Crusader Kings III or Rome II Total War

[Warth]

I played and enjoyed both series, Total War and Crusader Kings. That's the reason why I can't decide which one I should buy.

I played CK2 for almost 150 hours with 10 DLC. And Medieval II/Napoleon Total War for 150+ hours. If I play CK3 without any DLC, will I be satisfied? I wanna play the third game so badly but guess who crave for Rome II too: Me!

Please help me about this situation!

P.S: My first priority in a grand strategy game is to be long term. It should keep me busy for a few years.

[Slippin Jimmy]

EU4

[Drunio]

CKIII is already great as you can see from the average positive review being 90%+ so its up to you if you want to enjoy the growth of the game as each DLC/update comes out slowly changing the game.

Vs. Rome II which is done so you'll get the full experience from the start, but won't have any evolution to look forward to. Personally, I really enjoyed Rome II, but can easily see CKIII giving me a lot more hours played with the game as is.

TLDR: Both are good buys imo as someone else that enjoys both series.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Drunio:

CKIII is already great as you can see from the average positive review being 90%+

Amogus

[Heraclius Caesar]

Ck3 is a far superior game to Rome 2 total war or any total war game.

Before I ever played a crusader kings game I dropped a lot of time on total war games. After playing ck2 and ck3 I've never gone back to total war games, they don't even compare.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Ck3 is a far superior game to Rome 2 total war or any total war game.

Before I ever played a crusader kings game I dropped a lot of time on total war games. After playing ck2 and ck3 I've never gone back to total war games, they don't even compare.

CK3 is patheticly weak comparing to Roma 2 totar or any total war game.

Before i play CK2 game i played many total war game, and i liked them alot, same as CK2. But CK3 combat is just so pathetic and insignificant even compared to it's predecesor, what i can't make myself to play in CK3 at all.

[Bo]

You're on a CK3 forum so you will get biased answers. Personally I prefer CK3.
But it really depends on what you look for: Want the focus to be on warfare? Rome 2 (although I personally prefer Warhammer). Want the focus to be on everything else (intrigue, diplomacy, epic adventures)? CK3.

And if you do go for Rome 2 I highly recommend you to take a look at the mod 'Divide et Impera'. It's great.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Palaiologos:

Totalwar should be played for the battles. If you just want a strategic campaign get CK3.

Total war also have good strategy aspect, especially old ones like medieval 2. What is reason to play CK is characters roleplay and interactions.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Palaiologos:

Originally posted by MarkFranz:

Total war also have good strategy aspect, especially old ones like medieval 2. What is reason to play CK is characters roleplay and interactions.

The strategic layer of Total War is pretty simple when compared to Paradox titles. It can be fun but I wouldn't play it without the battles.

Yeah, battles is main focus in total war, i agree. They also great at CK2 (espectially with mods), from my point of view. Battles in CK3, well, i would call they quality below my standarts.

[Warth]

Damn. One side we have historical accuracy and strategic campaign like Palaiologos said. And the other side we have magnificent land battles and sieges. It's really hard to choose, but most probably I gonna choose CKIII because of my great love to history.
Thank you for your attention.

But MarkFranz reminded me something: the warfare system.
Entire system is completely simplified compared to second game. Flanks is gone. Phases is gone. These are the main things prevents me from choose the CK3.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Warth:

But MarkFranz reminded me something: the warfare system.
Entire system is completely simplified compared to second game. Flanks is gone. Phases is gone. These are the main things prevents me from choose the CK3.

Well, to be honest phases not really gone, they just was extremly simplyfied. What really is big downgrade (beside flanks what you have already mentioned), that i must to add, is removing of morale.

On other hands, system of counters is fairly interesting (if we ignore highly abusable global buffs from buildings what make spamming one type of unit preferable).
And knights, what is basically analog of heroes from Warhammer Total War, and deadly on battlefield. Sadly, they also highly abusable to the point where 60 knights can wipe armies 300+ time of they number.
link on forum post with screenshot with knight situation i discribe. [forum.paradoxplaza.com]

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by MarkFranz:

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Ck3 is a far superior game to Rome 2 total war or any total war game.

Before I ever played a crusader kings game I dropped a lot of time on total war games. After playing ck2 and ck3 I've never gone back to total war games, they don't even compare.

CK3 is patheticly weak comparing to Roma 2 totar or any total war game.

Before i play CK2 game i played many total war game, and i liked them alot, same as CK2. But CK3 combat is just so pathetic and insignificant even compared to it's predecesor, what i can't make myself to play in CK3 at all.

Thats your opinion. After playing Crusader Kings games I could never go back to that turn-based nonsense of Total War where the game only lets you have an army thats maybe 2k - 2.5k strong (without mods) at a time in history when armies were absolutely massive. At least in Crusader Kings you can actually grow and field huge armies even if you don't actually fully see and control the battles.

Not to mention the grand strategy aspect is basically nonexistent in Total War games when compared to Crusader Kings.

[MarkFranz]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Originally posted by MarkFranz:

CK3 is patheticly weak comparing to Roma 2 totar or any total war game.

Before i play CK2 game i played many total war game, and i liked them alot, same as CK2. But CK3 combat is just so pathetic and insignificant even compared to it's predecesor, what i can't make myself to play in CK3 at all.

Thats your opinion. After playing Crusader Kings games I could never go back to that turn-based nonsense of Total War where the game only lets you have an army thats maybe 2k - 2.5k strong (without mods) at a time in history when armies were absolutely massive. At least in Crusader Kings you can actually grow and field huge armies even if you don't actually fully see and control the battles.

Not to mention the grand strategy aspect is basically nonexistent in Total War games when compared to Crusader Kings.

That's just your preference. Good that you are happy with what you play.

[EA Latium]

Apples and oranges. If longevity is a deciding factor for you, it's worth mentioning that Rome TW is done while CK3 is at the beginning of its life cycle; taking in consideration the lifespan of Paradox games it'll be a while before they move on.

[Dust]

If you're hesitating between Rome 2 and CK3 sorely because of the combat, then you're probably doing something wrong, no offense. I don't know why anyone would play any CK games for the combat, or why they'd factor that in. It's always been a glorified rock-paper-scissors minigame at best. Go for Hearts of Iron if you want a grand strategy game with decent combat, and if you just want combat with some sprinkles on top, then go for Total War.

[The Former]

CK3 remains a very fun game several hundred hours in. Your mileage may of course vary, but for me, I'm still enjoying it immensely. If you're talking longevity, CK3's replay value is substantially higher than Rome II's simply because there are so many emergent factors that make a game unique each time through. These simply aren't present in Rome II.

As you surely know having played CK2, if tactical combat is what you seek, Crusader Kings isn't the way to go. But if you want the subjective opinion of someone who played and enjoyed both, CK3 has kept me far more entertained.