My first was Rome. I liked it, played it alot and then picked up Medieval 2, which I liked even more, as I find the time period much more interesting. Once I found the Stainless Steel mod I loved it and played hundreds if not thousands of hours on it. I never saw the point of trying Shogun or Medieval at that point.

Around the time Empire was coming out I was ready to buy, looking forward to it. But the early word was that it just wasn't a good game, more technically I think than anything else, so I held off. And then I got married, had a kid and didn't game for a few years, but that's another story.

Once I got back in to gaming I was looking for a new strategy game and ended up getting Crusader Kings 2, and then Europa Universalis 4, which I love, as you might tell from the thread here at SimHQ. During the most recent Steam sale I decided to pick up Shogun 2. I've heard great things about it. And it is a really good game. Focused, polished and deals with a part of history I know little about. I love the art style, and the game just evokes feudalistic Japan. At first I was really in to it, but by the time I hit realm divide I was feeling sort of bored with it. Don't know why really, but that's how I feel.

So I thought perhaps if I try another game I might find it grips me a bit more. I'm leaning toward Empire, which seems to be the title that divides the player base the most. For many players it's their favorite TW game, and for many their least favorite.

Which brings me to this thread. Curious as to which title you like the most, and hopefully, why. If you can rank the titles you've played, and even better if you can detail why you feel that way I'd appreciate it.

FWIW, what made me gravitate away from TW games to Paradox games was I felt the non-battle aspects were weak. Diplomacy, espionage, politics that sort of thing. And in Shogun 2 I don't find it any better really. I've read many posts saying how good diplomacy is in Shogun 2, but I didn't see it, and frankly, realm divide made me feel that diplomacy was pointless.

The battles are still glorious, and I'm not expecting much from the other layers. But curious to know how others feel about the various TW games, including Rome 2 and Atilla. And if you feel certain mods make any of the games even more fantastic please share, like how I felt Stainless Steel transformed M2 in to a much better game.

I've never used any mods for any of the TW games. Having said that, I've been very impressed with Total War: Attila so far. The graphics are a huge improvement over those of Rome II but I'll also warn that it's a bigger frame rate hog as well. The diplomacy and family intrigue is a lot more complex and detailed than Rome II and the decisions you are faced with make more sense imho.

I enjoyed TW: Empire but I think TW: Napoleon is the better game across the board. You don't have any of the weird frame rate slow downs that you do in Empire and it's just simply a much more polished game.

I would say that TW: Attila, TW: Rome II and TW: Shogun 2 are my top 3 favorite titles from the series.

Thanks PM, it's interesting what you say about Napoleon. I get the feeling that many people regard it as a linear campaign that should have been an add-on for Empire. Narrow scope. Not necessarily a bad thing, but wonder why you feel it is better than Empire. The sheer scope of Empire appeals to me but not at the cost of gameplay. I understand your technical reasons, but do you feel it has better gameplay than Empire?

Did you play any of the TW titles prior to Empire?

One knock on Rome 2 that I've been reading is that there is little variety between factions. Is that the case?

I've played all of them except for the first Shogun and Medieval and Attila.
My favourites are Empire and Napoleon, and Medieval II. I really like the scope of Empire, it has a lot of replay value.

I'm not sure why, but I just couldn't get into Shogun II, and I simply haven't had enough time for Rome II to evaluate it [I stopped, for lack of gaming time, in the midst of the tutorial campaign) but I didn't really care for the "control point" system... part of the appeal of the TW series is trying different, out-of-the-box tactics and the "hold this area and then this area and also this area" seems unnecessarily constraining. But maybe that's only during the tutorial?

I played the original Shogun but for whatever reason I didn't come back to the TW series until Empire. I've not played either of the Medieval games or the original Rome.

There are quite a few factions in Rome 2 that are similar; namely the Hellenistic ones and the Celtic ones. So under the first group you have Athens, Seleucids, Epirus and Macedonia which all have mostly the same units and under the second group you have factions like the Arverni, Boii, Tylis, Nervii and the Volcae whic have the same set of units for the most part. I've found that Rome, Egypt, Suebi and the Persian Empire to be the most distinct. There are a crapload of different factions to play so even if some are very similar to each other I don't think it's a huge deal.


Oh, and concerning Napoleon, it has a really excellent narrative driven campaign game if you play as the French. I found that it really immmerses you in the game if you are a big fan of the history of the Napoleonic wars. But yeah, I guess you can say that TW: Napoleon could have been an add-on for Empire since so many of the same units and buildings are re-used.

