• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by hjarg
Well, i have to take it back. It seems like the strategic part of MTW has been much improved compared to STW.

I'm looking forward for both of them, though i'm pretty sure that i prefer CK over MTW.

Agreed, and like the fruit quote both are my cup of tea so both is going to end up in my grubby little hands.:D
 
Re: Any proof?

Originally posted by Grifman


Care to submit any proof? That's a rather serious assertion on your part.

Grifman

Actually it could be read both ways but rereading the review (which was PC Gamer) my recollection was very mistaken. It's nothing like as detailed as your link.

If it helps you (and your friend) have my apologies. But chill on the reply - I missed your first question completely
 
Originally posted by Grifman

Here is the preview and you can read for yourself and decide :)
http://www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/MTW/preview.htm

Grifman

Thanks :)

Great preview,I know i spent some time finding one that would tell all the stuff.
Btw noticed that walkthru, early byzantine campaign, link is non existant.. waiting to learn more of the byzantines :) (that is continue>> is not hyperlinked)
 
I will be buying both and can't wait.

Also, something no one else has mentioned: the STW tactical battles on line are some of the best fun I've ever had with a computer game. I am very happy they have made improvements in MTW and am looking forward to the online play.
 
Re: Re: Any proof?

Originally posted by Derek Pullem


Actually it could be read both ways but rereading the review (which was PC Gamer) my recollection was very mistaken. It's nothing like as detailed as your link.

If it helps you (and your friend) have my apologies. But chill on the reply - I missed your first question completely

Fair enough, apology accepted. Given that the guy writing putting together the website on MTW is a gaming journalist, I found it unlikely that he plagiarized another magazine - nor post it on a website where a reader of the mag would have noticed. Anyway, I appreciate your sentiment - many would not have admitted a mistake. You have my respect.

Grifman
 
Originally posted by The camel


Thanks :)

Great preview,I know i spent some time finding one that would tell all the stuff.
Btw noticed that walkthru, early byzantine campaign, link is non existant.. waiting to learn more of the byzantines :) (that is continue>> is not hyperlinked)

He hasn't finished the Byzant campaign yet - been dragged into others - he seems to be enjoying himself quite a bit :)

BTW, there's plenty to check out there on MTW - just look at the index links at the bottom of each page - go to "Games" and pick MTW, or go to "Forums". There's a web board with posts on the game, he answers questions, he now has a page of hints/tips on the game, an outline with maps for the start of each faction, details on starting troops/armies, etc. Come on by - there's tons on info on the web forum.

Grifman
 
Aren't the Muslims a little under-represented in MTW? Egypt, the richest and most heavily populated Muslim nation, is only one province? :eek:
 
I think that Chef Boyard hade several good points. The problem with Paradox has always been that they only listen to the 'fan club', a group of people that have the same relation to paradox as a muslim to allah (or a catholic to 'God').
Most potential buyers of CK is people like me that dosn't buy a game just because is says' paradox' on the cover. If
I decide that MTW is better, then I will buy it instead.
That Paradox (and noone else on this forum as it seams) are able to discuss possible changed to an upcoming game is an alarming sign.
 
Originally posted by Avenger
MTW is out now in retail. Lots of people have it. Any impressions on MTW? Was it as good as you expected?

--Avenger


Got it today. Fun game, but I think where Crusader Kings will shine is the diplomacy and internal politics. Diplomacy in MTW is very weak. You're either allied, neutral, or at war. There's no relations indicator, no vassalization, etc.


Beyond the combat, the stuff that will hold your interest are the special units. The Bishops, the assassins, spies, looking after your generals, discovering the map (you can only see ownership if you have a unit in it or a ship by it). It's a quality product, with lot of class going into the design. But, I think the depth that Crusader Kings promises to have will make it shine.
 
Hmmm....

.... both very good game series... Can't see that they compete though....
I use EU type games when I am in a more calm and "resting" mode, while TW type of games is the flavor when I am higher on adrenaline (and sometimes alcohol :D ) ....
As some other already said. Both gets some money out of me....
 
Originally posted by Galadriel
[B.................
Most potential buyers of CK is people like me that dosn't buy a game just because is says' paradox' on the cover............... [/B]

Then wise up and learn a lesson. If it says Paradox on the box then it is a good product with great support.:p
 
Originally posted by Sonny
If it says Paradox on the box then it is a good product with great support.:p
I can agree on that. But the fact that they (probably) have done the best game ever (EUII) dosn't mean that all games will be like that. Especially if they don't listen to people that are the one that (maybe) will by the games.
 
Originally posted by Sonny


Then wise up and learn a lesson. If it says Paradox on the box then it is a good product with great support.:p

There are no such things. Once I thought it was so because it said Sid Meier on the box but I was rudely disabused from that fiction.
 
Originally posted by Idiotboy


There are no such things. Once I thought it was so because it said Sid Meier on the box but I was rudely disabused from that fiction.

I tend to agree...Each game needs to prove itself...However with Paradox on it, it'll probably be good...;)