Why add this game?

[Nero]

Its the one that killed the franchise. Yea it was that awful.

2 was excellent hopefully make a fourth some day. Total War isn't delivering a Medieval one they go for Warhammer now...

Pretty sure adding this game doesn't help at all everyone who tries it out will be scarred of the franchise xD

[Ensign]

I will admit, it scarred me.

I have this game on disk from way way way back. Still own it to this day and played it a few months back. I played populous a new beginning as a kid and didnt like it since it was way hard. Came back when i got older and could understand the basic systems at play and loved it. I thought mabey i could do the same with this game. It sorta worked.

You are right, this game definatly put me off of playing the other games in the series. But i especially didnt play the other games since this one blew those away in one respect, realtime campaign map.
Few games do this and really make this game stand out. Think Oda nobunaga's ambition, sins of a solar empire, or the hegemony series. I think we have enough tbs campaign with rts battle games.

This game is hard to play and even down right impossible balance wise after leaving the emerald isle and great britain but i did have 5 usd worth of fun. Id say its worth 5 bucks. The soundtrack to this game is amazing. I can see why they decided to put this game up, it does have something unique to offer despite how broken it is.

The melee sounds are awful, the siege ai is worse than empire total war (damn thats bad), the way you recruit units blows.

The soundtrack is amazing, the realtime campaign map is good fun, the voice acting is campy and livens the mood, the misc sounds are great (pillaging the countryside, the trumpet notifying you of an attack, the cheer of a victory in battle, church bells), the economy system at play is simple and most of all the way parcels evolve over time and sprawl out from thier starting point make for a beautiful campaign map that not only looks nice but tells you the state of that parcel.

There is more good than bad but the bad outwiegh the good. That doesnt make the game a 0/10 though or not worthy of being on steam. Its worth 5 bucks. Wont blow anyone's mind but will definatly give you 5 dollars worth of enjoyment.

Oh and btw im with you OP i wanted Medieval 3 since M2 was the best total war in the series but im glad they are doing warhammer. I dont care for warhammer. Do you really want M3 to have the same crappy engine as rome2? It made sense in shogun 2 since we have that idea of honorable samurai 1v1ing eachother on the battlefield but i dont want that in my medieval game. Rome1 and medieval2's engine gave us heavy long lasting battles with more realistic fighting. Imagine the dissapointment of playing HRE and watching people have one on one duals all over the place while everyone else on the battleline watches rather than jumping in like they did in Medieval2.

[Amoc]

It's a terrible game. Lords of the Realm I & II were some of my favorite games growing up but III was a complete disaster. It was irredeemably bad and flopped on release and was quickly forgotten. The fact that it's been close to 15 years since then tells us all we need to know about what it did to the franchsie.

[Kawaii]

I'm reminded of a few things when I look at topics like this.

For me

After Lords of the Realm 2, the series died.

After Heroes of Might and Magic 2, the series died.

After Doom 2, the series died

Lots more but they made it past 2 imo

[Rodso]

i have the box and maybe the dics sitting somewere i never got into the game cause i was young when i got it might have another go for sake of it

[Nero]

Originally posted by DopeDruid:

I'm reminded of a few things when I look at topics like this.

For me

After Lords of the Realm 2, the series died.

After Heroes of Might and Magic 2, the series died.

After Doom 2, the series died

Lots more but they made it past 2 imo

Ya at some point there's always someone thinking he has to reinvent the wheel and kick out everything that was good about the game hwen making a new one. Plenty of games that didn't survive the change from 2D into 3D.

Empire Earth 3 is another one... and its added to GoG lol.

Or various Command & Conquer.

[Amoc]

Originally posted by Rodso:

i have the box and maybe the dics sitting somewere i never got into the game cause i was young when i got it might have another go for sake of it

Save yourself the trouble. It was an abortion from the start. Pretty much nobody liked it. It was rushed and they released it as a buggy mess. That wasn't really the main problem though. Conceptually the game was dead on arrival. It was just a badly designed and generally crappy game.

[Calsch03]

Originally posted by Nero:

Empire Earth 3 is another one... and its added to GoG lol.

No not Empire Earth 3 it still gives me nightmares .

[RETIRED Beffloofelf]

Originally posted by Nero:

Its the one that killed the franchise. Yea it was that awful.

2 was excellent hopefully make a fourth some day. Total War isn't delivering a Medieval one they go for Warhammer now...

Pretty sure adding this game doesn't help at all everyone who tries it out will be scarred of the franchise xD

Rebellion had no choice

[Clord]

Yeah, development team didn't manage to finish the game but wanted to get it to stores anyway. It really plays like alpha product.

[Mutley]

I just want to add a comment. I love this game. People find it awful cause they expect another sheep and crop hoarding like the Lords I and II. This game follows a different approach which I find chalenging, different. There are a lot of ways to play the campaings, you can follow different approachs to do it, you can be a nasty vicious lord or you can be a pitous, honorable one. Depending on your choices different vassals join you, your army reflects your choices.

[Ensign]

Originally posted by Mutley:

I love this game. People find it awful cause they expect another sheep and crop hoarding like the Lords I and II. This game follows a different approach which I find chalenging, different.

I found it awful because trying to recruit an army is too difficult. The ai starts wars pretty fast, and gang on you quickly. Diplomacy doesnt help. The only way to get an army is to recruit lords to castles. Problem is most avaiable lords have mabey 2-4 units. Not enough. You get better lords with better and more units later as you play but the early-mid game suffers becuase of it. No way to give lords more units without merging lords which means you have 2 parcels taken but only one army on the field. Merging doesnt free up a parcels so forming a decent sized army means half your kingdom is castles and the whole thing is defended by one single army unit stack. Not enough to defend your borders let alone form a counter attack force after a successful defense.

