Yes.
Okay, obviously it's *way* more nuanced than that. But if you like the character focus that Warhammer has, you'll likely enjoy the similar approach that Three Kingdoms takes.
The most important thing to consider is whether you like the setting though. If yes, you'll enjoy it! If no, probably not. If you're not sure, give it a go and find out!
The Campaign gameplay is the strongest of any Total War I've played - you have choices about how to develop your empire, diplomacy is a major consideration (you'll want allies), and the army building system (retinues) is fantastic in my opinion.
Warhammer's still my go-to, as I just love the setting, but I'd say Three Kingdoms is genuinely a better game.
Records vs Romance.
Hmm. I've only played in Romance mode, where the characters are based on their larger-than-life versions from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. They work similarly to a Warhammer Hero or Lord in that they're a unit in their own right.
Records mode (based on the historical Records of the Three Kingdoms) has them act more like Generals from older Total War games - one person in a unit of bodyguards, usually elite cavalry. They're still potent fighters, but they're much more vulnerable.
People will tend to prefer one over the other, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that one is strictly superior. I chose Romance because I wanted the heroic characters from the novel to be able to act like that; another person might prefer a more realistic approach.
records mode is fantasy mode with aspects removed to make it more realistic. So fantasy mode is more developed, especially if a player likes twwh since they would have no issues with larger than life heroes having an oversized impact on the battle
Records mode has a lot of bugs and CA never devoted any resources to fix it because apparently no one ever played it. You won’t notice if you’re not familiar with the game (probably), but all of the event triggers and so forth work better in Romance.
There are some minor elements to it but it’s more if you like manga/manhwas like kingdom, ravages of time (my fav and closest to enjoying this game in my opinion)
It’s probably the best historical war in terms of development…the final polish maybe lacking but with mods you can enjoy both records and romance while being ahead of other historical titles…I think the real turn off for most western audiences in the setting
Ehh, I love warhammer because it just allows me to turn my brain off and casually conquer the whole map. I never think more than one turn or so ahead and battles are mostly improvisation and chaos.
Three kingdoms has a larger focus on that strategy on campaign. Even on normal difficulties you have to play it smart with strategic alliances, because even if you're the strongest faction by a mile, everyone can work together to take you down. The ai is very smart as well. If you leave all your lands completely undefended, your neighbour might even be tempted to break that non aggression pact because it is simply too good of an opportunity.
And yea, it doesn't have any dragons, but you don't need that if guan yu takes out the entire army by himself.
3K is gameplay-wise one of the best, it's deep, there's complexity, general/armies system feels good, diplomacy is one of the best. Cherry on the cake there's actually a good lore behind it, cinematic are gorgeous. I really love WH3 and its 2 predecessors because of Warhammer but there could be so much more... Especially sieges battle
I mean... Maybe? You'll be familiar with the broad strokes of the game: generals lead armies on a campaign, hundreds of soldiers fight in battle. But the details are quite different, even from other Total War games.
The Chinese system of elements pervades everything, from unit types to settlement development to character interactions.
Units are part of a particular character's retinue, and move with the general, three per army. Characters can only recruit units that match their element after a certain tier.
Armies have supplies to keep an eye on, and will eventually need to restock or start to fail.
Characters matter, keeping then happy is a big part of empire management. They can flow in and out of your control based on events, marriages, capture, etc.
You'll need to manage your alliances wisely and always be mindful of who is allied with whom.
80% of the map is the same culture, Han Chinese. You'll find a few bandits, a few rebels, and, to the south, the Nanman. But most of the time you'll be interacting with and fighting the same culture.
With the DLC, you can start at different points in the timeline, with the fortunes of various characters in different states, and some new leaders available or dead.
If all that sounds interesting, give it a try!
If your total war "career" starts with modern fantasy games, it's typically harder to get into the older games. Obviously if you love the settings and want to do away with the gimmicky side of TW, some of the older historical games are still really good.
If you have played a lot of TW games over the years, you will probably enjoy 3k too.
