I haven't played, STW, so I won't go into specifics comparing it with EU. However, let's look at Chef Boyard's original argument...
Originally posted by Chef Boyard
Therefore, CK must offer something more than MTW does, at least in those aspects where it can. The timeframe is one. If CK timeframe extends from around 650-700 to 1419, it will offer much more in historical scope than MTW does.
There are a few problems with this
1) You're assuming people will buy one or the other, based on determining which one is a better game, as if somehow computer games are like cars where a person will choose one over the other. This is not generally the way computer games are bought. If you are an RTS fan (as I am to an extent), you don't necessarily choose between the current Blizzard/Westwood/Microsoft offering, instead you look at each one independently, decide whether it is a good game or not from reviews/friends/etc. and then probably buy more than one. You will probably play them longer this way as well, since, like shoes, if you alternate they last longer. Perhaps you don't buy computer games like this, but I do, and I suspect most people do as well.
2) After assuming that they will be in direct competition, you assumed that extending the time frame of CK will make it a better game. A game that covers as long a period of time as CK does, a level of abstraction is necessary, as it was in EU/EU2. CK is a game whose main selling point (I assume) will be its historiocity (if "historiocity" is even a word), and by extending the time frame you will inherently require more abstraction, making closer to the Civilzation series (which I do like, but is the epitome of abstraction, never quite portraying the epochs accurately). It is the equivalent of saying HOI will be a better game if it covers 1914-1991 instead of 1936-1941 because it will "offer more." As it stands right now, CK will have quite bit of abstraction, specifically relating to the heraldry bit, as for the sake of gameplay it assumes heraldry was fully developed and its rules fixed in 1066, which was not the case at all. Extending CK backwards towards 650-700 will force too many abstractions to allow it to keep its main selling point.
3) You've also assumed much about the similarities between MTW and CK. From how you've described MTW, it seems like it is primarily a war-sim, with its main focus on conquest. CK, from its descriptions, is not primarily a game of conquest. The stated goal for the player is to acquire prestige. You said/quoted that each of the 12 factions will have its unique "potential for European dominance", which implies that European diminance is the logical goal of the game, which (in addition to being unhistorical both by virtue the fact that it a)didn't happen and b) couldn't have, given the structure of the mideival world) is not the goal of CK. So while the features may look similar, the games are geared differently, and will so appeal to different groups of people (another reason that they are not necessarily in competition).
Arguing over which is a better game is a perfectly OK thing to do, but suggesting that CK make changes that will most probably result in a worse game because it is somehow threatened by MTW isn't the best way to argue the point. If you genuinely think extending the timeframe will improve the game, tell us why, and (in addition to giving us something to talk about) would be a much better way to argue your point.
Because of the pause feature.
