Poll: Best Total War Game?
- Thread starter RabidWombat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Medieval 1, excellent game, Rome and Medieval 2 (and empire, but I don't count that as a TW game) had a few flaws, and I really hate being able to claim any city without a secure supply line, they were good, graphically stunning, but Medieval + Mods was amazing, so much I play it the most.
Option 6: I suck at all of them, yet own half. Why? I don't actually know 
. Takes too long to get into it personally, I'd rather shoot stuff or do fun puzzles. I guess you could say I have a short attention span, but when one turn in the Total War games, takes about as long as a game I would play in warcraft 3, and lots more than shooter games it kinda gets boring after building aqueducts for the 900th time. The most fun thing is the battles and they take forever too.
. Takes too long to get into it personally, I'd rather shoot stuff or do fun puzzles. I guess you could say I have a short attention span, but when one turn in the Total War games, takes about as long as a game I would play in warcraft 3, and lots more than shooter games it kinda gets boring after building aqueducts for the 900th time. The most fun thing is the battles and they take forever too.
I've kinda got a soft spot for Shogun since It's the only TW game I've played for a long time until I got Rome, but compared to the later ones Rome is my favourite.
Medieval II Total War. I loved being Scotland and then taking over everyone through bloody warfare and hostile takeovers/buyouts.
I enjoyed Rome the most in general. Empire has a lot of features that I appreciate but the AI seems to have an immense amount of trouble facing a prepared defense. While the game does occasionally deliver a tactical situation in which a seige (giving time to prepare my position) is unwise, most of the biggest battles I have engagaged in during the course of a number of campaigns have had the benefit of a prepared defense. The enemy rarely has significant numbers of mortar batteries meaning counter-battery fire quickly demolishes them. During the advance, my own long ranged guns take tremendous toll on the enemy and when the range gets close enough, direct fire 12+ pounders firing canister shot prove devistating. The enemy rarely attempts to flank in force (the key to defeating such a defense) and when they do manage to breach another segment of line they never seem to exploit it, instead deciding to stand and trade fire with my line troops, who have the benefit of significant cover) from the open.
Man, don't remind me. $50 wasted on that shit.Hardcore_gamer said:
Medieval II is my fav. I destroyed the first one, and missed out on Rome.
And any game that gives you an assassination vid of pegging the Pope with a crossbow gets awesome cool points in my mind.
Agree altho i chose England but since im an ignorant eaastern european for me its all the same kewlEcksTeaSea said:
There is something very appealing in the fact that you start at a small island and then rain down the arrows on the entire world. The germans always gave me trouble tho :S Its somehow natural to get them poke their swords in my affairs which always pissed me off!
But i voted for Shogun. Call it nostalgia :> its just the fist game i played of the series as a kid and i rly like samurai too
I'd say my favorite is Rome, but I also have a soft spot for the two Medievals, especially when playing as the Eastern Roman Empire and actually achieving the Renovatio Imperii Romanorum, centered on Κωνσταντινούπολη, having adopted the great philosopher's tongue thanks to Αὐτοκράτωρ Ἡράκλειος.
Rome: Total War because it had good graphics in great, big landscapes. But I also think Shogun was good because it was "ground-breaking" when it came out, you had never seen something like it before.
I have only played Shogun, Rome and MTW2. From these 3 I much preferred rome. Medieval total war felt weird to me. My system choked on it and the gameplay never came together for me. The battles felt weird, and it always came down to 2 huge blobs of spearmen killing each other. Archers didn't do as much damage as in rome and the cavalry seemed less effective too. MW2 seemed to be more about attrition than strategy when it came to the battle mode. On top of this most factions had the same starting setup of units: Spearmen, archers, spearmen, light cav and some spearmen. Rome had a much more varied approach.
I think I would have loved MW2 if I hadn't played Rome first. Having done that however, MW2 felt like a downgrade when it came to the battle mode. I'f I remember correctly though, the campaign map gameplay felt better than in rome, with more choices and interesting units. I loved the religion gameplay, and the power of the papal state. My favourite game was when I played as the russian empire of the north. Slowly weakening my enemies with assassins, spies and raids on their smaller towns. I played the catholic states against each other with bribes to keep them from concentrating on me. All went well but then ofcourse the mongols came...
The kingdoms expansion was awesome though.
I would love to try out ETW, but I'm afraid that even installing it will give my pc a hernia.
I think I would have loved MW2 if I hadn't played Rome first. Having done that however, MW2 felt like a downgrade when it came to the battle mode. I'f I remember correctly though, the campaign map gameplay felt better than in rome, with more choices and interesting units. I loved the religion gameplay, and the power of the papal state. My favourite game was when I played as the russian empire of the north. Slowly weakening my enemies with assassins, spies and raids on their smaller towns. I played the catholic states against each other with bribes to keep them from concentrating on me. All went well but then ofcourse the mongols came...
The kingdoms expansion was awesome though.
I would love to try out ETW, but I'm afraid that even installing it will give my pc a hernia.
I've played every one.
Rome was my favorite because it didn't have the pope (which was a particularly annoying mechanic) and it wasn't as glitched out as Empire is/was. When I tell a cannon to hold it's fire it should HOLD IT'S FUCKING FIRE and not mow down all of my troops that are walking in front of it.
Rome was my favorite because it didn't have the pope (which was a particularly annoying mechanic) and it wasn't as glitched out as Empire is/was. When I tell a cannon to hold it's fire it should HOLD IT'S FUCKING FIRE and not mow down all of my troops that are walking in front of it.
I'm split between Rome and Shogun. I have not played Empires though, because I heard that it's pretty bad.
One thing about Total War is that the mechanics and game design is geared more to the total conquest of the game map; the focus was endless warfare, not diplomacy or economics. I like my games to have a bit of flexibility, but stay within historical possibilities. I find that Medieval 1 was working too much off the Shogun system, and it ends up with insane empires that would have been completely impossible. However, Rome and Shogun don't suffer from this problem because conquering the entire map was excatly what they did (Rome didn't, but they came close).
The system was somewhat changed for Medieval 2, with good results. But I didn't find that game as good as Rome or Shogun.
One thing about Total War is that the mechanics and game design is geared more to the total conquest of the game map; the focus was endless warfare, not diplomacy or economics. I like my games to have a bit of flexibility, but stay within historical possibilities. I find that Medieval 1 was working too much off the Shogun system, and it ends up with insane empires that would have been completely impossible. However, Rome and Shogun don't suffer from this problem because conquering the entire map was excatly what they did (Rome didn't, but they came close).
The system was somewhat changed for Medieval 2, with good results. But I didn't find that game as good as Rome or Shogun.