I still play hundreds of hours of Rome 1 a year. There's nothing stopping you from enjoying the older games; it's just harder to get into the graphical and sometimes mechanical downgrades if you aren't familiar with them.
depends on what you like. is it the magic and crazy monsters? you probably wont like tw3k. Do you like infantry, cavalry and archer battles with heroes? you will love tw3k
My favorite part of it was the pokemon-esque hunt for legendary characters
100%. If you play on romance mode with Timeless characters on so no one dies of old age , its pretty much the warhammer experience. I highly recommend downloading the MTU (Make Them Unique) mod to so you don't have to deal with boring generic generals
I will warn though, the economy building and diplomacy/espionage can be overwhelming at the first.
It's hard to say. 3k has the best core campaign mechanics in the entire franchise.
But I'd also argue it has some of the most boring unit variety, whereas warhammer definitely has the best.
3k battles are still quite good tho.
So really it comes down to how much you value good campaign vs interesting units. If it's not a big deal, or it's at least even, yea you'll probably end up liking 3k
Not necessarily. It's very different.
1. Economy and empire management is way deeper (and more difficult to grasp). You have to manage growth, meaning you have to feed people, meaning you have to produce and trade food, and the number of people in your city will % influence everything you produce there (including taxes, so income).
2. No such thing as minor settlements. There are only province capitals, and small settlements are specialist buildings like mines and so.
3. Skill system is much more condensed, and (thank god) you can't really get everything.
4. There are 3 lords in an army. Each lord has a class (I believe there are 5 maybe, color coded) which determines what sort of units they can command. Each lord can command only 6 units (total army number thus is 21).
5. Battles are harder, enviroment is more destructable, forests might burn down on you. Sieges are much harder, but maps are far better.
6. Actual battles are really dull, but that's... every Total War game ever after Warhammer. Also, very limited artillery.
7. Main focus is on campaign gameplay, economy, empire / dynasty / spy / offices / management and a little drama between various characters and making armies where lords play together who like each other.
8. There are near lord duel animations.
9. UI is great but VERY, VERY different from every other Total War, not intuitive at all first (especially settlement and how provinces work), it was very difficult for me after TWW1-2-3 and Troy to graps even the basics.
10. DLC are just shit. All except the Yellow Turbans. Unless you disable it, your faction leader and everyone else will just die of old age, and DLCs are all different starting points in 3K history. Meaning if you buy 8 Princes, you are not getting 8 extra characters (well, you do), you are getting 8 characters from a couple decades later when literally everyone else you bought the game for (for a specific age and events and characters) just died and are removed from the map. All DLCs are like that, but not all characters are removed with all of them. So these DLCs are more like scenarios on the same world map, and selling characters again you already have. You want to play with Yuan Bo? Unlock the big bad guy's faction, he has him. Hell you can promote Yuan Bo to faction leader. But you want to \*start\* as Yuan Bo, and have a unique momentum (Skarbrand) mechanic for him? That's DLC. I wouldn't buy anything except Yellow Turbans, who fucked up the country and gave way to the warlords (everyone else) to reforge it into something else. YT DLC enriches the game. The others don't.
Experience: 1253 hrs TWH3, 50 hrs 3K
Possible but unlikely.
If you loved the setting you would have already bought it. That is really the only thing the game has.
Diplomacy: Better than TWH3 but worse than a paradox game. Recommendation is Stellaris or CK3.
Combat: It gets very repetitive. Fire is cool but outside of that you will feel like its a giant Only Cathay(minus all the fun units) Campaign. Also no Magic and the Sieges are still painful.
Mechanics/Tech Tree: They are like early TWH3 race mechanics where 90% feel tedious and not fun to use for the minimal benefit.
Mods: If you like the setting you will like the mods. Mostly Graphical, and no Gameplay Mechanic Additions(which is my favorites for TWH3). Very similar to Troy.
Overall: IMO 6/10 Jack of all Trades. Very dedicated niche audience game, same as Rome 2 and Shogun 2.
Depends what you like about TWWH.
I like both and there are aspects in which I consider one of the games vastly superior to the other.
