1)Six very distinct races in Kohan 2, as opposed to 2 races in Kohan 1. These races vary not just in unit choice but in buildings and economics as well. Understanding the subte yet deep racial differences is a key to both playing well and enjoying the game. If one played superficially and got annoyed by surface changes from Kohan 1, then one would be missing most of the depth and quality of Kohan 2.
2)Much greater number and variety of units in Kohan 2. The total number of units in KIS and KAG combined was 66, in Kohan 2 it was 108. And the differences were quite distinct, ranging from very weak light infantry to mighty siege beasts. Also, there was a better distribution of special abilities in Kohan 2, with more types of units having special bonus powers that increase the overall utility of a company, thus making for a huge range of company combos. Again, if one simply played the game superficially and bounced off of it, one might not appreciate the broad range of unit abilities and the depth of the company combo system.
3)Dramatically improved unit AI at the regiment level. Kohan 1 was really a game of company vs company combat. Kohan 2 changed the scale so that the key battles are regiment vs regiment (there are 1 to 6 companies per regiment). With the regimental scale being key, and the six different races (you could recruit companies from different races’ cities and combine them in a regiment) you actually had greater unit variety and a wider range of matchups. Again, if one approached Kohan 2 like Kohan 1 and just watched company vs company combat without taking advantage of the regimental AI, one would be missing out on a big chunk of the game’s depth.
Those are the key changes in a positive direction IMO. They did come at some cost. First, the regimental level movement and AI means that company level flanking is less critical than it was in Kohan 1. The improved pathfinding and easier retreat controls means that it is easier to save a smashed company and that decisive battles are less decisive than in Kohan 1. However if you view things on a regimental scale rather than company scale, the game retains most of its good quality.
The other area of dispute is the change from player-choice city sites to fixed city sites. This is an area of intense debate, both systems have their merits. IMO its a bit out there to focus on that as huge negative, b/c even if you don’t like the fixed city sites, there are some advantages.
As to the issue of small map size, (which is a legitimate complaint, the default map sizes are too cramped) that is easily fixed by using a larger map. The game suggests a 512 size map for 4 to 6 players, I routinely play with 4 on a 576 map and with 6 on a 640 map. The recommended 8 player map is 702, but the fans have created downloadable 768 and 804 size random maps (the 804 in particular is gigantic). You can get these larger maps at the Awakening site I linked earlier. They run fine on modern systems and are preferred for large team games.
Bottom line: anyone who compares Kohan 2 to WarCraft 3 is IMO focusing on superficialities rather than the true game mechanics and gameplay quality of Kohan 2. Also if you find Kohan 2 to somehow be less “deep” than Kohan 1 I think one likely explanation is that you are looking at things from a Kohan 1 perspective (using a single city to build all troops, looking at the company scale instead of the regiment scale). Kohan 2 is about using different cities for different purposes, combining a variety of companies into powerful “combined arms” regiments, and having great RTS fights with almost no micromanagement. It really is deeper than KIS/KAG, with greater variety, and IMO, better battles. YMMV of course.
So is there any interest in a “Kohan Night” for QT3? Any weeknight or a weekend is fine by me with some advanced notice.
