Which Total War is your favorite?

Which Total War is your favorite?

I really enjoyed Shogun 2.

Fall of the Samurai

Rome or Medieval II

Warhammer was such a disappointment. I just couldn't care less about that meme setting.

enjoy your literal trash AI snoozefest

Rome or Medieval. Medieval is just a solid game and Rome is one my favorite settings, and Europa Babarorum was the shit.

I wish Rome 2 wasn't such a piece of shit.

Warhammer,easily

Name one TW game with even halfway decent AI.

Spiler: You cant.

Shogun 2 has the least horrible AI in the series along with Attila, though

>meme setting

jesus christ.

Third Age Total War, in other words: Medieval 2 Kingdoms

Europa Barbarorum is my all time favourite strategy game/mod. The only problem is that bugs can ruin saves in ways you'll only discover after another 3 to 10 turns.

Medieval is my favourite base game.

not FotS

Prove me wrong.

FOTS since positioning matters and it's not just melee spam

Attila is the best game in the series at least mechanically

>I wish Rome 2 wasn't such a piece of shit.
me too user, me too.
Rome is my favourite, mainly because i like the setting too

I didn't play Medieval 2 back then and cannot go back now but Shogun 2 remains my favorite. It's just too much fun

Hard to choose one.

>Shogun 2 / FotS
+best, most rounded gameplay
+good graphics
-every faction is the same

>Warhammer
+best faction variety
+good gameplay
+best graphics
+magic and flying units add new tactical options
-worst sieges
-no formations
-most magic is actually shit

>Medieval 2
+most and best mods
-mechanically broken

Medieval 2: Kingdoms is probably the best overall due to mods and various campaigns.
Rome 1 has the best vanilla campaign as long as you only play as the Roman factions. I spent years being hyped up for Rome 2 only to feel the disappointment wash over me the very same day that I first played it. Even after 15 (?) patches it was still shit. Attila did fix a fair amount of the issues present in Rome 2, but it was still a watered down game compared to the old instalments. I haven't played Warhammer and I doubt I'll buy whatever the next TW game is going to be.

-mechanically broken
How moreso than any other TW?

I DON'T NEED NO GUN

Any of them if you play on hard, since the AI are smart enough to cheat to beat you. That's pretty good

Just kidding the AI is shit and always will be

>Rome 1 has the best vanilla campaign as long as you only play as the Roman factions
Fuck no.

Mostly the broken pathfinding, and the unit engagements that love to bug out in unexpected ways.

Most of the older games suffered from this including the first Medieval and Rome, but as far as I remember it was far more annoying in Medi 2.

Not him but:

The AI can not navigate mountain maps at all and will put their entire army in 1 spot and not attack you at all, if you're on a mountain

Medieval is still by far my favorite game in the series. So much was dropped from it when they switched to 3D, things that didn't come back for Medieval 2. I especially miss the ability to elevate random commanders to lords because every had stats so it made sense to promote good people.

Doesn't warhammer have all the Attila mechanics but with fantasy?

>Warhammer
>Meme setting

Are you fucking retarded?

Nobody knew what Warhammer Fantasy was until CA did the most brazen shit and created an entire game dedicated to WHFB.

Attila

Random units will promote to generals if you win a general-less battle in M2

Rome 1
Just started a new greek playthrough
Spartan hoplites and greek archers stronk

>Lord Tzimisce(s)
VAMPYR

Which is stupid. I want more control, not less.

'Man of the Hour' was present in the first 3D total wards but was probably removed due to how you essentially could spawn broken generals by winning outnumbered battles

With DME it's FUN

but yeah, if CA could just shmooze Napoleon and Empire togeather and import the TW:Warhammer AI, that'd be greeeeeeaaaat.

Cretan archers, that is

No, Warhammer has less campaign and battle mechanics than any other Total War.
Attila had the most in depth mechanics like food/disease/family tree gameplay etc, Warhammer has nothing of this.