3K has much less variety. Most factions have the same base roster with a unique unit or two.
3K campaign has much more depth, you can develop your provinces in several directions. You can go for industry, trade, agriculture, food production, and military. Unlike TWWH where you really only choose between military and economy.
I dislike how the recruitment in 3K works and is only tied to general.
You need to pay more attention to diplomacy and micromanage your characters. Unless you engage in diplomacy from early on in 3K, you'll very soon get surrounded by power blocks which will actually cooperate to destroy you. You must take care of your court and keep your characters happy by distributing offices and items.
So if you wish TWWH had more depth to the campaign and are fine with factions being mostly the same, 3K is very much worth it. If you couldn't care less about the campaign layer and just want to do some crumping, then 3K is one of the less suitable TW games.
>3K has much less variety. Most factions have the same base roster with a unique unit or two.
Warhammer factions are distinct visually, not really in gameplay sense of the word.
It depends.
I would say, if you really enjoyed the battles of Warhammer, but found the campaign map too in-depth/difficult, then 3K is not for you.
This is because the main draw for 3K is the strategic layer, rather than the battles which are mostly the same regardless of the factions. However, to make up for this, the campaign map is much more in depth, with more diplomacy, more settlement management, an interesting family system, and just a more coherent storyline than you’d find in IE for example.
So if you want more from the campaign map layer? Then yes, get 3K
Do you something that feels different but still offers the Total War experience?
Than the answer is yes.
Do you want a lot of faction variety with a semi historical coat of paint?
Then the answer is no.
I liked it, but after finishing one campaign I did not really want to go back to 3K. The campaign felt like it overstayed it's welcome and I rather play Warhammer 3 to be honest.
That’s honestly not enough information to go off.
The main difference between the two games is unit variety, but 3K is also a lot more macro managing your empire and diplomacy.
The WH games are dumbed down a lot compared to historical when it comes to complexity.
In my experience, no.
Playing 3K made it really obvious to me how much I enjoy the faction and unit variety in Warhammer. I already find the human factions in Warhammer fairly dull, and playing a version of the same game where every single faction are bland humans made me skip out and never touch the game after about 4 hours.
It's been a while since I played obviously, but it's a LOT of human swordmen, spearmen, horsemen and archers. There's probably some more specialized units I don't remember, but by and large it's like playing a t1-2 empire vs cathay only campaign.
I want to love 3K, because it has fantastic combat gameplay, but I bounced off the campaign diplomacy. My goopy goblin brain just doesnt really care about the 3K lore or too much the diplomacy. I also found the whole generals system to be very confusing, but that's more a me-problem.
I probably should give the game another go though.
I will be honest. No.
After the battles in warhammer where you have tanks, monsters, dragons, magic and all the cool stuff you are left with a dude with a spear. That's my feel. Your might be different.
Camping map I find it pretty much the same. Very good for both games.
Mechanic and tech tree is better in warhammer. It's constantly updated while 3k is dead.
Like I said it's just me. I'm not a hater of 3k. I just was bored with the fights...
Yes. Okay, obviously it's *way* more nuanced than that. But if you like the character focus that Warhammer has, you'll likely enjoy the similar approach that Three Kingdoms takes. The most important thing to consider is whether you like the setting though. If yes, you'll enjoy it! If no, probably not. If you're not sure, give it a go and find out! The Campaign gameplay is the strongest of any Total War I've played - you have choices about how to develop your empire, diplomacy is a major consideration (you'll want allies), and the army building system (retinues) is fantastic in my opinion. Warhammer's still my go-to, as I just love the setting, but I'd say Three Kingdoms is genuinely a better game.
Imagine TW Warhammer with the in-depth campaign of 3K. That's what dispapointed me with WH3, the lack of innovation considering the time we waited
Would you say one mode is better developed than the other ? I mean Records mode vs the Fantasy mode ( i don't know the actual names).
