II vs III ? Honest opinions please.

[MF]

I bought all 3 WH games on Steam sale and was advised to just start with II, as it brought all of the playable factions from I along for the ride. So I'm doing that and have a sh*tkicking good time playing dwarf and dark elf campaigns. I wouldn't say the AI is perfect, but I have no major complaints. Map is gorgeous, lots and lots of lords to choose from - no complaints.

My plan is to eventually branch into III. From what I see on the youtube (Lionheart etc) it looks positively gorgeous, and I see a lot of similarity to Troy in the way the game works. Realistically I could play it now as all my current factions are there as well.

But..... I keep hearing that the AI is busted and that the game is riddled with glitches. How much of this is true and how much just pure hyperbole ?

[zefyris]

III has all that 2 offers on top of offering way more QoL, heavily reworked WoC, bigger map, 8 players multiplayer with simultaneous turns, more races, and several very important new gameplay choices during campaign.

But III is also buggier than II is, and in general, more in need of tweaking that II is (but that's normal since II had way more patches and year to arrive to where it's now).

III is also overall an easier game to play than II, for better and for worse.

Finally, III is more complex than II has ever been, which means that AI also needs to be better at decisions making just to be as threatening as it was in II -> which is unfortunately not always the case, though part of it is also simply because in higher difficulty, the player is not as nerfed as he was in game II.

[Decomposed]

3 is the better game now with various races getting updates on a regular bases. The AI atm is easier to beat than the 2nd game, but this can change in future patches.

[MF]

As a rule I play on normal mode as I only have a few campaigns under my belt and I don't want to play Warhammer as if it's Elden Ring (been there done that). Seriously though these answers make me feel pretty good, as there's a lot of kvetching about III vs II on the forums and I had a hard time believing that III could be that broken after all this time.

The diplomacy looks like what I got used to in Troy, and that's a good thing imho.

[Zeek]

3 has been the superior game since Immortal Empires came out.

The game is currently in a great state, so whoever told you the game is "riddled with glitches" is probably just a malder spreading hyperbole.

Regarding ai, it's honestly not that bad. You'll see some people complain sometimes about it being too easy but then they'll list all the ways their actively cheesing the game to make it so easy, so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Sure, it does do some weird stuff sometimes, but then again every strategy game ai does, and it's not like it's game breaking. Of you just play the game without trying to break it, you probably won't see much shenanigans.

[abyssalfury]

WH3 definitely took some steps back from WH2. At this point, while there's still a lot of bugs and the like, I think most of the big issues have been sorted. And obviously WH3 has a TON of other advantages over WH2.

That doesn't mean you may not still prefer parts of WH2 (e.g. if you like The Vortex campaign). Honestly though, there's really no reason that you can't just try WH3 and see how it goes.

[Fendelphi]

3 by far.

More faction to play as and against(obviously).

I dont feel a big difference in AI overall. They gained some and they lost some. Overall difficulty feels roughly the same(bugs and "seasonal" issue not withstanding).

Magic scales better now(and was rebalanced), melee units are overall better now.
Spell resistance instead of magic resistance. Having "magical attacks" are actually a good thing now, rather than a potential downside.
Resistances overall scaled down a bit, so that it is harder to create(or fight against) something with 90% damage reduction.

Bigger map to play around with in the IE compared the ME. The RoC campaign is much better(personal opinion) than the Vortex one, as it feels more focused.
Sea-lanes for getting around the map easier(honestly cant remember if they were present in ME, but either they werent, or there were only a few).

Diplomacy is much better. Quick Deals and the ability to see how close or how far you are to making deals, are both huge quality of life improvements.
Settlement trading.
Trading agreements are easier to make, as you do no longer require to share a border(less frustration for factions that wants to do trade, like Imrik).

Sieges. Yes. I was sick of having either field battles only(even in many settlement battles), or more or less the same 1-wall sieges. Of course, they can still be improved upon, but I still consider them better and more enjoyable than what they were previously.

Various tweaks and changes. Too many to list.

There are of course also some things that became a bit worse or disappeared.
Like searching ruins for treasure is now completely gone. I feel that an interesting dynamic disappeared with that(razing certain settlements and using them to hunt for treasures and level heroes). But maybe it will return with Dogs of Wars at some point(they really love treasure after all).

[Alar]

3 is overall better but it also runs like three times worse sadly. Turn times and loading times are all arse in immortal empires, less frames in both campaign map and battles too, while it looks rather the same in both

[Jade Falcon]

WH2 has faster turn and battle load times. Unit response is much better. Ai is more aggressive and has lots of cheats. Factions will expand due to confederation but you'll often see the same factions dominating. WH2 Ai rarely peaces out. Sieges aren't great but the AI does try to defend walls. Much bigger garrisons. Magic is more powerful (can be OP), ranged is more powerful, melee is nerfed at difficulty above normal. Supply lines are 14% compared to WH3's 4% so you have less armies. Unit replenishment is lower. Fun narrative DLC campaigns.