Rome also has some amazing Hellenic mods.

is it good?
i've tried couple times and i can't convince myself to like it
shogun 2 was perfect, Attila feels just different and weird

It has very little borrowed from Attila like integrity renamed to Greenskin flightiness

Stuff like family trees and food, famine and the late game ice age are not in Warhammer

my nigga
Empire was my favorite TW, too bad it feels clunky and broken now, can't really go back to it

but that entire world scale and unit variety was perfect

i still hope for Empire 2 TW some day

That's a good thing IMO.

It's called Total War, not Total Civil Development.

Empire is pure trash since it's AI is nonexistent. All it does is run straight at your lines into melee firing maybe one or two volleys. And lets not forget that you can't lose as Britain since the AI is too stupid to put troops at their boats and land at your shores.
I never had a real line battle in this game.

My problem with Warhammer and how it's structured is that it's infinitely less replayed because all factions are basically locked into their "story mode". It's the kind of deal where you play each leader once and that's it.

>was never big into Total War campaign
>loved Rome for its multiplayer
>never bothered to try Medieval 2 with the Rome community still going strong
>Empire and Napoleon, CA's puberty phase. Never really enjoyed the whole guns theme but found Napoleon multiplayer OK from time to time.
>Shogun 2 drops, daresay I loved the multiplayer as much as Rome,game was great despite every multiplayer faction being nearly identical/borderline p2w
>really felt CA was moving in a powerful direction
>Rome II
>jesus christ what the fuck
>blatantly p2w, selling entire factions that always"" conveniently"" broken when released
>riddled with glitches and bugs for nearly a year and a half - worst TW launch in memory
>that ridiculous Snyder/Nolan movie color wash
>Warhammer drops, borderline excited even though I never got into the lore
>Buy it, hop in multiplayer, beat an army using the tactics I've been using for years
>start having fun again
>one lone dwarf wizard is alive on the enemy team, kills my entire army

CW better get their shit together, and fast. My entire list of steam friends I've collected from Shogun and Rome and even Napoleon have dropped this franchise like a bad habit. What the fuck is going through the heads of their upper management designing these games? Why are they killing multiplayer and pushing campaign so hard, when there are countless better RTS for campaign, and multiplayer was *always* TW's main attraction?

This and Napoleon were my favorite, absolutely love the setting even if ETW is completely broken and NTW is confined to Europe.

Rome is right up there though.

>Attila did fix a fair amount of the issues present in Rome 2, but it was still a watered down game compared to the old instalments
It might not match up to mods like Europa Barbarorum and Stainless Steel but I would argue it's the most involved TW game unmodded.

Of course, there are things it lacks (like dynamic trait and retinue acquisition for generals: they can gain some traits but by and large that form of customization is replaced by talent trees) but it incorporates all modern TW features from LoS in battles to attrition, a number of features previous iterations have lost make a comeback (like governors), mechanics that have been present prior are implemented non-awfully enough for them to matter (for example, for what I feel is the first time, you can actually make deals with the AI and understand why they are behaving such as they are) and it has a number of new features like hordes.

Why don't you play only custom battles then? The name doesn't mean that the campaign has to be a brain dead snoozefest.
Deep campaign mechanics improve the gameplay immensely.

I liked the naval combat is Fall of the Samurai.

>multiplayer was *always* TW's main attraction?
Never for me.

Warhammer also lacks burnable cities which is the best shit CA ever added in

Only thing that saved Empire for some people was the time period. It was and remains a colossal fuckup surpassed only by Rome 2 because Empire's failings at least largely stemmed from the new engine and associating issues.

attila is ok, fertility is neat but the building trees are retarded, losing public order from having shit like farms, for instance. AoC dlc adds war weariness which is neat, but also gay in many ways.

The longer that wars go on in stalemate the worse your public order and tax rate will be factionwide, along with 1 or 2 other affects I can't remember, if you are at a disadvantage in the fighting things are worse, if you're at an advantage it can be non existent. As the danes I was in wars for almost all of my game, 160~ turns before i won the campaign, 0 war weariness because I did well and won lots of battles, barely ever lost a city, retake them shortly after losing them and so forth.

