Crusader Kings vs. Medieval: Total War - comparison

[Havard]

Originally posted by Grifman

I'd really wish people would criticize based upon facts and not assumptions. It definitely seems to me as if there is a bit of the "looking down the nose" at MTW as some sort of inferior game, which seems unnecessary to me - CK should be able to stand on it's own if it is any good. As I've said before, I expect both games to be great, and I am looking forward to both of them.

I don't think people here are "looking down the nose" on MTW the way you describe. What we have are sequals of two quite different games - one grand strategy game with close to no tactical options, the other a tactical game with some strategy involved. Even though the sequals are likely not entirely like their predecessors it is naturally to compare the two based partly on information about the earlier games.

Personally I didn't fall for Shoguns tactical battles, and since these will be brought forth (and probably enlarged) in MTW I don't think I will like those either.

Another point that has been mentioned here is how incredibly hard it would be to make a complete game, spanning both grand strategy and tactical combat. It is easy to assume that when focusing on the one side will lead to a "thinner" gameplay on the other. For me and other fans of grand strategy games it is then easy to think that e.g. MTW's focus on tactical battles will lead to a more shallow strategy part of the game...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios




Every chess set has 32 pieces:

2 black rooks
2 white rooks
2 black knights
2 white knights
2 black bishops
2 white bishops
1 black queen
1 white queen
1 black king
1 white king
8 black pawns
8 white pawns

That equals 32 in my book...

*Geesh, I'm posting OT stuff on my own forum *

Damn! Here I thought I got a bonus. Looks like I got just an ordinary chess set. And even worse news - the other guy got shafted. He only got 24 pieces. Maybe he just lost some. Or was that marbles....

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Demetrios


That equals 32 in my book...

Oops. That's what one gets for not reading posts properly.

Regarding the forthcoming MTW, I agree with Håvard(who states an old opinion). We will not know how MTW compares with CK(or STW) until they're both out, however.

As for the promised features, remember that STW, when EA started hyping it back in 2000, was said to include "challenging strategic gameplay", "historically accurate units" and "realistic tactical battles", plus a host of promises on how "assasinations and geishas in your employment" would "widen and deepen the strategic gameplay". The strat mode still felt like a slightly beefed-up version of the MB kiddie's boardgame. I guess I'll control myself until I actually see the game on my screen...

EF

 

[Grifman]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
[
As for the promised features, remember that STW, when EA started hyping it back in 2000, was said to include "challenging strategic gameplay", "historically accurate units" and "realistic tactical battles", plus a host of promises on how "assasinations and geishas in your employment" would "widen and deepen the strategic gameplay". The strat mode still felt like a slightly beefed-up version of the MB kiddie's boardgame. I guess I'll control myself until I actually see the game on my screen...
EF [/B]

You know, I get real tired of this argument. For the record, I know a reviewer who has a beta, is playing several campaigns, doing writeups, posting them on the web, and he has a message board where people can answer questions. I'm not relying upon any hype from CA, the developer. The stuff that is advertised from a strategic point of view is there - enhanced diplomacy, religions, crusades, technology, leaders, RPG elements, etc. Let me say it again - IT IS IN THE GAME! So quit relying upon this tired old argument. And frankly, though, most of what was promised in your post above about STW above was delivered - the only exception I would make would be some of the units - other than that, the other stuff is there

Grifman

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Grifman


And frankly, though, most of what was promised in your post above about STW above was delivered - the only exception I would make would be some of the units - other than that, the other stuff is there

Grifman

Ah you blew it right at the end - if in your opinion STW had "challenging strategic gameplay" then you don't have the same game as I do

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem


Ah you blew it right at the end - if in your opinion STW had "challenging strategic gameplay" then you don't have the same game as I do

Perhaps challenging tactical gameplay could be applied though. The strategy was a joke though.

 

[Grifman]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem


Ah you blew it right at the end - if in your opinion STW had "challenging strategic gameplay" then you don't have the same game as I do

Uh, try reading again - you blew it I was talking about the features, not the description of "challenging gameplay" - notice I said most of the "stuff" was there - meaning the promised features. I readily admit Shogun was simplistic from a strategic standpoing - but I believe MTW is going to be very different based upon the writeups I have seen.

I still find the apparent "inferiority complex", expressed in the constant need to denigrate MTW, interesting. EU/CK has nothing to be defensive about - EU is a superb game and I am looking forward to CK. I just don' t think I have to bash another game to prove another superior.

Grifman

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Grifman

And frankly, though, most of what was promised in your post above about STW above was delivered - the only exception I would make would be some of the units - other than that, the other stuff is there

Grifman

Er...no...it was not - except for the geishas and assasinations(who did not, in my opinion, widen and deepen the strategic gameplay much), not one of my examples("stuff") were fulfilled in STW. It was still a funny game, of course, but to call Shogun's tac battles realistic is...optimistic.

I'd also like to state that I'm not bashing MTW just for the hell of it. As I've stated several times, I view CK and MTW as two very different games who'll cater to different tastes. Many people will buy both. Most people will only buy MTW but that's most likely because EA's got a slightlyD ) better marketing machine and brand name than Paradox.

I am sure your contact (would you mind giving me his message board, address, btw?) thinks all the promised material is in but in my (admittedly rather limited; I followed the CC, Homeworld and Imperialism series very closely and read a lot of tester material) experience this does not always mean the rest of the world agrees with him. We'll just have to wait for the game to see for ourselves!

On a side note: does anyone here play Courier Chess?

EF

 

[Faeelin]

Apples to oranges. I happen to like fruit, so I'll buy them both.

 

[unmerged(7417)]

Just to bump this dog-edog thread:

According to GoneGold.com, MTW is one week away from Going Gold. (that is, there is one week before the Game begins mass production and then shipment).

I will buy Both. Both of them sound nice. BTW, have any of you seen the Screenshots of MTW? They look NICE!

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by DisturbedMisfit

According to GoneGold.com, MTW is one week away from Going Gold. (that is, there is one week before the Game begins mass production and then shipment).

If that's true, then there will be quite a large period of time between the two releases, so all the ranting about how CK won't be different enough from MTW is pointless.

 

[unmerged(6771)]

Having played both EU/EUII and STW more than is healthy for a normal person I'd say that STW (and the upcoming MTW) are more focused on the battles, whereas in EU (and I'm assuming CK) battle is only a means to reach a goal. If you play STW (MTW) without taking personal control over your forces the whole game loses it's point.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Anckarström
.................. If you play STW (MTW) without taking personal control over your forces the whole game loses it's point.

I tried that becasue I first thought that I was missing something in the strategic portion of the game because I was too involved with the tactical game. But I discovered that it was just the lack of depth of the strategic portion which was the problem.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I was going to write a long post with my thoughts on this subject but Griman elegantly stated my opinion already. I will simply say that I played STW, EU, and EU2. STW had a nice tactical game to it but a paper thin strategic element. EU and EU2 had a very detailed strategic element but a very basic and abstracted tactical element. MTW will be a vast improvement over STW as far as strategy is concerned, IMHO. Therefore I will gladly buy it. CK will be similar to EU, EU2, and created by Paradox, therefore I will buy it. I figure I will be getting a massive amount of gameplay from both of these games and I am thrilled that they both are coming out.

 

[Grifman]

Originally posted by Endre Fodstad
I am sure your contact (would you mind giving me his message board, address, btw?) thinks all the promised material is in but in my (admittedly rather limited; I followed the CC, Homeworld and Imperialism series very closely and read a lot of tester material) experience this does not always mean the rest of the world agrees with him. We'll just have to wait for the game to see for ourselves!

Here is the preview and you can read for yourself and decide

Enjoy.

http://www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/MTW/preview.htm

Grifman

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Originally posted by Grifman


Here is the preview and you can read for yourself and decide

Hmmm....I've always thought about buying it, but now I'm pretty sure I will (if my paltry 700MHz 256 MB PIII can handle it).

If all this guy says is correct, it looks like the strat part has been heavily beefed. It's appearantly not very historical, though(more based on "historic reality" than trying to simulate it), and I strongly suspect it's going to entail a lot of micromanagement problems...but it looks several heads over STW. My guess is the tac part will still be the focus, but hopefully the strat mode will be able to hold a player's interest(unlike in STW).

If it's just a week from going gold we're going to see soon anyway...

EF

 

[Aetius]

120 land provinces for Europe, North Africa and Middle East, think of the possibilities

First thing to note is the size of it - 120 odd provinces and 40 odd sea lanes. Its a LOT bigger than STW every dreamed of.
The next thing to take not of is the vastly different shape of the map, layout of provinces and the sheer scarcity of "choke points"... this is a very open map with the utilisation of sea power meaning that very very few provinces are beyond a move or two from attack.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Funny this review is almost word for word the review in PC Zone in the UK

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Aetius
120 land provinces for Europe, North Africa and Middle East, think of the possibilities

CK will have 7 times as many provinces - think of those possibilities!

 

[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.