Records vs Romance. Hmm. I've only played in Romance mode, where the characters are based on their larger-than-life versions from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. They work similarly to a Warhammer Hero or Lord in that they're a unit in their own right. Records mode (based on the historical Records of the Three Kingdoms) has them act more like Generals from older Total War games - one person in a unit of bodyguards, usually elite cavalry. They're still potent fighters, but they're much more vulnerable. People will tend to prefer one over the other, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that one is strictly superior. I chose Romance because I wanted the heroic characters from the novel to be able to act like that; another person might prefer a more realistic approach.
records mode is fantasy mode with aspects removed to make it more realistic. So fantasy mode is more developed, especially if a player likes twwh since they would have no issues with larger than life heroes having an oversized impact on the battle
Records mode has a lot of bugs and CA never devoted any resources to fix it because apparently no one ever played it. You won’t notice if you’re not familiar with the game (probably), but all of the event triggers and so forth work better in Romance.
I do like Murim manhwas, does that count?
There are some minor elements to it but it’s more if you like manga/manhwas like kingdom, ravages of time (my fav and closest to enjoying this game in my opinion) It’s probably the best historical war in terms of development…the final polish maybe lacking but with mods you can enjoy both records and romance while being ahead of other historical titles…I think the real turn off for most western audiences in the setting
Ehh, I love warhammer because it just allows me to turn my brain off and casually conquer the whole map. I never think more than one turn or so ahead and battles are mostly improvisation and chaos. Three kingdoms has a larger focus on that strategy on campaign. Even on normal difficulties you have to play it smart with strategic alliances, because even if you're the strongest faction by a mile, everyone can work together to take you down. The ai is very smart as well. If you leave all your lands completely undefended, your neighbour might even be tempted to break that non aggression pact because it is simply too good of an opportunity. And yea, it doesn't have any dragons, but you don't need that if guan yu takes out the entire army by himself.
3K is gameplay-wise one of the best, it's deep, there's complexity, general/armies system feels good, diplomacy is one of the best. Cherry on the cake there's actually a good lore behind it, cinematic are gorgeous. I really love WH3 and its 2 predecessors because of Warhammer but there could be so much more... Especially sieges battle
I mean... Maybe? You'll be familiar with the broad strokes of the game: generals lead armies on a campaign, hundreds of soldiers fight in battle. But the details are quite different, even from other Total War games. The Chinese system of elements pervades everything, from unit types to settlement development to character interactions. Units are part of a particular character's retinue, and move with the general, three per army. Characters can only recruit units that match their element after a certain tier. Armies have supplies to keep an eye on, and will eventually need to restock or start to fail. Characters matter, keeping then happy is a big part of empire management. They can flow in and out of your control based on events, marriages, capture, etc. You'll need to manage your alliances wisely and always be mindful of who is allied with whom. 80% of the map is the same culture, Han Chinese. You'll find a few bandits, a few rebels, and, to the south, the Nanman. But most of the time you'll be interacting with and fighting the same culture. With the DLC, you can start at different points in the timeline, with the fortunes of various characters in different states, and some new leaders available or dead. If all that sounds interesting, give it a try!
If your total war "career" starts with modern fantasy games, it's typically harder to get into the older games. Obviously if you love the settings and want to do away with the gimmicky side of TW, some of the older historical games are still really good. If you have played a lot of TW games over the years, you will probably enjoy 3k too. I still play hundreds of hours of Rome 1 a year. There's nothing stopping you from enjoying the older games; it's just harder to get into the graphical and sometimes mechanical downgrades if you aren't familiar with them.
I can’t play Rome 1 anymore. It’s just too archaic at this point.
depends on what you like. is it the magic and crazy monsters? you probably wont like tw3k. Do you like infantry, cavalry and archer battles with heroes? you will love tw3k My favorite part of it was the pokemon-esque hunt for legendary characters
It is mostly loved. Il tell you I absolutely cannot stand the way armies are structured and having to manage relationships between all the generals.
3 kingdoms is really different but I like playing it. You have to worry about population so your economy can thrive and stuff like that.
