Nope! The original main campaign starts in 192 AD. One of the DLC campaigns starts in 180 AD and another one starts roughly 100 years later around 283 AD. So you're basically looking at the same basic technology that existed in the middle period of the Roman Empire.

Thanks. I wasn't sure when it was set and the Chinese had gunpowder first.

I'll probably play this game at some point down the line. But when WH3 comes out I'll definitely get that. Not soon though.

[Two years later]

I finally got around to picking this one up. It's currently on sale on Steam. I bought the Emperor edition. Now when I will get around to playing it is another question, but I knew I'd buy it sooner or later and decided to snag it on sale.

One thing I am wondering, what are the campaign objectives like? I really like Rome 2, as it turns out, but the campaign objectives are too ambitious and takes forever to complete a campaign.

How do Three Kingdoms objectives compare?

I'm glad you asked!

In the original main campaign, your faction must first capture enough territory to achieve the highest rank which is essentially one of the three contenders for the Imperial throne. This works similarly to how imperium level works in Rome 2.

Once you achieve that rank then you will get the next and final list of objectives which involves capturing the Imperial capital of Luoyiang (I know I spelled that wrong) as well as the capitals of the other two rivals for the Imperial throne.


But yes, the main campaign in Three Kingdoms takes a long time to finish. We are talking at least 120 turns here.


The campaigns for the DLC's work very differently though but it's been so long since I've played the game that I don't remember the details of the victory objectives.

Thanks. I read up a bit on it after making that post. 120 turns is fine. Warhammer 2 Mortal Empires campaigns were usually about 160 turns, and Rome 2 was the same. My first Rome 2 campaign went exactly 160 turns. In the end I expect this game will be about the same eh? 120 would be perfect though.

What little I learned of the TW3K campaigns sounds good. By gunning to become emperor I expect it allows a bit more latitude how and where you expand, instead of having specific geographic regions to capture. I guess I'll need to see how prestige is gained. I don't mind map painting necessarily, only how much is required. In Rome 2 I needed to take a huge part of the map. In a couple of the companion campaigns I held 90% of it. It just felt too much, like another 40 turns beyond where it should finish, and these turns become a bit of a slog. I'm already more powerful by magnitudes than anyone else, and it's just a matter of hunting down the last few objectives, or worse, filling out certain ones like hiring a massive mass of mercs. I like Rome 2, but the objectives are too ambitious and it needs the return of short campaign objectives like in other titles in the series. I like to complete campaigns, not just play til I'm done.

TW3K also has a sort of realm divide mechanic right? When you gain enough prestige there's a 3-way showdown for emperor supremacy? Is it a free for all or is it two against you?

Having read up on it I'm rather eager to get started. Total War will never be like Paradox games for example in terms of diplomacy. But what I read about diplomacy in Three Kingdoms sounds pretty good. Actually, most of what I read sounds pretty good. I think I'll like this one and I'm curious to know where I will ultimately place it in the hierarchy of Total War games.

Did or do you play records or hero mode? Any thoughts of the two options?

Heh, all this 3K talk is enticing me to reinstall!

I played both modes and enjoyed them. "Records" mode is strictly historical-reality based and "hero" mode contains some of the supernatural abilities and stories that are inspired by the original Chinese histories of the "Three Kingdoms" period. More specifically, in "hero" mode your general has supernatural abilities that he can use during 3D battles. It works similarly to how the elite hero units worked in Shogun 2.

Thanks, do you prefer one and why?

I just looked and my Taras run in RotR took 192 turns to complete. I held virtually the entire map in that one. That's too long so I hope TW3K is somewhat more focused. Of course this depends on my play style and success, or absence of, but under 150 turns is best.

Maybe I'll install this tonight.

I preferred the records mode because I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy but I ended up enjoying the hero mode more than I thought I would. It was quite fun levelling up the generals and seeing what kind of special powers you could assign to them. You can also do one-on-one duels between generals in hero mode.

Thanks, yeah that's a good answer and I think I'll see it the same. I'll try both but I think the first go will be on records mode.

Now to decide which faction to start with. Any thoughts?

Oh yeah, with the Emperor Edition I have all? of the DLC. I say it that way because the steam blurb says includes 6 items when the Collection edition has 7. Not sure what the one thing I didn't get, is.

I think Sun Jian might be the right choice for a first go, but I also have a thing for edge factions so I'll have a look at the map before deciding..I also like good ranged factions so I have some reading to do.

Cao Cao is a great one to play as when you are new to the game. You get a decent amount of territory and resources to start off with.

Thanks, but from what I know so far, Cao Cao is one to leave for later. Precarious starting position as I understand.

Well I've been reading about the various factions, attempting to get a feel for which ones would suit me best, and read this about Cao Cao



Actually, that sounds good and would suit me I think, especially if the diplomacy is as improved as I've read it is. Like a combination of Eataine and Eshin in Warhammer 2. I guess that means little to you, but seems a good combo.

