I have played the following:
- Barbarossa 1,2,3
- Saladin 6
My feedback is then limited. I will let you know for the other ones.
Let me thank you, your work is really amazing. Everything worked as in SP campaigns.
I have not found anything broken, at all. As in SP Saladin 6 is challenging, while the others are way easier. I really want to congratulate for the excellent work. Very smart also the population split.
I really appreciated that in Barbarossa 2 the cooperation is mandatory since there is only one player having siege enabled in the beginning.
I may have only one suggestion, but it is more my personal preference. So take it as less important. The idea is to force the cooperation even more (as in Barbarossa 2). One simple thing may be to disable some buildings (or much better the units trained inside) for each player. For instance barracks, archery ranges, stables, and siege workshop. Even castles.
For example, a good idea may be to separate archery ranges and stables, so that the two players must be coordinated to play, like player 1 is forced to develop cavalry and player 2 is forced to develop archers or vice versa.
Also, allowing only one player to build siege, requires a lot of cooperation, which is the goal of this game mode, which I repeat, is amazing.
The separation should be thought on the basis of the civ. For instance, for Teutons/Franks, infantry + siege for one player, while cavalry and archers for the other one may work. While for Mongols/Saracens/Huns I would separate like archers and infantry for one player and siege and cavalry for the other one.
Another idea is to give player 2 a different civ (like in Barbarossa 1, where it works perfectly following the original mission). This is easier for campaigns with a double civ (e.g., El Cid where you are Saracens and Spanish) but way more difficult with Barbarossa (p2 Italians?) or Attila (p2 idk).