why is Knights of Honor from 2004 so much better?

[Nero]

I've been playing plenty of Total War and Rome 2 may be the one I played most. But recently I started to play Knights of Honor again and man that game is at least 10 times better to me.

I would like to elaborate why:

I am not much of a fighting guy in total war and 4x games in general. I prefer the macro strategy part over the battles. I mostly auto resolve. Rome 2 would certainly have the somewhat better battles but the AI in sieges is still flawed and broken... Knights of Honor has siege battles too and they work. That said I do appreciate a great battle. I also played more battles in Rome1 and Medieval 2 because they were simply much better. Rome2 looks and plays disgustingly bad and pathetic in battles. I lack experience against people but afaik Rome2 does a somewhat solid job there as the AI is the biggest flaw. KoH has far better auto resolving. in Rome2 something about waging out the armies capabilities is seriously off.

KoH has much better graphics. You may burst out in laughing now, but I honestly think its 2D graphics are superior. There's no weird *** anti alising issues making everything look terrible. The 2D portraits look great and lovely. Rome2 is full with clipping and weird animations, a 3D game has to be looking phenomenal or else it looks trashy. Rome2 does a somewhat decent job for a 3D game and that will just for me aesthetically never beat a fine 2D game. On top of that, ladders move magicaly unlike in Rome1 where they'd have to push them and the world and rain textures are awful. Battles at night look awful too. The grand campaign map has barely any live on it like trade ships or caravans and so on.

The whole city management is very flat and lacks depth in Rome 2. The strategic ressources are barely of any importance and neither are the buildings. In KoH you gain special bonuses for controling ressources and you can trade for them. Also there are various economic branches and the fortification is much better than simply going from level 1 city to level 4. Cities have special traits which allow you to build various industrial buildings. Thats sort of also in Rome2 but again more simplistic and really I barely ever had to care about it while in KoH its essential. Rome2 also changed the garrision with their patches and so I like the garrisions in KoH much better.

There are merchants and spies and builders and farmers and marshals and clerics as agents. None of them are as much of a nuissance as here. When you defeat an enemy army you can take the enemy general as hostage. You have a family tree as well! The limit to agents and that they trade slots with hostages and armies is a flaw but forgiveable.

Diplomacy is a tiny bit weaker. But then again I am sick and tired of offering something like a pact of non aggression in Rome2 multiple times for various amounts of gold to finally get what he wants. I can also gift cities to other states, something I really miss.

The cities have population and food and workers and happiness. Rome 2 has only happiness and perhaps slaves which are however quite a dull feature. Cities have small villages around you that you can pillage, on top of that they offer income and ports or churches and so on. Kind of like in Empires. I miss being able to cripple my opponent by devastating his land. Simply setting an army into plunder mode is no where near that.

There's a vast amount of factions and 3 different time lines!!! Rome 2 has done an especially weak job on making factions feel distinctive and the whole presentation falls very flat. While KoH isn't really much better in that regard, I certainly expected much better from a game 10 years later.

KoH is much better in mid and late time. In Rome2 the campaign is highly interesting in the beginning and after like 50 turns it starts to really wear off and the challenge is also lost. The AI on very hard simply cheats like crazy throwing huge armies at you which reduces the gameplay to a grind. KoH never really felt like a grind and there's no civil war!!! Instead you claim to become ruler of europe and if the other kingdoms disagree they all declare war on you. Sort of like in Shogun 2. This is vastly superior. The whole remaining world uniting against you is far superior than a pathetic cheat army spawning in your home town takign it over. On top of that fighting against the opposition is impossible because the game crashes and laggs when there's 3 armies attacking a city. I often start a campaign in Rome2 and play for only about 50 turns then throw the save away. In KoH I continue and I dont' have to force myself to continue for that achievement.

KoH is sadly not turn based but real time. Thats a huge time waste and later on barely manageable but apart from that I like it so much more in so many details.

I highly recommend checking this game out even in 2014. I am definitely having a hard time enjoying Rome 2 anymore. I also played some lords of the Realm 2 again just to find some other details there that I liked more. But that game hasn't aged so well.

I really hope that CA takes some inspiration from these 2 games. While I was looking forward to play as Massilia I'd rather play Genoa in KoH atm.

cya

[abrensons]

For strategic depth there is other games out there, Romes 2 and TW focus in general is on battles. But i get your point and would not mind a little more depth here and there

[Roz Britanicus]

you have hit the nail no the head. Rome2 is very arcade.