So far as i played the idea is you recruit a few minor knights to fight for you and you replace them as you get access to better lords who have more and better units under thier command. Was there a way to give units to your lords so they can command bigger armies? As in give units to lords not merge 2 commanders together.

I didnt find it awful becuase i expected something else. I never played any other Lords game before i found it awful becuase it didnt explain the recruit mechanics enough. And if they did and my last paragraph up there was correct then its awful becuase thats an awful method of building armies. It feels like the ai cheats. Diplomacy is hit/miss. Nobunagas ambition sphere of influence had a robust diplomacy system that helped you with its limited recruitement system. You never have enough troops in that game just like in this game but the diplomacy was fair and managable which complimented the game well. But here its pretty limited and makes the recruitement systems flaws that much more glaring.

Im not picking on you or anything. I do agree this is a decent game and i did enjoy that feature where the knights/lords/marshals avaialbe to you change depending on your piety and honor ratings. The reason i typed all this out was to get the knowledge you have. How do you deal with getting troops for your lords? Is my limited knowledge of how to get troops wrong?

[Mutley]

Originally posted by Ensign:

The reason i typed all this out was to get the knowledge you have. How do you deal with getting troops for your lords? Is my limited knowledge of how to get troops wrong?

First, I thank you for your comment. You seen to be the first one to give it a try and really point out what bugged you. I will try to elucidate what I can, the game manual is kinda messy, but it has all the info you need too. Lastly, you can check this guide: https://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/537419-lords-of-the-realm-iii/faqs/31565

About your comments:


1a)

I found it awful because trying to recruit an army is too difficult. The ai starts wars pretty fast, and gang on you quickly.

The way you recruit your troops is very different from the great majority of strategy games I have played and it is a main feature of this one. It reflects the way it was in medle ages. Only nobles/landlords were able to rise an army. Normal people would not simply be recruited and go to war unless they trust some leader.

About being rushed in the early game, it depends a lot on which campaing you are playing. In my old days when I played LR3 first time, I managed to complete all but the last campaing. You should not have much trouble fighting on Ireland, but England should be more hard, for example. I recomend you to play Ireland to learn the main features of the game.

1b)

No way to give lords more units without merging lords which means you have 2 parcels taken but only one army on the field. Merging doesnt free up a parcels so forming a decent sized army means half your kingdom is castles and the whole thing is defended by one single army unit stack. Not enough to defend your borders let alone form a counter attack force after a successful defense.

Regions are controled as long as you have the capital, keep it in mind. Generally speaking, if the AI is ganging on you upfront, you should build a great army and fortify the capital of that region, garrisoning all of them in castle if you have a lesser army. So, what you do is to distribute your nobles in the many parcels as you can. Try to max out your food production balancing villages and churchs. Don't bother giving cities to burguers in the begining, specially if you are being attacked. If you go into the battle, you should not have much trouble beating the AI if you balance ranged power and infantry. Also, pay attention to the different types of units and their main strength/weakness.

2)

Was there a way to give units to your lords so they can command bigger armies? As in give units to lords not merge 2 commanders together.

Later on, if you manage to keep enemies at bay and have some more powerfull nobles with specific charateristics, you should give one feud to a burgher to build a city. There you will be able to hire mercenaries which will improve your power and you can attach their armies to the armies of your landlords. Also, pay attention that every noble/vassal/burguer in this game may have a special characteristic and some of them add units to garrison other may even add units to all lords in a region.

3)

Diplomacy is hit/miss.

I kinda agree with you, but there is a point to save: diplomacy plays a major role regarding honor and piety. Don't expect to have an trusthworthy ally, just think you can have someone not attacking you and also, it will cost you honor if you attack/break that allliance.

Well this are my 2 cents, what I can say out of mind about it. If what am I writing is not enough for you to have your fun discovering the game, I suggest reading that guide on gamefaqs.

See ya!

[Ensign]

Thanks, i didnt know there were people i could hire that may add units region wide. That sounds awsome. I may just pop the disk in and play.

I remember ireland fondly. Im the first post for this thread and i also mentioned it. I played ireland to death. Its the very next mission that destroyed me and i could nvr get past.

Im a little vien. One of the major reasons i stopped trying to learn to play it back in autumn of 2015 is that i found a patch for my disk version of this game. To my surprise one of my small but favorite parts was sorta dimmed.

You know that moment when armies clash on the campaign map? You would hear this horn blow a tiny 4 sec tune and the armies clash? Well on patch install that was removed. It kinda killed it for me as vien as that sounds.

Does the steam version you have come fully patched and do first time engaging armies still let out that trumpet flurry/din of battle sounds on first contact in the overview map?

[Mutley]

Originally posted by Ensign:

Does the steam version you have come fully patched and do first time engaging armies still let out that trumpet flurry/din of battle sounds on first contact in the overview map?

My steam version works fine so far, it does warn about a battle starting. I remember having an issue when I tryed to play with my old disk on Win8, there was an very strange and annyoing bug which made the units in a region to recieve countless bonus from a skill from a seneschal I had. Everytime I loaded the game there would be more units. I didn't check this bug here though, it was happening on England only and on this repaly I am just finishing ireland.

BTW, your post made me play the game again. lol

[Amoc]

It's a ♥♥♥♥ game and it was dead-on-arrival for a reason. This wasn't a matter of "people not getting it". It's a matter of a lousy game formula falling on its face and the fact that it single-handedly torpedoed a once-popular franchise is all the proof you need. This was a game that a ton of people wanted to like.