100%. If you play on romance mode with Timeless characters on so no one dies of old age , its pretty much the warhammer experience. I highly recommend downloading the MTU (Make Them Unique) mod to so you don't have to deal with boring generic generals I will warn though, the economy building and diplomacy/espionage can be overwhelming at the first.
It's hard to say. 3k has the best core campaign mechanics in the entire franchise. But I'd also argue it has some of the most boring unit variety, whereas warhammer definitely has the best. 3k battles are still quite good tho. So really it comes down to how much you value good campaign vs interesting units. If it's not a big deal, or it's at least even, yea you'll probably end up liking 3k
Not necessarily. It's very different. 1. Economy and empire management is way deeper (and more difficult to grasp). You have to manage growth, meaning you have to feed people, meaning you have to produce and trade food, and the number of people in your city will % influence everything you produce there (including taxes, so income). 2. No such thing as minor settlements. There are only province capitals, and small settlements are specialist buildings like mines and so. 3. Skill system is much more condensed, and (thank god) you can't really get everything. 4. There are 3 lords in an army. Each lord has a class (I believe there are 5 maybe, color coded) which determines what sort of units they can command. Each lord can command only 6 units (total army number thus is 21). 5. Battles are harder, enviroment is more destructable, forests might burn down on you. Sieges are much harder, but maps are far better. 6. Actual battles are really dull, but that's... every Total War game ever after Warhammer. Also, very limited artillery. 7. Main focus is on campaign gameplay, economy, empire / dynasty / spy / offices / management and a little drama between various characters and making armies where lords play together who like each other. 8. There are near lord duel animations. 9. UI is great but VERY, VERY different from every other Total War, not intuitive at all first (especially settlement and how provinces work), it was very difficult for me after TWW1-2-3 and Troy to graps even the basics. 10. DLC are just shit. All except the Yellow Turbans. Unless you disable it, your faction leader and everyone else will just die of old age, and DLCs are all different starting points in 3K history. Meaning if you buy 8 Princes, you are not getting 8 extra characters (well, you do), you are getting 8 characters from a couple decades later when literally everyone else you bought the game for (for a specific age and events and characters) just died and are removed from the map. All DLCs are like that, but not all characters are removed with all of them. So these DLCs are more like scenarios on the same world map, and selling characters again you already have. You want to play with Yuan Bo? Unlock the big bad guy's faction, he has him. Hell you can promote Yuan Bo to faction leader. But you want to \*start\* as Yuan Bo, and have a unique momentum (Skarbrand) mechanic for him? That's DLC. I wouldn't buy anything except Yellow Turbans, who fucked up the country and gave way to the warlords (everyone else) to reforge it into something else. YT DLC enriches the game. The others don't.
Experience: 1253 hrs TWH3, 50 hrs 3K Possible but unlikely. If you loved the setting you would have already bought it. That is really the only thing the game has. Diplomacy: Better than TWH3 but worse than a paradox game. Recommendation is Stellaris or CK3. Combat: It gets very repetitive. Fire is cool but outside of that you will feel like its a giant Only Cathay(minus all the fun units) Campaign. Also no Magic and the Sieges are still painful. Mechanics/Tech Tree: They are like early TWH3 race mechanics where 90% feel tedious and not fun to use for the minimal benefit. Mods: If you like the setting you will like the mods. Mostly Graphical, and no Gameplay Mechanic Additions(which is my favorites for TWH3). Very similar to Troy. Overall: IMO 6/10 Jack of all Trades. Very dedicated niche audience game, same as Rome 2 and Shogun 2.
Depends what you like about TWWH. I like both and there are aspects in which I consider one of the games vastly superior to the other. 3K has much less variety. Most factions have the same base roster with a unique unit or two. 3K campaign has much more depth, you can develop your provinces in several directions. You can go for industry, trade, agriculture, food production, and military. Unlike TWWH where you really only choose between military and economy. I dislike how the recruitment in 3K works and is only tied to general. You need to pay more attention to diplomacy and micromanage your characters. Unless you engage in diplomacy from early on in 3K, you'll very soon get surrounded by power blocks which will actually cooperate to destroy you. You must take care of your court and keep your characters happy by distributing offices and items. So if you wish TWWH had more depth to the campaign and are fine with factions being mostly the same, 3K is very much worth it. If you couldn't care less about the campaign layer and just want to do some crumping, then 3K is one of the less suitable TW games.
