Knights of Honor II or Crusader Kings III ?

[Badgercompany]

So, having not purchased either one. I am curious of what Players who have think. Which do you recommend? I'll post this on Crusader Kings III also. I've put it off because of a tighter budget and lot less time to play games these days. C.K. III must be doing well still , as they never put it on sale for much of a discount.

[TangSuijin]

I am definitely biased, but.. KOH2 is the better pick

It really depends on what you're looking for actually.
CK3 and KOH2 are not similar. Each game excels in a different area

[Fistochat]

KOHII, by far.

I have 350 hours on CKIII, this game sends bilions of informations to the player but in the end, each of my playthrough looks the same. You make strong alliances with royal weddings and you go to war. I don't feel like there are many different way of playing this game. For example, I wasn't able to become a great commercial power, or trade goods with other countries.

I have 100 hours in KOHII. Each playthrough is different. You can make war, you can trade, diplomacy is better than CK but honestly, it needs a little bit of work. You can also try to have you cleric become pope to decide the futur crusades. It's not a lot, but the game offers a variety of gameplay.

However, some features of CKIII are very interesting and KOHII would greatly improve if they were in the game :
- Lands organized in counties, duchies, kingdoms and empires
- Casus belli
- Formable nations (you can form som in KOHII but it's only big nations, I want to form the Swiss Confederacy for example, and many others)

In the end and if I have to summerize, KOH2 does less things than CKIII, but it does it way better.

[Zaidah]

KoH2 is a bit more straightforward than CK3. You aren't as much restrained of doing anything (or at least at a lesser penalty than in CK3). The world and build-up evolve faster in KoH2, and you have some straightforward win conditions (such as being elected emperor of the world, produce and/or export every merchandises, or other faster game mode). You could of course keep playing and aim to conquer the whole world or such, but the game is rather meant for quicker playthough (though they can already last for a bunch of hours).

CK3 is slower paced and quite detailed, and focuses mostly on the characters (friends and rival, whether they are other leader or simple courtiers that live far away).
The laws, religion and culture are also more detailed (which can be a good and a bad thing : when starting, you'll often wonder why some kingdoms can do this and not you, and can struggle to find the information).
There are also a looot of semi-random event (semi because some of them need requirement, like having your character focusing on a specific lifestyle). The family and inheritance system is deeper as well (family member, even if they aren't leaders, do their own things and you keep having more and more people in your dynasty).
You don't have any win condition in CK3, by default the game stops when you reach year 1453 (and begins in 867 at earliest). Most people abandon their campaign or start a new one once they have become too powerful and their only struggle is to handle vassals and successions (since external war are like a walk in the part at some point).
You have a LOT of micromanagement in CK3, which make early and mid game quite interesting (since in late game you don't need to do this that much anymore). A lot of information in general, which can altogether get overwhelming, if you try to optimise everything.

Side note : from the developper's record, you'll probably end up having a bunch of dlc for CK3. Good thing is that, when they realease one, some feature are free for everyone, but if you want to have access to every feature as they keep adding things in the game, you'll have to invest quite a lot of money.

[Judeo-communism]

Knights of Honor has RTS battles. Crusader Kings does not. Therefore Knights of Honor is the only correct choice.

[chompers]

I'm gonna try to give a more unbiased response. If you like a more micro experience where you spend a buttload of time in submenus configuring extreme depth than CK is probably more up your alley. If you prefer a more accessible approach to grand strats with less micro and more akin to a real-time Total War with less depth in combat than KoH will be the better choice. The games are for different types of grand strat enjoyers IMO, there is some overlap but these are sort of separate audiences.

[Badgercompany]

Appreciate the information and opinions coming in. I've watched a couple youtube examples. I'll keep watching and reading. Thanks.

[essi2]

CK3, but they aren't really comparable games imo.

KoH2 is a strategy game first, CK3 is a medieval ruler sim and story generator

[Wolfskraehe]

Both are very different games. I love both for different reasons. As mentioned above: CK3 is a story generator and much more a roleplaying game than a strategy game. In CK3 loosing ist fun because of the stories and the drama that takes place, there is also no real incentive in "winning" because you only give yourself your own goals. As a strategy roleplaying intrigue, game of thrones simulator, CK3 is great.

KOH2 on the other hand is a pure strategy game. There is also some randomnes and chaos here but this game gives you clear goals you can achieve, there is a winable state and there are no roleplaying options at all. You try to expand either by conquest or economy but you have many tools to do this and every sessions is different.

Both great games, but both very, very different.

[Conch]

KOH2 is more dumbed down. If you're a simpleton, this is better for you.

If you want to play on a much higher strategic level, play CK3. CK3 also gives you alot more options to adapt different playstyles.

In the end, every detail in CK3 is meaningful. In KOH2 some features are just cosmetic ones, like religion. Religion doesn't mean alot in KOH2 and you can pretty much ignore it, which is completely different in CK3.

[Wolfskraehe]

Originally posted by Conch:

KOH2 is more dumbed down. If you're a simpleton, this is better for you.

If you want to play on a much higher strategic level, play CK3. CK3 also gives you alot more options to adapt different playstyles.

In the end, every detail in CK3 is meaningful. In KOH2 some features are just cosmetic ones, like religion. Religion doesn't mean alot in KOH2 and you can pretty much ignore it, which is completely different in CK3.

I have to disagree on this. KOH2 is not dumped down, because it never tried to be like CK3. It is completely different in its gameplay loop. The possibilities and tactics are very divers and deep in KOH2, it is simplier in its mechanics than CK3 but does not lack depth in gameplay. Interestingly, my different gameplays in KOH2 were different, where they tend to be always kinda similar in CK3. CK3 lives from the roleplay and the character drama, but is not very deep on the strategic front (and i love CK3).

Religion is simple in KOH2 but still relevant, especially the pagan religions can be very versatile. Catholics and orthodox christians are rather simplistic yes but still relevant during gameplay because of population opinion.

[Fistochat]

Originally posted by Conch:

KOH2 is more dumbed down. If you're a simpleton, this is better for you.

If you want to play on a much higher strategic level, play CK3. CK3 also gives you alot more options to adapt different playstyles.

In the end, every detail in CK3 is meaningful. In KOH2 some features are just cosmetic ones, like religion. Religion doesn't mean alot in KOH2 and you can pretty much ignore it, which is completely different in CK3.

Playstyles all look the same in CK3, same as playthroughs. Different talent trees just seem to generate new stories, which pretty much result in different reading. There are so many talents that you don't even feel the difference when you have them. Aswell, your characters live for so long that you end up being administrator, spy, knight, cleric etc.

On that, KOHII is better imo. But as I stated before, formable kingdoms, counties, duchies, empires and casus belli are awesome features in CKIII.

[ZoolanderrrZA]

This game is realy great, I prefer this game above CK3

[Ghoul]

This game is much more fun to play. And I love Paradox games, CKIII was one of my favourites.

[Dregora]

I think if you make a similar thread on the CK3 forums, most would say CK3. This doesn't really help you.

[Montecalm]

Originally posted by Badgercompany:

So, having not purchased either one. I am curious of what Players who have think. Which do you recommend? I'll post this on Crusader Kings III also. I've put it off because of a tighter budget and lot less time to play games these days. C.K. III must be doing well still , as they never put it on sale for much of a discount.

I own both and they are different games. I prefer this one as it is MUCH cheaper than the CK3 game. This game is complete and has no DLC. CK3 has enough DLC to run the overall cost of the game to almost $200. Some DLC run as much as $20 apiece! I find that much DLC to be a scummy practice.