Warhammer 2 Vs 3

[jajahmeds31]

Hi, I've not played any total war game but a while back I bought all 3 as well as all the dlc available then which is everything up to ogre kingdoms, I now have time to play but was wondering if it is worth playing 2 over 3, based on all the drama on content and prices of the new dlcs and CAs response to their fanbase. I want to know which campaign is best and if 3 really is the best to just start with

[Reeva!]

WH3 > WH2 for content. Larger map. More factions. It's just bigger.
WH2 > WH3 for stability, accuracy for autoresolve, and general balance.

WH3 is insanely unbalanced at times, and it can really screw you over in autoresolve fights. I've had 19 flying units that cannot land, with a lord that can kite forever, against a single homeless melee ogre lord; he had 0 army, and he was not levelled for the turncount. He apparently killed 3 of my flying units, despite not being able to hit them in any way.
But; it's fun, when it doesn't crash for no reason.

WH2 is more balanced (except for cavalry, they're ♥♥♥♥) but it lacks a lot of the content of WH3. That's not to say the content is barebones; there's a crapton of content in both games, 3 is just a crapton times 2.

If you want a polished well-fleshed out experience, go for WH2.
If you want utter chaos and unadulterated bugs, glitches and crashes that'll likely never be addressed by CA, mixed with a ton of random fun you can't have in WH2, go for WH3.

WH3 is more resource-heavy on your machine, keep that in mind. Even the beefiest beefsteak PCs will lag like crazy in WH3.

edit: And yes, WH3's devs did allude to having to kill the game if people didn't buy the overpriced DLCs which honestly, are extremely expensive for what you're getting when combined with the lack of polish. They still made WH2. You're supporting them either way if you buy anything from them. This is not a low-budget game if you want to actually experience all the content, the DLCs definitely try to bleed you dry.

[normative]

Man, no wonder they thought they could put out whatever and we'd just keep buying.

[Reeva!]

Originally posted by normative:

Man, no wonder they thought they could put out whatever and we'd just keep buying.

Yee cuz it works. If they didn't let that 1 high-IQ staff member make that 1 high-IQ post, people would've kept buying. That was more transparent than any apology they could make. They likely will not improve, nor will they fix the game.

There's always a chance ofc. If anyone really wants to wait and see, do just that; wait and see. Wouldn't recommend holding your breath tho.

[normative]

I dunno, historical buyers aren't GW customers by and large and we haven't ever been as milkable or willing to put up with dross as they are.

It seems like they thought they could get away with the GW treatment everywhere at all times, which has been working very well in WH I agree. But they were always gonna lose money on the history games while they treated them the same.

[abyssalfury]

3 is the full experience, and adds some good things over WH2. But it's also rough as hell, and unfortunately CA have not been fixing it (this, IMO, is the underlying issue causing all the drama, beyond the price increase).

WH2 feels like a much more polished and complete game, but is 'missing' content compared to WH3.

Personally, i'd probably start with 2, and hope CA gets their act together over the next year or so with 3.

[Sarissofoi]

I played all 3 recently and 3 have more Quality of Life features. Its like different game. The biggest problem is battle maps for me and plenty of busted abilities(somewhat older titles were more down). Also new settlement(no walls) battles are kind of annoying with bad path finding.
WH1 have the best looking diplomatic map but its quite outdated(still fun but it have less QoL and content).
WH2 is fine.
I suggest starting playing WH1 or some short time and then switch to Wh2 for short time and end in Wh3. That way you will enjoy them all 3.

[アルベルト Pietralunga]

WH3 could be a beta update+DLC for WH2.

It is not a DLC because otherwise they would not be able to sell DLCs on top of it.

[Sarissofoi]

Its solid expansion and expansion could be standalone.

[DatHomieShnitzel]

Originally posted by Sarissofoi:

Its solid expansion and expansion could be standalone.

Yeah, this, imma agree/second this. Each game is basically an expansion in itself that has it's own expansions and each of the major expansions/games can be gotten standalone. If you like TWW2, you'll potentially like this, though I do agree that TWW2 did have a stronger/better sandbox campaign, but if you wanna just have a game to turn your brain off, in campaign, or the skirmish mode, I recommend it, especially if you've already bought the previous games and the expansions you want, since as mentioned, all the games are snowballed into the latest entry, in this case being 3, which gives you a pretty good variety of units. Additionally, there's also more map variety, sieges are still kinda crap but at least aren't visual vomit in regards to the layout, and if you bother with Skirmish mode, the new minor settlement battles translate there as well as do the new sieges, and there's a new survival mode so if you want to test army builds against a sort of test of endurance, there's also something for you there.

[SpeaksTooFast]

Originally posted by jajahmeds31:

Hi, I've not played any total war game but a while back I bought all 3 as well as all the dlc available then which is everything up to ogre kingdoms, I now have time to play but was wondering if it is worth playing 2 over 3

If you have not installed either yet I would recommend starting with game 2. It's more complete overall and while game 3 is bigger and has a few nice quality of life changes IMO it is in a worse state ATM with regard to bugs and AI interaction.

[BrutalGlory]

Originally posted by Reeva!:

WH3 > WH2 for content. Larger map. More factions. It's just bigger.
WH2 > WH3 for stability, accuracy for autoresolve, and general balance.

WH3 is insanely unbalanced at times, and it can really screw you over in autoresolve fights. I've had 19 flying units that cannot land, with a lord that can kite forever, against a single homeless melee ogre lord; he had 0 army, and he was not levelled for the turncount. He apparently killed 3 of my flying units, despite not being able to hit them in any way.
But; it's fun, when it doesn't crash for no reason.

WH2 is more balanced (except for cavalry, they're ♥♥♥♥) but it lacks a lot of the content of WH3. That's not to say the content is barebones; there's a crapton of content in both games, 3 is just a crapton times 2.

If you want a polished well-fleshed out experience, go for WH2.
If you want utter chaos and unadulterated bugs, glitches and crashes that'll likely never be addressed by CA, mixed with a ton of random fun you can't have in WH2, go for WH3.

WH3 is more resource-heavy on your machine, keep that in mind. Even the beefiest beefsteak PCs will lag like crazy in WH3.

edit: And yes, WH3's devs did allude to having to kill the game if people didn't buy the overpriced DLCs which honestly, are extremely expensive for what you're getting when combined with the lack of polish. They still made WH2. You're supporting them either way if you buy anything from them. This is not a low-budget game if you want to actually experience all the content, the DLCs definitely try to bleed you dry.

HUH? WH2's autoresolve was atrocious - dwarves and dark elves took over the entire map every game.

[art_loots]

only upgrade from 3 to 2 is the diplomacy, for the rest warhammer 2 is superiour

[Decomposed]

Start with wh2

[Zeek]

3 hands down

[Toby Larone]

Originally posted by art_loots:

only upgrade from 3 to 2 is the diplomacy, for the rest warhammer 2 is superiour

Plus some QoL things and factions improvement. And if one plays them Multiplayer Campaigns are milles better in 3 than they ever were in 2.