Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: LegendofTotalWar review on 3K, very indepth, AI, Diplomacy, features etc

  1. #1

    Default LegendofTotalWar review on 3K, very indepth, AI, Diplomacy, features etc

    He is someone who is blacked from CA, but he is not as bad as Arch Warhammer

    he made many good points on 3K and made very clear, its a very good video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCA_mnonCHM&t=2s

    For those who still have doubts on getting 3K, he also gave a score based on 100 for 3K

  2. #2

    Default Re: LegendofTotalWar review on 3K, very indepth, AI, Diplomacy, features etc

    The first part about the AI is also one of the first content creators being able to mention and talk about for 3K, 3K AI is actually really good

    Battle difficulties no longer only affects the AI stats, it will also affects their Decision making

  3. #3

    Default Re: LegendofTotalWar review on 3K, very indepth, AI, Diplomacy, features etc



    Legend may have been blacklisted by Creative Assembly, but his criticism, unlike those of Arch-Warhammer, has always been fair and objective. I watched his review and, in general, I am in agreement with the majority of his points. In my opinion, where the game really excels is the introduction of dynastic politics. It's much more nuanced than the sloppy implementation of Rome II and probably reflects the geopolitics of the era, as the fate of the ambitious warlords depended less on their military prowess and more on their ability to form long-lasting and mutually beneficial political alliances. That being said, I disagree with his negativer reaction towards the more random trait system. It's a step towards the right direction, as the evolution of a character must not be determined by the player (although I would prefer exterior circumstances play the major role, instead of sheer luch). It's not as good as that of Medieval II or Rome I, but I find it remarkably more realistic than the RPG nonsense of post-Shogun Total War titles.

    Regarding the rest, I also consider the new spy mechanic a bit problematic and the lack of campaign intelligence absolutely unacceptable. However, where the games lack the most is the absence of coherent provincial and domestic politics, as it has maintained the simplified system of the Empire generation. If the building slots were increased and the taxation/public order/trade were significantly improved, Three Kingdoms may have actually reached absolute perfection. The duels were as controversial as I suspected, because they quickly become rather boring even to the most loyal fan of Koei, while the inability of the artificial intelligence to accurately estimate the risk means that the feature will work as a very easy exploitation tool for the player, giving him the ability to win even the most desperate battles. Unless it's not radically reformed, it will probably fail as spectacularly as Rome's II amphibious assaults (another marketing-orientated feature).

    Overall, I personally think Three Kingdoms, despite being inferior to Rome I and Medieval II, is certainly more enjoyable than anything else published after Empire, the overrated Fall of the Samurais included. Creative Assembly probably invested so much on the campaign map, in order to negate lack of variety in the battlefield, especially in comparison to the Hellenistic world and the fantasy of lizzards riding dinosaurs, but I really hope that the enthusiastic reviews of Three Kingdoms and the dismal failure of Thrones of Britannia, will teach them that focusing on the campaign is the way forward, instead of simplifying it to a wasteland.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •