Should I buy Battles or just Warrior Kings?

[DarkButtPumpkin]

I played Warrior Kings before and sadly don't have it anymore and whitch one would be a wiser purchase? I have heard that Warrior Kings does have a pathfinding problems with troops though.

[hardwiredsin]

I'm wondering the same thing, should I get this one or the original Warrior Kings

[Edelward]

beside skirmishes , this one offers a campaign risk style map of stylized medieval Europe which you try to conquer I liked it so far . Had it on CD years before haven't though played it much because had overdone playing the first game in series for hundred hours, and I think current version has been pached alot to better

[DarkButtPumpkin]

alright thank you for the info :) the risk style map sounds pretty neat

[Edelward]

Yes I have noted some pathfinding problems ocring then and then , when you move troops in formation trough obstacles. But I don'regret buying the game AI is challenging and i so far seen the best of it having some allies .

[Crazy Alchemy]

Well if it runs well with the Steam Version yes I'd say get it.

The game has pathfinding problems but it's still a great game and there's nothing game breaking about it, it's challenging and unique and has a ton of original elements that have never been seen in an RTS before or since.

Think of it as a cross between The Settlers and a typical RTS, with Diplomacy, and an Alignment System with multiple branches, some really cool AI characters and a rather large campaign with faction decisions.

[mieticapre]

I have two questions. has the game got local or online multiplayer? I would playing online.
can we use hamachi or other program like it to play online?

[The♘Red♘Knight]

It has a LAN multiplayer working with hamachi. One of the game's best features if you ask me.

[Alice is Strange]

I would really love to have a multiplayer game... :(

[saltyNacho]

Throwing in my 2 cents here: You should get Warrior Kings for the single player, and get Battles for the multiplayer.

Both have pretty good single player campaigns, but the original has a story driven campaign, which I prefer.

[Commissar Doge]

Originally posted by Wickerson:

Throwing in my 2 cents here: You should get Warrior Kings for the single player, and get Battles for the multiplayer.

Both have pretty good single player campaigns, but the original has a story driven campaign, which I prefer.

Just clarifying here: From your post, I'm getting that Battles does not have the same story campaign that the original has?

[The♘Red♘Knight]

Battles does have a campaign, but it there is no real story that is told. It is more a succession of skirmishes and the player has to build up his own story. The original though has a story-driven campaign and it is a really great campaign imho. On the other hand, Battles is much better if you want to play mutliplayer.

[maxdogg75]

Does this game have adjustable difficulty levels?

[Edelward]

No you get some bonuses with every conquered province in campaign

[maxdogg75]

Ok in skirmish is there difficulty levels? Also will this work on win 8.1 ?

[The♘Red♘Knight]

I don't know about win8.1 (I use windows 7), but there are many AI personalities (there are like 50 different AIs). There are three AI proficiency levels (conscript, veteran and elite). Some AIs are more aggressive, other more defensive. Certain AIs favour unit types such as heavy cavalry and other will use more light infantry. And there are many other such differences between AIs. You can even customize your own AI. What's more, the AI does not cheat and it is quite skillful. So, in short, there are many difficluty levels in skirmish.