So, I just got the complete King Arthur "role-playing wargame" and put in a few hours. Its on sale for 12 USD.
So far it is not much of a wargame, but it has slight rp elements: basicly meaning there are spells, moral "choices", level-ups and a storyline.
IMO it is impossible to look at a game like this without comparing it to the Total War Series, because it is the gold standard for formation-based battle simulation. By this measure, king arthur is lacking, at least thus far..but I am sure my first impression is correct overall, because there is none of the familar tactical elements from total war, such as pinning enemy heavy inf down with cheap units as you use horse units to charge them from the rear ect. Also, there are battlefield objectives that have to be captured for no apparent reason, and no matter how many men you have, you have to dedicate units to run around to take these stupid flags..really doesn't make a bit of sense.
My other beef with the game is the unit models are kind of sloppy looking from any distance besides max zoom in, and they are basicly clones, unlike MTW2. Also, unit animation is generic, rather than having individual members square off and duke it out as seen in RTW/MTW2/ETW, both parties just swing weapons in general directions. In general, King Arthur it lacks in the details that make the battles epic in total war.
However, for the price, it seems like you get a lot of game, and I am not saying it is bad, just from a long-time total war player perspective King Arthur is a bit weak. Maybe people who have played it much longer than I have can give a better review, but at this stage I would give a 63%.
At any rate, my steam name is jnecros if you wanna try out multiplay, I have not done so yet myself.