The diplomacy aspect of 3K works extremely well and is quite detailed. It's not Paradox-level of detail but it's pretty close.

I'll see when I kick it off, but as we'd all agree, I'm sure, TW diplomacy has always sucked. Sometimes it sucks a lot, sometimes a little, but suck it does.

But in Three Kingdoms I read that not only is it much better, one of my longest-serving gripes of the series has been dealt with.

You know how when you want to strike a deal you have no idea what would make it work? So you offer 8 ducats.

"Such insolence!"

OK, ten ducats

"Do not come to me with such insults!"

How about fifteen?

"You sir, shall live cursed for all your days!"

Twenty.

"Sure thing"

But now, if I understand it, you can see straight away what the other party requires to make the deal. That's like, not great exactly, but way better than the way it was, repeatedly clicking through to get rejected over and over again. I hope this is just one of the diplomatic improvements, but at least it's something.

I installed Three Kingdoms and gave it a go.

After installing I ran the rule over the various leaders and lords, or the Chinese equivalent thereof. In the end I decided to try Sun Jian in a 190 start, who has some good merc bonuses, and I never use mercs, so what better time to get him out of the way haha. But aside from mercs he has some other advantages that should work for me. One thing I've never really liked in this series is general loyalty mechanics, and Sun Jian has some bonuses to keep them happy.

I played about 2 1/2 hours, though half of that was just acclimating to the new UI and all the new mechanics. My initial reactions or impressions were not great. And I think it has almost everything to do with how busy this game is from an aesthetic point of view, and also a systems point of view. There are a lot of things to keep track of, and the screen feels too cluttered, jammed with displays and info. I also don't care for how icons have replaced words, like on unit cards. Instead of having 'melee defense' and 'weapon strength' written out it uses icons, which over time I will learn and be able to assess units at a glance (I hope), but at the start it feels foreign and obtuse.

In a sense it feels like being a veteran series player has little to no payoff, with everything redesigned and everything to learn over again. With time, this murk should recede. The brain learns to focus on what's important, and ignore what isn't, and perhaps I can customize things and tailor it all to suit me better. In the first hour though it all feels quite dense indeed. Or maybe that's me!

My first settlement battle revealed that the towns have a lot of archer towers, all of which appear manned, and not in any way linked to unit proximity. They just keep pumping out arrows. If I get artillery, or fire maybe, this will be OK, but without it, assaulting settlements is costly indeed. Even those without walls like the one I captured last night against a weak garrison. There have not been many TW games where I've enjoyed settlement battles, with Attila and Rome 2 being the best of the bunch in my view. Too early to make judgements here, but the first one was not as much fun as it could be for me. Auto-resolve beckons.

Army composition is changed too, now divided in to leaders and retinue. Each leader can have six units attached, and three? of these comprise a stack. Another thing to learn, and how to best approach it? After taking that town on the banks of the Yangtze river I wanted to expand my army. I recruited a general (if that's what he is) with archers. And it turned out this dude had a negative effect on the 'harmony'. How should I have known? This sort of stuff can be compelling I suppose, but I work better without it. Sort of in the same way I much prefer Europa Universalis over Crusader Kings. Maybe I don't care for these sort of soft-factor mechanics with clashing personalities and personal motivations. I like my armies with a little more automaton in them I guess. Shifting loyalties and treachery have their place I suppose, and it will come down to how well I think it is implemented. Does it add to the experience, or make it all more frustrating and arbitrary? Time will tell.

I do like the camera. Not sure what or even if it has been changed. But something about the camera controls, and zoom levels feels better to me. Maybe my mind is comparing it to other recent games I've played and not Total War. But the camera controls feel great, in both the tactical and operational maps. The campaign map has a sort of Hearts of Iron 4 aesthetic. I've only discovered a small part of it in the opening turns, so I'll reserve judgement until I've opened more of it up.

So yeah, my initial impressions are subdued. This one didn't impact in the way some of the others have in the earliest stages, but I need to give it more time. I need to actually know what I'm doing to properly assess it. Let's see what I think after 10 or 20 hours.

Good post DBond and 3K was also a very new experience for me when I first started playing it. Also considering that the previous TW game I played was Thrones of Britannia which itself had some major changes from TW titles that came out before, it is VERY easy to get confused and lose track of which TW title does this or does that. I don't know if you have noticed yet but there are NO agents that you can use on the map. The entire agent dynamic has been totally redone. It now consists of hiring spies that you can order to infiltrate an army or a rival's court but it is all handled "off map" or "off screen" if you will.

Yes, I did notice it. After the first field battle that every TW campaign seems to kick off with, the next step was to find my spy or courtesan or assassin and send him or her off to do my bidding and run some recon as it were. But I had none. At first I thought maybe I have to unlock them, or recruit them. But eventually I saw the off-map mechanic as you describe. I've always been a vocal critic of agent play in Total War. Maybe this will prove superior in some ways? But that's a massive shift after 20 years of doing it a different way. I expect the biggest impact this will have on me is not the absence of agent actions, but losing my scouts and early-warning outposts they functioned as in other games.