WH3 has quick deal and better diplomacy. Settlement trading, allied unit recruitment. Far bigger map in Immortal Empires. Ai expansion feels shackled in terms of expansion and it also has a habit of running away when you're about to take it's capital. Difficulty is easier, VH in WH3 feels like normal in WH2. Most factions have much higher replenishment. Smaller garrisons but larger settlement maps. Don't really like WH3 sieges to be honest.

[Alan]

The biggest problems in WH3 are settlement battles being far worse due to just plain bad design and the AI being horrible. However, your question was WH3 vs WH2, and I'm not super convinced that WH2's AI was much better, so really the main problem is settlement battles.

You can remove settlement battles with a mod pretty easily, though that isn't a perfect answer, since sometimes it would be nice to actually play a GOOD WH2 style defensive battle. There are also a plethora of other siege related mods that try to fix them in a variety of ways.

There are tons of WH3 AI mods for aggression and other buffs. That's not a huge issue.

In most other regards I'd say WH3 is the better game, and it seems to have better mod support.

WH3 wins (at least with reasonably modded games).

[huey30]

First of all, its going to be much more fulfilling to go forwards through the series rather than backwards. It basically depends how competitive you are. If you want a very casual experience than start with 3 because it has better graphics and some good quality of life improvements and more content.
If you want to really challenge yourself (this is a strategy game after all and i think it is most fun when it is really challenging) than you definitely want to play 2. 2 is a much more polished experience, much more balanced, less bugs, significantly better AI. The experience you will have playing on the hardest difficulty settings is much much better in 2 than 3.
I would recommend playing the Mortal Empires campaign in 2 until you get burnt out and then switch to 3

[Cenwalh]

WH3 is definitely better. Has been since the Immortal Empires update.

A lot of people hang onto something that *might* have been true when talking about the release version of WH3. But a lot has changed since then - if there are people that still talk about how "buggy" or "glitchy" WH3 is compared to 2, it's because they can't admit that things change.

WH2 was just as glitchy, some of the bugs that people like to complain about date back to Rome 2... AI has always been iffy and not that intelligent.

[huey30]

Originally posted by Zeek:

3 has been the superior game since Immortal Empires came out.

The game is currently in a great state, so whoever told you the game is "riddled with glitches" is probably just a malder spreading hyperbole.

Regarding ai, it's honestly not that bad. You'll see some people complain sometimes about it being too easy but then they'll list all the ways their actively cheesing the game to make it so easy, so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Sure, it does do some weird stuff sometimes, but then again every strategy game ai does, and it's not like it's game breaking. Of you just play the game without trying to break it, you probably won't see much shenanigans.

Most of those people are saying that the AI is worse in 3 than in 2. I didnt realize that people were only cheesing in a way that supports your arguments.

[Zeek]

Originally posted by huey30:

Most of those people are saying that the AI is worse in 3 than in 2. I didnt realize that people were only cheesing in a way that supports your arguments.

The AI behavior is mostly the same as it was in game 2. The only major difference is that they have made changes to the AI since this game released to make it not so hell bent on wrecking the player at the expense of it's other wars and territories. It's behaves much more rationally.

In other words, it's rose-tinted glasses syndrome.

[huey30]

Originally posted by Zeek:

Originally posted by huey30:

Most of those people are saying that the AI is worse in 3 than in 2. I didnt realize that people were only cheesing in a way that supports your arguments.

The AI behavior is mostly the same as it was in game 2. The only major difference is that they have made changes to the AI since this game released to make it not so hell bent on wrecking the player at the expense of it's other wars and territories. It's behaves much more rationally.

In other words, it's rose-tinted glasses syndrome.

Certainly possible

[MF]

Well I'm currently playing my 4th and 5th dwarf campaigns simultaneously. #4 was a real nail biter as I let the orcs confederate, go WAAAAGH and then come at me with super stacks. After finally eliminating them, the rats followed suit and they all seemed to declare war simultaneously. It was like a Chaos invasion but with rodents. Yeah.... the AI in II is very very aggressive. Worse than I recall from Troy, which I spent 500 hours on (and am still playing :) ).

I do find some interesting similarities in every single one of my dwarf campaigns, for whatever reason. I seem to always get along famously with the Tomb Kings and eventually the Empire. The Frenchie dudes almost always come to my rescue late game and are great allies. In fact I get along so well with the Tomb Kings I'm inclined to really want to play them - I like their style.

Being able to trade settlements is a HUGE improvement imho. I found the diplomacy in WH2 to be a step backwards from Troy. Speaking of Troy, I find the visuals and music to be very cathartic. WH2............. not at all. Very different vibe altogether.

FWIW I have begun the tutorial campaign in III and don't see any major differences in how the units respond. It reminds me of Troy what with the emphasis on settlement battles. I prefer fighting out in the open but that's just me. I despise sieges except when I'm defending; again, that's just me.