Better than Total War?

[Jackson P.]

It's supposed to mix Crusader Kings and and Total War, I get it. But while it has RTS battles that Crusader Kings lacks, in what ways is Knights of Honor better than Total War?

[Subzero]

because it has the diplomacy? maybe idk i just got the game

[Zero]

i play all 3, similar games but very different. I wouldn't compare them

[Dregora]

Campaign map is better, mechanics are better, management is better. Battles are not really done seriously, it's more of a funny immersive gimmick, but not really serious. Total war blows it out of the water regarding battles.

Everything else i think is superior.

[thebadman]

First KoH was neither of them at all, not even close! It was its own thing but if you wanted to place it somewhere it would be somewhere between there, but mostly its own thing. First one rewarded a lot of manual combat though.

[Commander Freedom]

From what I've seen this game has nothing similar to CK, I don't even see where that come from tbh.

[thebadman]

Originally posted by Bearded Lonewolf:

From what I've seen this game has nothing similar to CK, I don't even see where that come from tbh.

King have children + dies from old age = CK clone.

[Brother Frank]

Honestly I'm pretty disappointed so far. Can't really say with confidence its better than total war, and I'm not even sure its better than the first game.

[Jackson P.]

Originally posted by Dregora:

Campaign map is better, mechanics are better, management is better. Battles are not really done seriously, it's more of a funny immersive gimmick, but not really serious. Total war blows it out of the water regarding battles.

Everything else i think is superior.

I've only seen about 30 minutes of Knights of Honor 2 on Youtube, but honestly it's hard to tell how much better those things are. I would forgive the simplified battles if I thought I was going to get Crusader Kings type game with battles.

By that I mean having thousands of characters for me to recruit to court from another country, marry, join assassination attempts, etc...and each of my counts and dukes have full fledged courts of their own...but honestly from what I've seen the entire character count for an entire Kingdom like France in this games seems to be less than 10.

On top of that, instead of having the fullscreen barbershop of Crusader Kings, it's more like tiny portraits of characters from Total War.

So to me, as a potential buyer, this game seems like Total War, with worse battles, and just barely better character mechanics.

[Spartacus]

Originally posted by Jackson P.:

Originally posted by Dregora:

Campaign map is better, mechanics are better, management is better. Battles are not really done seriously, it's more of a funny immersive gimmick, but not really serious. Total war blows it out of the water regarding battles.

Everything else i think is superior.

I've only seen about 30 minutes of Knights of Honor 2 on Youtube, but honestly it's hard to tell how much better those things are. I would forgive the simplified battles if I thought I was going to get Crusader Kings type game with battles.

By that I mean having thousands of characters for me to recruit to court from another country, marry, join assassination attempts, etc...and each of my counts and dukes have full fledged courts of their own...but honestly from what I've seen the entire character count for an entire Kingdom like France in this games seems to be less than 10.

On top of that, instead of having the fullscreen barbershop of Crusader Kings, it's more like tiny portraits of characters from Total War.

So to me, as a potential buyer, this game seems like Total War, with worse battles, and just barely better character mechanics.

Couldnt agree with this more tbh

[Aoderic]

Originally posted by Jackson P.:

It's supposed to mix Crusader Kings and and Total War,

No it isn't supposed to be a mix of those, it's a remake of the first Knights of honor game from 2004, and it's simply a RTS in the same time period as dozens of other games, including CK and MTW.
I do agree with people here that the battles are disappointing, I don't enjoy them as I did with the original KoH.

[SeiFeR]

Originally posted by Dregora:

Campaign map is better, mechanics are better, management is better. Battles are not really done seriously, it's more of a funny immersive gimmick, but not really serious. Total war blows it out of the water regarding battles.

Everything else i think is superior.

Campaign map is terrible, constantinople looks like a random medieval village with wooden walls. There are 0 monuments or unique places in the lands. Its a lazy work from the devs.
The UI is ugly and obsolete, it makes you feel like playing a game from 2006.
Tactical Battles are poorly made and performances are terrible even with high end CPU/GPU.

Overall, this game is a chinese aliexpress version of CK and TW combined. I feel embarassed for those who waited 18 years for this crap, and even more for those who cant get a refund.

[Lotor13]

Originally posted by Jackson P.:

It's supposed to mix Crusader Kings and and Total War, I get it.

No,
It is supposed to be sequel to Knights of Honour from 2004

I would compare original KoH to be medieval 4X game in real time (4X are all turn based) with real time tactical battles and interesting options with characters

It share mechanics with CK - real time campaign and character management, and real time battles like TW, but definitely I would not call it mix

[Canute VII]

"Less complex" is not equal to "worse". The better question would be: is this game sufficiently different from TW/CK and adds its own twists to the genre/theme to make it worth playing? And is it enjoyable?

Is it sufficiently different from other non-AAA games in the genre, like Medieval Kingdom Wars, Grand Ages Medieval or Hegemony 3?

I can't judge but I hope someone bothers to make a proper analysis....

[VDmitry]

It may probably be compared with Medieval TW 1 by complexity and due the same theme and genre (put aside realtime map).

I'm currently puzzled with random resource distribution on start and lack of any connection of played time to specific year or season.

[^7ja^1co]

Originally posted by Jackson P.:

It's supposed to mix Crusader Kings and and Total War, I get it. But while it has RTS battles that Crusader Kings lacks, in what ways is Knights of Honor better than Total War?

Mate, you can't compare it to Total War, total war is turned based on campagin map, KoH is real time - completely different beast.
TW is based around huge tactical battles, KoH is not, the tactical battles you see in KoH its just there to give you a small distraction, but its not a main feature, its afterthought by choice. KoH is about strategic gameplay on campaign map.
You have to go into this with the right mindset, cause if you expect TW or Crusader kings competitor - its not, its a different game, different sub-genre.

Originally posted by VDmitry:

It may probably be compared with Medieval TW 1 by complexity and due the same theme and genre (put aside realtime map).

I'm currently puzzled with random resource distribution on start and lack of any connection of played time to specific year or season.

Replayability with the random resource placement and lack of connection to year or season is probably because some of the games could take ages and you would be in 2000 in game but still in medieval times (for someone who wants to conquer the whole map).