Oh, that reminds me. The AI in 3K actually makes use of the "ambush" stance unlike previous TW titles so be careful when moving your armies into a fog of war area.

OK good to know, and I'm happy that's a thing. I've been abusing the AI with ambush for so long now I think it's only fair

After my initial tepid reaction to Three Kingdoms I spent quite a bit of time brushing up on things. With more understanding I gave it another go, starting over as Sun Jian. I had made a couple mistakes already, so it gave me a mulligan, and this time I got off to a better start. And I gotta say my opinion improved significantly. Played about 25 turns, had success, grasped the mechanics, systems and what I should be doing much better. Managed to carve out a decent realm, righted the economy and Sun Jian began to stake his claim to the throne.

On the first turn, Sun Jian obtained the Imperial Seal, which imparts good bonuses, but makes other warlords jelly. This led to some experimentation. But it made me wonder. Does the player get this seal regardless of which faction they play? Or did I just happen to choose the one?

About ten turns in, a strong faction to the north, Lu Biao, demanded I hand over the seal. I refused dammit. If you want it, come and get it. This led to war and me scrambling to counter. My army was to the south, having just taken a valuable trade port to the east of my capital. With Lu Biao marching south a race was on. I could see he had a full, fresh stack. Mine was less so, and casualties from the previous battles had not been replenished. My plan was to force march north to meet him, and set an ambush. I needed to recruit a few units to match his full stack. But you can't do that in forced march, and no replenishment either.

I beat him to the planned ambush location, and now out of forced march I recruited new units to build up my stack. But Three Kingdoms has a 'mustering' mechanic. Newly recruited units are created instantly, but at cadre strength. The unit will muster over several turns before it in turn becomes full strength. So this didn't really help all that much. Lu Biao blundered in to my trap and I got an ambush. But to my shock and dismay this seems to not impart the big auto-resolve advantage like in previous titles. The predicted outcome was a loss and so it proved. Hmm, how to crack it?

So I reloaded a save from two or three turns earlier and recruited straight away so that these units could muster a bit. I also recruited a second general (Sun Jian's son and heir who had just come of age) to garrison the town outside which I was setting the ambush, and in reinforcement range. This time we prevailed. I could have just fought the battle, and would have won, but I wanted to get a better feel for auto-resolve in this one, where things have changed from what I'm used to. It appears I can no longer use it as a crutch, gaming the systems a bit. I'm new to it, and perhaps when and if I have stronger units in my stacks I may see a different result. But in these early stages at least, it appears auto-resolve has been altered in some way compared to previous games.

I followed up that victory with a mopping-up battle against the remnants and causing Lu Biao to start over. Another faction declared on him after I had destroyed his army, so hopefully he'll have other things to worry about for a while. But I needed to win this battle, the whole campaign hinged on it. It took a couple tries, but that should hopefully ensure the spectre of a campaign defeat is removed. Not totally out of the woods yet -- I don't seem to be very popular -- but it was a key point in the campaign.

The dynastic side of Three Kingdoms is not bad. Usually I don't care for these sorts of things. For example in Rome 2 I'd be fine if that whole side to the game were removed. Feels like busy work, and I don't find I care about any of it. But here it's in a good spot. I now care about these family members, and want to take full advantage of this part of the game. It appeals probably because it is not so deep, doesn't try to do too much. There is a family tree, and cabinet-type positions to fill as in other TW titles. I've had nothing bad happen, like defections or civil war, so my view may change. But so far I think it's balanced just right. Sun Jian has a Heroism currency, one bonus of which is increased character satisfaction, so by choosing him I stand less chance of disharmony within the ranks, as long as he is successful on the field of battle and gaining Heroism.

I pondered above how I should have known my promoted general would be disharmonious. Well, there is a green check mark or red X, clear as a mountain lake, on each character. So I just missed it. These relationships are dynamic, and events can pop to improve relations, and I imagine, strain them, even if I have yet to see a negative dynastic event. It will take many hours of play to learn the nuances of the character system. Most turns a notification pops up with 'people of merit' that can be brought in and adopted. I don't know how to make the best of this, and as I understand some of these may indeed be spies, so you need to tread carefully. But yeah, I'm digging the character side to Three Kingdoms, and that's a surprise.

Tactical battles don't stand out in any way really. Standard melee stuff. The retinue system does mean you fight more general-type characters in each battle though. The battle maps are good, better than Warhammer certainly. I have yet to get artillery (or even know how or when), and we'll see how that affects things. If you liked the combat in say, any game before or after Nappy or Empire or Warhammer, then you'll like it here too.

So yeah, my initial impressions were mostly due to feeling a bit lost I think. But with better understanding, the features and systems in TW3K are starting to look really good to me.