I just don't get it.
I decided to give this game a shot because the world map is turn-based and I've often enjoyed a good medieval castle siege ever since Castles II: Siege&Conquest. But I found none of the strategic depth lauded by my fellow gamers. In the grand RTS model this is again just a scramble to pile up resources and armies to swamp the other guy. The agents are underdeveloped to the point of rendering them irrelevant. Merchants produce so little wealth as to barely justify the effort to create them and the computer merchants just pick them off before they can earn their keep. It took attempt after mindless attempt at assassinating minor captains to build up even one assassin to the point where he could pick off a lucrative merchant or a dangerous inquisitor. Mostly I could just get them about halfway up the improvement scale before their luck would run out and they would die trying to kill their latest undefended, unnamed character. The diplomacy system is laughable too, with alliances holding little meaning and the AI demanding ridiculous tribute even when utterly defeated. Even if you could get them to agree to anything your options in negotiations are woefully limited.
There are no alternate victory conditions, even between different factions. Just a flat "own this many territories" concept of winning. Oh, and the Pope is a royal pain in the rear, did I mention that part? Compared to something like Civilization this game's turn-based "strategy" strikes at least this author as infantile.
So perhaps this is really meant to be all about the battles. After all, that is what is highlighted in much of what is written about the game as well as in the demo, etc. I must admit that the little guys whacking each other sure do look fancy! The graphics are impressive for a battlefield game like this. The sound is pleasant too, while I'm on the subject of the sensory aspects. The marching music and the voice acting are fitting and appreciated. The medieval tones very appropriate. Still, it is for me in the gameplay where it falls apart. Most battles I fought were battles to capture a city or castle. At least in the 3 campaigns I tried I saw very very few pitched battles on open terrain. I could not make any valid use of cavalry in a siege offensively as they could not be wielded inside a city's walls. This actually seemed fairly logical to me up to a point, as one might expect cavalry to be most devastating when they have room to maneuver. Still, armored knights seemed to have no advantage whatsoever vs infantry once engaged. Missile troops also seemed of little avail. I could march armies of infantry up to my enemy's walls and take my time getting in while suffering only modest losses. I experienced the same on defense with many archers firing vainly into my foes ranks only to watch them march ever on, leaving only a few sad fallen behind.
Ultimately I gave up on ever running a battle myself as the computer would routinely win battles for me with only a few dozen soldiers lost when in the same exact battle I had lost half my army trying to run them myself. Although I fared much better and the turns were not so oppressively long and boring with the battles auto-resolved, much of the experience is lost in the process. Being left only with the turn-based map you have only half a game and the holes in that turn-based portion seem only the more gaping for it. Some may say that I am simply terrible at the game and bitter about it, but I've been a gamer for two decades now and I've logged around 35 hours in this game. If I can't figure it out in all that time, then it must just not be for me.
Those who love the RTS genre can have this game; I think they will love it. As for me, I can't say I'll be fiending for the next TW offering.