Zhukov said:
So, with that in mind, which of the other titles would you recommend? I'm kind of leaning toward Empire or Napoleon, is either of those considered strictly better than the other? Not really interested in Shogun (apparently the battles resolve really fast and it has a rock-paper-scissors approach to unit types). Medieval 2 seems thematically dull, but I'll take it if it's mechanically superior. Don't know much about the rest.
I'll try and summarise the advantages and disadvantages of them:
Rome:
+ Massively varied map, campaign, and unit roster. Pretty much every faction has at least a few unique units, and mercenaries mix things up as well.
+ Decent UI, is a solid engine and platform. Not buggy (except some siege pathfinding, but that's not a real problem)
+ Is the most colourful and expressive total war game. Insane strategies will sometimes work, specialised units are horribly effective, meaning you can really play as a Magnificent Bastard, and feel correspondingly proud when you pull it off.
- Is dated now.
- Is absurdly unbalanced/exploitable in some ways (looking at you General Bodyguard, Berserkers, forester warband)
- AI is flawed compared to later versions (though general tactical colourfulness mitigates this).
Medieval II:
+ Generally solid - the engine is refined, the units relatively balanced, but still varied enough to be interesting
+ Really significant evolution of units - you go from shield walls to musketeers during the course of the campaign
+ Tones down some of Rome's 'eccentricities' while maintaining a level of tactical effectiveness.
+ Kingdom's expansion is probably one of the best DLC's ever. 4 complete campaign scenarios with modified mechanics, about 15 mostly new factions, different maps.
- Is distinctly medieval. If you don't like the era that might be an issue.
- Newer than Rome but still dated and AI flawed.
Empire:
+
Massive globe spanning map. Theatres in Europe, Middle East, India, North America, Carribean. Smaller naval trade locations in Africa, South America, East Indies.
+ Naval Battles and emphasis on naval trade - blockades, trade routes, etc are really important, making global strategy and diplomacy a must.
- Really fucking buggy; Memory leaks, dodgy AI, crashes, save issues. Back up your saves, mods needed for best experience
- Might be too big for first time Total War player, campaign is kind of sparse.
- Line infantry tactics interesting, but battle tactics a lot more static and attritive, imo a bit boring.
- Small unit roster, though that is mitigated by getting the unit DLCs.
Napoleon:
+ Campaigns a lot tighter and more involved
+ Units tweaked so that battles are more tactical than Empire (though not as much as Rome or Medieval II)
- Much smaller map than Empire - Europe only, less emphasis on trade.
- Unit roster still small, though a little more varied in abilities now
Shogun II:
+ Pretty, and battle animations great, battlefield terrain varied enough to keep things interesting
+ AI is actually decently aggressive in campaign
- Naval combat is
abysmal. Pathfinding is shite, units are frustratingly poor, outcomes seem determined by chance.
- Unit roster is crap - only a few types of unit, and not that much difference between them. Factions are all basically identical.
- Even though it's melee based, the battles always seem to devolve into attritive messes. Less tactical than Empire.
I normally put multiple hundred hours into total war games, I put about 20 into Shogun II before giving up.
I've only played Rome II about 15 hours so far, so I won't comment on it yet. But what I can already say is that it's better than Shogun II!
All things considered I'd narrow it down to Napoleon, Rome, or Medieval II. Of those it depends what grabs you.
Rome I remains my favourite game of all time, so I'll vote for that, but any of those three are a pretty good choice as an introduction to the series.