Favorite Kingdoms Campaign?

[Kaiser Nonsense]

There it is, the other thread on the same subject had no poll, now we can see the results here.

[Aeratus]

For me, it's Teutonic.

1. Teutonic - Map layout is perfect for total war, which is what this game is about. The map is basically the vanilla grand campaign map shrunk down for more intense fighting.
2. Britannia (close second) - Good environment and feel to it.
3. Crusades - Map design is poor (the desert should be impassable and empty), and the campaign is too historically inaccurate. I would've added Armenia, separated the Turkish territories into different factions, made it 1 year per turn (instead of 2 years per turn), and increased the strength of the Mongols.
4. Americas - Campaign is too tedious due to repetitive native armies, which are all essentially the same. Also, the map is bugged in a way that the natives can't conquer the entire map, due to inability to get to Cuba.

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

4. Americas - Campaign is too tedious due to repetitive native armies, which are all essentially the same. Also, the map is bugged in a way that the natives can't conquer the entire map, due to inability to get to Cuba.

I agree on Teutonic, love that campaign, btw you get an army spawned in Cuba when you have taken all other settlements, thats just a heads up, if you decided not to play it because of that.

[Aeratus]

btw you get an army spawned in Cuba when you have taken all other settlements, thats just a heads up, if you decided not to play it because of that.

Oh. I didn't know that. Now I have to try that campaign again. Thanks!

[Silverheart]

I agree on Teutonic, love that campaign, btw you get an army spawned in Cuba when you have taken all other settlements, thats just a heads up, if you decided not to play it because of that.

Didn´t know that, +rep for the tip
I just have quick question: what about the other off-shore area to the west?
I know it´s actually a peninsula, but there is a rebel settlement there that you can´t reach by foot in the game, so is there any way to get there, or is it reserved for european conquerors only?

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

Oh. I didn't know that. Now I have to try that campaign again. Thanks!

Didn´t know that, +rep for the tip
I just have quick question: what about the other off-shore area to the west?
I know it´s actually a peninsula, but there is a rebel settlement there that you can´t reach by foot in the game, so is there any way to get there, or is it reserved for european conquerors only?

Guys, dont put high hopes on this trough, i never played the americas campaign myself, my brother did a long time ago and he took the last settlement like this IIRC, i also asked him and he dosent remember it too well either.

[PapaRosario]

I agree on Teutonic, love that campaign, btw you get an army spawned in Cuba when you have taken all other settlements, thats just a heads up, if you decided not to play it because of that.

Is that something that you've experienced yourself, or just something that you heard about? I was interested in this, so I looked into how it was implemented, and the only non-European spawn army scripts I could find were 2 for the Aztecs, and neither of them seemed to be related to what you mentioned.

Edit:

Guys, dont put high hopes on this trough, i never played the americas campaign myself, my brother did a long time ago and he took the last settlement like this IIRC, i also asked him and he dosent remember it too well either.

Well I guess that answers my question

[Aeratus]

btw you get an army spawned in Cuba when you have taken all other settlements, thats just a heads up, if you decided not to play it because of that.

I recently played an Aztecs campaign and can confirm that the above is not true. In other words, you cannot get to Cuba and Baja California as the natives even if you have taken every other province.

It's very disappointing because after grinding through endless 8-10k men battles again Temple Guard spams and chasing hundreds of units of Apache cavalry with Jaguar Warriors, you'd think you'd deserve something better.

If you do capture the entire map using cheats/mods, you still get the full map victory message, however.

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

I recently played an Aztecs campaign and can confirm that the above is not true. In other words, you cannot get to Cuba and Baja California as the natives even if you have taken every other province.

It's very disappointing because after grinding through endless 8-10k men battles again Temple Guard spams and chasing hundreds of units of Apache cavalry with Jaguar Warriors, you'd think you'd deserve something better.

If you do capture the entire map using cheats/mods, you still get the full map victory message, however.

CA sure made a huge mistake not thinking about that prior, guess they didn't expect anyone actually to play with any of the indian factions. You can still teleport an army via console comands to there, so it is doable.