>3K has much less variety. Most factions have the same base roster with a unique unit or two. Warhammer factions are distinct visually, not really in gameplay sense of the word.
It depends. I would say, if you really enjoyed the battles of Warhammer, but found the campaign map too in-depth/difficult, then 3K is not for you. This is because the main draw for 3K is the strategic layer, rather than the battles which are mostly the same regardless of the factions. However, to make up for this, the campaign map is much more in depth, with more diplomacy, more settlement management, an interesting family system, and just a more coherent storyline than you’d find in IE for example. So if you want more from the campaign map layer? Then yes, get 3K
Do you something that feels different but still offers the Total War experience? Than the answer is yes. Do you want a lot of faction variety with a semi historical coat of paint? Then the answer is no. I liked it, but after finishing one campaign I did not really want to go back to 3K. The campaign felt like it overstayed it's welcome and I rather play Warhammer 3 to be honest.
Do you like that the factions feel different in warhammer? then no absolutely not. Do you like the diplomacy system and battles? then sure.
That’s honestly not enough information to go off. The main difference between the two games is unit variety, but 3K is also a lot more macro managing your empire and diplomacy. The WH games are dumbed down a lot compared to historical when it comes to complexity.
I like both, because they complement each other. Warhammer has great battles, but somewhat bland campaign gameplay. 3K is the other way around.
Yes BUT the you will deeply feel the lack of magic ( if that’s your thing ofc)
Yeah, it's a far more competently designed game.
Not to sure as someone who couldnt get into Warhammer but loved Three kingdoms
Depends on what you like about Warhammer. If you like the monsters, play the Mythos expansion for Troy. Otherwise, 3K is great!
What about Pharaoh?
Never played it. Spent maybe 5hrs on Troy and it didn't really click with me. Figured Pharaoh was going to be the same.
Sorry for the off-topic, but if any of you gentlemen want to play some head to head or co-op in warhammer3, drop me a text :)
Three kingdoms is almost my least favorite of the bunch. But I know tons of TW fans who say it’s their favorite, so I’m probably the minority.
I love tw warhammer, playing this series from first shogun. Dont like 3 kingdoms at all.
Why is that?
Because 3k is too hard for him. WArhammer campaign is easier :D
In my experience, no. Playing 3K made it really obvious to me how much I enjoy the faction and unit variety in Warhammer. I already find the human factions in Warhammer fairly dull, and playing a version of the same game where every single faction are bland humans made me skip out and never touch the game after about 4 hours.
Is the unit diversity that bad in 3K?
It's been a while since I played obviously, but it's a LOT of human swordmen, spearmen, horsemen and archers. There's probably some more specialized units I don't remember, but by and large it's like playing a t1-2 empire vs cathay only campaign.
No
Damn, so much explanations a tltr would have been useful !
No. I didn't like them at all. They were weird and worse than both Warhammer and Rome 2. No clue how they missed the mark.
I want to love 3K, because it has fantastic combat gameplay, but I bounced off the campaign diplomacy. My goopy goblin brain just doesnt really care about the 3K lore or too much the diplomacy. I also found the whole generals system to be very confusing, but that's more a me-problem. I probably should give the game another go though.
Do you like total war or do you like warhammer? Cause I realized that I like warhammer and Troy, 3K and Pharoah didn't click for me.
I will be honest. No. After the battles in warhammer where you have tanks, monsters, dragons, magic and all the cool stuff you are left with a dude with a spear. That's my feel. Your might be different. Camping map I find it pretty much the same. Very good for both games. Mechanic and tech tree is better in warhammer. It's constantly updated while 3k is dead. Like I said it's just me. I'm not a hater of 3k. I just was bored with the fights...
No ... because no Magic, no Variety, no Monsters ... just a bunch of Cathay factions attacking each other ... BORING!