Thanks for the replies, it helps alot. Another reason I am leaning toward Empire is that I can play as Prussia. 'nuff said. Although it isn't 'nuff said because it's probably true that they aren't any different than Saxony or Bavaria or Austria, am I right? Do nations have some sort of uniqeness in Empire? I understand there is variety from continent to continent, that is England will be very different from Ottomans for example, but is there anything special from say one Germanic nation to the next?

In the TW series it seems sort of a rock-paper-scissors thing when the nations are so similar. There's a bit of asymmetry to EU 4 which is part of it's appeal.

I agree with Panzer that Napoleon is quite a bit more polished than Empire, but since there are only five playable factions--England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia--it does not have the epic world wide scope or replay-ability that Empire has. Of course in Napoleon, if you play as Prussia, you do get Gebhard Leberecht Von Blucher as one of your best generals and no period in history can compete with the snappy uniforms of the Napoleonic wars. Consequently while they may play a bit the same, the armies do not look like cookie cutter versions of each other.

On the other hand, with the exception of India, North Africa, and the native American forces in Empire--most of the nations in have exactly the same uniforms--only differing in color for each faction. In other words the only difference in a standard infantryman from Prussia, France, or England is the color of their tri-corn hat and uniform.

If you like age of sail naval combat, you will get more of that in Empire than Napoleon since almost every nation in Empire has a fleet and there are also pirate factions raiding your trade lanes. In Napoleon, only England and France start with decent fleets, and it takes a while for France to try to take on Nelson's boys.

However, Empire is marked 75% off on Steam presently, so you can pick up the base game for $5 or the Empire collection which includes all the unit packs and the Warpath mini-campaign for $8.74.

I'd wait for a similar sale on Napoleon since it's about $15 presently and that's only the base game.

Too bad you didn't start this thread week before last. To celebrate their 15th anniversary, Sega/Creative Assembly had all their TW titles on Steam set up for a free to play weekend with all but Attila marked 50 to 75% off. Of course one might not have been able to try them all, but at the least one could have still had time to get a good taste of the titles they were most interested in.

Good Luck with your choice.

I enjoyed playing as Prussia in TW: Napoleon but playing as the French was the most fun since it was also the greatest challenge.

Oh, I forgot to mention one major new introduction with TW: Attila. The Huns are nomadic so each Hun army has its own self contained set of temporary buildings that provide income. You have no settlements as the Huns. You can either raze or sack enemy settlements but you can't capture them. Playing as the Huns makes for a VERY different Total War experience.

Well it's a certainly worth a punt at that price, isn't it?

So I did indeed pick up Empire, and started a H/H campaign as the glorious Kingdom of Prussia. So far I like it. Managed to annex Saxony and took Danzig from the Commonwealth. Then Kurland/Courland declared on me and that's where it stands. I suspect Austria will be invading soon and they have many allies so I need to figure out how to appease them. Don't really have a clue how to go about diplomacy, I hope it's not just a matter of paying them repeatedly.

I like the battle layer, especially the maps and the pace. It's somewhat slower and more tactical than say Shogun 2.

Only thing I can think of that I don't care for is replenishment. That will get old quickly.

Ah right. That's where you have to select and pay for the units that you want to replenish. I agree that it was a pain.

I guess the best thing to do is just drag unit cards to fill them out and choose to replenish the one left understrength.

I think the problem with that is that it dilutes any units you may have with veterancy (experience ranks). If the units are green with no experience then merging the units has no drawbacks.

Yes you're right, but I assumed that replenishment would have the same effect. Do you know if it does?

No it doesn't. In the real world it should make a difference but in the game it doesn't.

Ahh thanks PM, that helps, and I will use replenishment to keep the veterancy. Appreciated.

Rome 2. closely followed by TW Napoleon...

What is it about Rome 2 that puts it at the top of your list?

I love that period... the republic in the time of Caesar, and the early Imperial times, as opposed to the later times of Attila. which doesn't interest me at all.
It's a game, it's not perfect, and I know the 'experten' out there gnashed their teeth and cried about it, but I don't care much about what the so called experts said what it should do and how it was released etc, but I have had no problem with it

It's been my experience that if you have a genuine academic interest in the historical period in question then that will contribute greatly to your enjoyment of the Total War title that covers that period.

What fascinates me about TW: Attila is that it covers a period when complete and widespread chaos swept across Europe and how a crumbling Western Roman Empire was desperately trying to stay together while an opportunist Eastern Roman Empire flourished.