[Dragnipurake]

Originally posted by Nero:

Instead you claim to become ruler of europe and if the other kingdoms disagree they all declare war on you. Sort of like in Shogun 2. This is vastly superior. The whole remaining world uniting against you is far superior than a pathetic cheat army spawning in your home town takign it over.

Nope, that is ridiculous and unrealistic. As it was in S2.

Originally posted by Nero:

KoH has much better graphics. You may burst out in laughing now, but I honestly think its 2D graphics are superior.

Nope. I spent my fair amount of time with KOH and was quite disappointed that there was no expansion and/or follow up. AFAIK there was some shady business with the (russian?) developers. But all in all the graphics look nice but out-dated.

[Unruly Marmite]

It isn't. I liked KOH well enough but to say that you dislike Rome 2 when you auto-resolve most battles, which are arguably the main focus point of the game, seems a little ridiculous. Taking hostages is hardly a good comparison since the two games are set in entirely different time periods... If you don't like Rome 2, fair enough. But Knights of Honour is not a superior game.

[SuperGorp]

Better graphics?

[Shadow of the SPQR]

Graphics for rome 2 run just fine for me. Rome 2 has prettier graphics for me than Medieval 2 (although that is not how I judge games).

Rome 2 sacrificed a number of mechanics on the campaign map for graphics and battles, ultimately. Battles and the campaign map's balance is something I love about total war, but I honestly doubt I would buy a total war game that has anything less than what rome 2 (which is on the border for me) has in terms of the campaign map.

[Berserk Slayer]

Yes, KoH has superior graphics. Now go sleep it off.

[Nero]

The "better graphics" comes entirelly down to personal preference. Aesthetic doesn't work like: 3D is more advanced than 2D therefor it looks better. For a 3D game Rome2 leaves much to be desired and the demand on the pc is extremely high. As I said, the lack of a proper anti alising, the amount of clipping and weird animations, the awful textures in the world, not on units but especially towers and buildings and the ground make it look really awful to me.

As for the superior gameplay. I focus pretty much only on the macro strategy part. There KoH has plenty of game mechanics and features that as a whole make it more interesting and more enjoyable. The experience in Rome 2 is nowhere where it could be. It feels lackluster in comparision.

I played way more battles in Rome 1 and Medieval 2. The engine handled it better imo.

I can understand that many would not agree with me, as it completely comes down to personal preference and taste. But you got to admit that considering KoH is from 2004 it holds up extremely well.

As for "Total War focuses on battles", does it? My impression was that it focuses on war as a whole. War is more than just military units smashing their heads in. Economy Culture Diplomatics Industry Trading Religion Food People Geostrategy and so on all of this plays a major role in all wars. Why was Egypt so awesome? They had the nile. Why was Britain always a **** to conquer? Its an island.

Originally posted by CommodusIV:

Rome 2 sacrificed a number of mechanics on the campaign map for graphics and battles, ultimately. Battles and the campaign map's balance is something I love about total war, but I honestly doubt I would buy a total war game that has anything less than what rome 2 (which is on the border for me) has in terms of the campaign map.

They finally add devastated land and diseases in Attila. So yeah they add a bit more to it.

[abrensons]

In Rome 2 Egypt is still the best province in terms of grain and stock, i like it very much, could squeeze out over 10k per turn and my people were well fed. Thank you Nile!

[Nero]

ya those 2 farm cities and the armor sure does come in handy.
Its represented but in the most simplistic manner.

[Jonboy]

Just checked out Knights of Honor. Good one OP, had me going there.

[Shadow of the SPQR]

Reminds me of people that like Diablo 2 much more than Diablo 3... the age difference is similar.

[Icecream1973]

WTF happened here?!

[Migz - DH]

Originally posted by CommodusIV:

Reminds me of people that like Diablo 2 much more than Diablo 3... the age difference is similar.

What age ranges do you associate with each game's fan base?

[Shadow of the SPQR]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by CommodusIV:

Reminds me of people that like Diablo 2 much more than Diablo 3... the age difference is similar.

What age ranges do you associate with each game's fan base?

Assuming with Diablo 2 those that still love it are the same as the ones who played it when it released, 20+ years old, easy for a good portion of that fanbase. Probably some younger ones who also were told of how great diablo 2 was from parents.

Diablo 3 has more of a mix, there are continuation players from diablo 2 - but diablo 3 was very widely advertised and due to the fact it was released on console, as well as people letting younger brothers/children play from what I heared in multiplayer, the range could be from as low as 10+.