[totalwar_legend]

you can get cuba if the spanish change their capital. Simply annex it with diplomacy. No cheats required. The best way to get them to change their capital is to give them mexico or some other good city for a bit. You can always take that one back anyway.

[sunny44]

i haven't played crusades,Teutonic and Americas yet, but i love Britannia, almost finished as the welsh. i better play Teutonic next going by the poll!

[shikaka]

Teutonic: far the most entertaining. Has 2 new factions which are original, you can easily make the mongols playable (fun to play), and the map is designed to "lead the factions into each other". Also, the Teutonic hilltop and brick settlements are great. This one has the highest replay value to me. 4/5

Britannia: overcrowded siegefest, super-boring (I loved the buildable stone forts, which lots of mods imported from here) 2/5

Crusades: important factions missing, too easy (with all those starting troops) and desert travel is slow. 1/5

Americas: Fun once or twice, but mainly as Apaches - the reason is that I find the Mexican landscape really annoying. Battles where I actually don't see anything because of the jungle are too common. 3/5

[Aymer de Valence]

Crusades

[Choombi]

by preference
1.Britannia
pro: i love the Anglo-Celtic environment, 2.5 very fun new faction(Norway is like a half faction), by far the best music on Kingdoms.
con: no religion.
2.Teutonic
pro: original setting, two well made new factions, i loved those 'village' settlements.
con: Russia, should have two Russian factions with different units than vanilla's Russia.
3.crusades.
pro:the setting, heroes,power centers.
no Armenia/Georgia, no Khwarizmi, crusader states are overpowered compared to reality in the campaign.
4.america.
pro: Europe v America, awesome scripted events for Spain.
battles are boring as hell, unless you play as Spain, in which case they are just 'boring'.map is terrible, no Inca, too much focus on Mexico, way too much jungles ,Baja is unreachable by land. three practically identical faction rosters.

italic letters are edited

[Aymer de Valence]

crusedar states are overpowered compared to reality.

Hmmm how so? Sure, the Crusader infantry and heavy cavalry can easily beat the Egyptians etc in melee and when charging, but then the Muslims have very mobile armies just like they did in reality. If you have a few units of horse archers and find a purely infantry based Crusader army, the battle is basically over before it has begun

[Choombi]

Hmmm how so? Sure, the Crusader infantry and heavy cavalry can easily beat the Egyptians etc in melee and when charging, but then the Muslims have very mobile armies just like they did in reality. If you have a few units of horse archers and find a purely infantry based Crusader army, the battle is basically over before it has begun

i was talking about the campaign, not about the units, edited my post to clear it up.

[Chromium]

Hmmm how so? Sure, the Crusader infantry and heavy cavalry can easily beat the Egyptians etc in melee and when charging, but then the Muslims have very mobile armies just like they did in reality. If you have a few units of horse archers and find a purely infantry based Crusader army, the battle is basically over before it has begun

Yes, but the fact remains that the Crusaders were heavily outnumbered by the Egyptians in real life; and also had to devote a vast amount of military power in controlling the raiders, pirates, religious wackos etc who were a dime-a-dozen during that time. Besides, the crusading orders, the nobles & the Kingdom were often at loggerheads for various reasons and very rarely were they able to raise armies equal to those of Salah-ud-din.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem ought to have been played as a tiny bunch of hardy warriors battling for survival against all odds- kind of like Dale against Rhun in TATW. Instead you get a faction that can steamroll Egypt within 10 turns!

Put in a hamstrung economy, reduce KoJ's original troops by half, turn up rebel spawning to three times or more and give Egypt more regions( or more florins each turn).

In fact, SS's way is best of all! IMO it's nearly impossible to win without proper use of crusades no matter how well you fight!! (then again, I'm only an average player)

[Aeratus]

Crusader states are overpowered because the Principality of Antioch was less than 1/3 of its in-game size during the time period. Antioch was a very minor power at that time. It was mainly the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[Choombi]

Crusader states are overpowered because the Principality of Antioch was less than 1/3 of its in-game size during the time period. Antioch was a very minor power at that time. It was mainly the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Right, but they had to do this, if crusades had just one catholic faction it will be...incomplete.
i simply think that the curseder states should have less starting armies and population compared to Egypt and the turks

[Kaiser Nonsense]