do) but rather let them move northwards and establish themselves. Though I did capture the 2 southern cities in Florida(they skipped them and took the northern ones, not willing to declare war on me). As for the natives, mounted+dismounted conquistadors crush natives so hard. The mounted ones flanking their spearmen or just charging head on against anything else, the dismounted ones beat any native unit 1v1, even 1v2. So basically 1 stack of a general and a mixture of mounted and dismounted conquistadors can easily take on 2-3 full native stacks in the open field. Needless to say, you can also bring cannons, muskets and stuff if you really want(but they aren't as efficient against the armorless natives as they are against the French and English).

[Aeratus]

Crusades: Have only played as Byzantines this far, but there was little less battle than expected. Somehow that area did not fell that populated, especially not after defeating one or two fractions. They could easily have added mor factions such as Kingdom of Armenia, Persians/Khwarezmians, some more arabic faction and maybe Edessa as an own faction, a third crusaderfaction. Mongols weaker than in actual history, yes, but i find that OK for gameplay reasons, a campign named "crusades" should be the clatch between Muslims and invading Christians. If the add those factions they could completely let out the Venice-event.

I think the Abbasid Caliphate, which would start with Baghdad and surrounding provinces, would have been a good addition, since they had regained independence from the Turks by the 1160s. As for the Mongols, what should have been done was the make the campaign 1 turn per year, so the Mongols would come later, but stronger.

[Hopit]

Teutonics
do I really need to tell?

[Aymer de Valence]

I've only played the Crusades campaign, and that was with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. REALLY enjoyable, though I didn't have access to my favourite unit, Canons of the Holy Sepulchre

[lolIsuck]

Teutonic and Britannia are the best, both very fun with a lot of diversity.

I loved playing the Welsh in Britannia, broke my tongue over their names but some awesome units.

Teutonic Order is exciting with about every faction and they all have very cool units (except maybe Lithuania but haven't tried them)

The Americas one starts as fun but after 10 turns as the Spanish I had enough, fighting the same army over and over again.

In Crusades I just had the feeling nothing happens, KoJ just has to hold Egypt off, Antioch the Turks and that's the campaign, starting as the Byzzies you're too far off, even flamethrowers can't make it a fun campaign then

[Macunaíma]

In Crusades I just had the feeling nothing happens, KoJ just has to hold Egypt off, Antioch the Turks and that's the campaign, starting as the Byzzies you're too far off, even flamethrowers can't make it a fun campaign then

Try playing as Egypt (I guess Turks would be similar). It's very challenging in the beginning, until you have wiped KoJ and have a strong economic base.

[lolIsuck]

Try playing as Egypt (I guess Turks would be similar). It's very challenging in the beginning, until you have wiped KoJ and have a strong economic base.

I hardly have time to play the game sadly

[florin87]

crusades for me. the americas campaign bores the hell out of me. the teutonic campaign would be good if it wasn't so easy to steamroll everyone. while the britania campaign feels like it was added at the last minute so there would be 4 campaigns, it's pointless and doesn't fit with the game's scope and scale.

[Diamond]

My favorite is Britannia, I love leading my Irish brethren to conquer my oppressive English overlords >

Next is Teutonic, so I can pretend Denmark is Sweden and create the Swedish empire a tad early!

Crusades was kind of boring. It was too easy as the KoJ.

Finally, Americas. Americas wasn't bad, but it was... pretty bland. The same thing over and over again with the same units if you're native American.

[Sweger]

Next is Teutonic, so I can pretend Denmark is Sweden and create the Swedish empire a tad early!

Yep this, also what I kind of did playing as Kalmar Union. Just move the capitol to Uppsala, and then you basically have it.

[Jacobim Mugatu]

My favourite is the Americas campaign, I absolutely love that period of history (my favourite).
However it was really rushed and could have been much better.
I'm still waiting for a comprehensive early New World conquest era mod, I want to play as some of the first colonisers not the post conquest aristocrats trading Aztec remnants as slaves haha

Teutonic and Britannia were good but didn't really catch my interest.

Crusades I was really hyped for but yes it was really dull and slow, got sick of chasing stacks of horse archers around the battle map very quickly too.

[Leaf-Fan-Forever]

Brittania. Six Factions in a small space.