Will this be better

[Timmy the Dragonborn]

than ck 3?

[Nox]

Originally posted by Timmy the Dragonborn:

than ck 3?

Different games, I dont think you can really compare lol.

[Chortles]

Yup, they're both technically RPGs however they have very different premises besides the setting... CK3 is more akin to what's been called 'Ruler Play' in the RTK series while RTK8R is 'Officer Play', wherein you can play an unaffiliated officer or a subordinate, and instead of CK3's time passing by the day in RTK8R it'll be by the month/turn.

[Narrowmind]

Actually, no. Ck is much more like officer play, if anything, because you're playing a particular person at all times. They are very similar in that they both offer grand strategy. It's merely the depth between each game that makes them radically differ. Europa Universalis, if compared, would be the ruler play.

Edit to directly answer the question, if your background is Crusader Kings, I think you'll be grossly disappointed. If, however, you have enjoyed a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game, especially from the early 2000s, you may enjoy this one.

[cybersbe]

I seen reviews that described Rotk 13 as "Crusader Kings meets Total War". Not sure how accurate that statement is. (It also definitely wouldn't be as accurate to 8, since it's turn-based.)

[Ricochet]

Originally posted by Timmy the Dragonborn:

than ck 3?

Battles aren't fought with RNGs. CK3's officer play is still lackluster compared with ROTK's system but CK 3 have an edge against ROTK for ruler play. If you become a sovereign in here, only stats increases when you achieve a certain rank. Unlike CK 3, duke/king/emperor gameplay has different flavors.

One thing to note is this game is rooted in historical story path. It could diverge but it's strict. On my ROTK X gameplay, I was playing as an observer/custom officer breeding elephants in an isolated area from yellow turban rebellion scenario to when Lu Bu chopped Dong Zhuo's head off. CK 3 is so random even if you have the settings to play strictly historical because of the obvious RNGs.

Obviously timeline is also different. CK 3 spans a lot of centuries while this game is only less than that.

[Timmy the Dragonborn]

Originally posted by Ricochet:

Originally posted by Timmy the Dragonborn:

than ck 3?

Battles aren't fought with RNGs. CK3's officer play is still lackluster compared with ROTK's system but CK 3 have an edge against ROTK for ruler play. If you become a sovereign in here, only stats increases when you achieve a certain rank. Unlike CK 3, duke/king/emperor gameplay has different flavors.

One thing to note is this game is rooted in historical story path. It could diverge but it's strict. On my ROTK X gameplay, I was playing as an observer/custom officer breeding elephants in an isolated area from yellow turban rebellion scenario to when Lu Bu chopped Dong Zhuo's head off. CK 3 is so random even if you have the settings to play strictly historical because of the obvious RNGs.

Obviously timeline is also different. CK 3 spans a lot of centuries while this game is only less than that.

It seems CK 3 doesn't really allow you to play a landless character whereas in some ROTK entries you can play as one.

[Narrowmind]

This is true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have officer play. The vast majority of characters in the game are officers and you can work your way up or scheme to take power for yourself. The meat of ROTK VIII was as an officer, and the variety of things you could do as a landless character were rather truncated and soulless.

I do fail to see how it is lackluster in comparison to Romance, especially considering entry VIII. In Crusader Kings, you tend to pick a lifestyle that will open you open you up to events of a personal nature with choices. ROTK really hasn't had anything in comparison, in my opinion. There are hundreds upon hundreds of different events and encounters, and the only hope that VIII has of being comparable is through the PUK, which allowed for marriage and children, something that was default to CK, because the game is mostly about playing a character as a member of a family.

[Zerig]

Originally posted by Timmy the Dragonborn:

It seems CK 3 doesn't really allow you to play a landless character whereas in some ROTK entries you can play as one.

You would've been right until about 2 and a half weeks ago, they just released an expansion adding playable landless characters on the 24th of last month.

[Ricochet]

Originally posted by Zerig:

Originally posted by Timmy the Dragonborn:

It seems CK 3 doesn't really allow you to play a landless character whereas in some ROTK entries you can play as one.

You would've been right until about 2 and a half weeks ago, they just released an expansion adding playable landless characters on the 24th of last month.

That's why I commented it's still lackluster. You can't join a sovereign, manage a city without being a count (and joining a liege indefinitely depending on culture/faith doctrines), provide input on council meetings, request for transfer, join/intervene in battles, in ROTK you can have a warband and make cities become free cities from sovereigns, develop a city in a landless governorship, joint tournaments without the boring RNGs or do debates, etc.

You have to travel like a nomad first, build your camp and when you do become a landed character, the camp you built up is destroyed. Like wtf is the gameplay for except for gaining prestige, money, and expanding your family.

Another thing that's different from CK 3 and this game is city management. In CK 3 you only need gold to build things. In here, you need officers to gain the appropriate development depending on their stats. The recent patch on CK 3 about administrative government changes delegation, though. At least, you can provide directives now to governorship how a city is managed but that is still dependent on the type of government. In ROTK, you can delegate and direct immediately.

[Vorpal Spoon]

I think it will be better than CK 3 in that it won't require $200+ of DLC to enjoy it.

[Ricochet]

Originally posted by Vorpal Spoon:

I think it will be better than CK 3 in that it won't require $200+ of DLC to enjoy it.

A warm blanket award for that post. Definitely but KOEI tends to have useless aesthetics DLCs. Here's to hoping they focus on dlc gameplays/actual expansions.

[Narrowmind]

Originally posted by Vorpal Spoon:

I think it will be better than CK 3 in that it won't require $200+ of DLC to enjoy it.

Yes, yes, but modding support is out of this world and you can get the dlc half off for Ck. ☺️

[Vorpal Spoon]

@Richochet-Thanks!
@Narrowmind-$200+ was the half price I do hope we can at least edit 8 though without having to pay for it

[Chortles]

Originally posted by Vorpal Spoon:

@Richochet-Thanks!
@Narrowmind-$200+ was the half price:cubelol: I do hope we can at least edit 8 though without having to pay for it :DG_RollingDices:

Officers at least can be edited without 'more' DLC, since 8R incorporated the PUK from the original; examples of this include altering Zhang Fei's stats and starting relationships.

[Timmy the Dragonborn]

Originally posted by Vorpal Spoon:

I think it will be better than CK 3 in that it won't require $200+ of DLC to enjoy it.

KOEI 'DLC's tend to be very expensive though.