I've seen it go differently in other campaigns though

>AI kingdom on your border declares war on you because they're dicks
>they have an ally somewhere ages away
>get peace with the faction on your border after beating their armies and sacking their shit or whatever you did, maybe the war is over because you completely wiped them out and took all their land
>their dumb shit ally half way across the world won't accept peace because you haven't personally crushed their armies
>they can lose all their stacks and half their regions but because you didn't do it, they don't feel threatened
>the longer this retarded stalemate continues the more weary your people get for some reason, despite the war having zero impact on anything ever in either kingdom

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because there's no continuity in custom battles, of course. The difference between playing a pitched battle or a great military campaign is almost as big as it is between playing sim city or a military campaign.

It's the military campaign I'm after, not a pitched battle, and not sim city.

Yeah the base game by itself is really badly made for line battles/gun mechanics, I just have a huge bonor for this period of time. HOWEVER, the Darth Mod Empire (DME) mod fixes this quite well, it's not perfect but it gives the AI in battles the ability to fight using actual 18th century tactics.

Also gives the ability to play as a ton of other empires/minor nations and adds a shitton of new units to the game.

Not perfect, but makes the game actually playable.

Attila is good but it has so many annoying little things. Like the fact that AI never resettles razed provicens. Also razing as whole is pretty damn stupid. It shouldn't happen so fucking fast.

The Charlemagne DLC is top tier however.

>Why are they killing multiplayer and pushing campaign so hard, when there are countless better RTS for campaign, and multiplayer was *always* TW's main attraction?
Casuals fear PvP.

It's really that simple. CA noticed that the majority of players never touched multiplayer at all, so they started focusing more and more in the singleplayer.

>one lone dwarf wizard is alive on the enemy team, kills my entire army

No.

>Why are they killing multiplayer and pushing campaign so hard, when there are countless better RTS for campaign, and multiplayer was *always* TW's main attraction?

That's actually the opposite reaction I get these days. Faster pace and higher micro needs seem to lend themselves more towards multiplayer.

>Medieval 2: Kingdoms is probably the best overall due to mods and various campaigns.

Hell yeah. And you KNOW that would've been split into four DLC packs today.

>one lone dwarf wizard is alive on the enemy team, kills my entire army

Are you retarded?

I heard shogun 2 multiplayer had generals that you could level up like a campaign, reduce enemy morale or attack etc, unlock overpowered units to the point some people were just rolling full stacks of warrior monks

Was this accurate? Seems a bad move to stack the game with almost children at play levels of "nur but I was wearing a forcefield" retardation in a strategy game.

I enjoy Warhammer.

With the Radious Mod.

I don't care I am having fun.

The AI is terribly bad in battle, and the campaigns seem to be getting less in depth as the series progresses. There are better RTS that get the same job done. I'm not saying CA shouldn't focus on the single-player too but to just give multiplayer the finger when it was the best RTS battle game on the market is just dumbfounding. It's like if Germany stopped making cars or Japan abandoned hentai.

Currently, Attila.

White Huns 4 lyf

Avatar Conquest mode was great. Buggy, but with tremendous potential to grow had CA developed it in future games.

Rome 1 because it's the one i played the most and always had a blast.
Shogun 2 is a strong contender because of how generally good it is, including the expansions.
I have to admit i've also been playing Attila recently and i'm surprised at how good it is, seems like they fixed most of the issues that Rome had while adding more features.

I still don't get why they didn't add Avatar Conquest to Warhammer. Unless they're just holding out on it so they can sell it as a DLC or expansion later on.

Unlike in Shogun, having a heroic avatar that gets stronger and stronger actually makes sense in Warhammer, and with magic and shit the number of ways you could develop your avatar would be increased significantly as well.

That's a bit of over exaggerated. The Avatar system had its pro's and con's, but you were matched against generals of relatively equal strength and the system allowed variety in the otherwise identical armies.

No, but this game sure is. It's great that mythology is in the game, it's not great that you can play like a fucking idiot with your army and then bash few buttons to win anyway.

>Casuals fear PvP
Well what do you expect when Rome 2 was so clearly p2w and balanced horribly, and Warhammer is broken as stated above

>All that destroyed middle east
You're gona run out of factions to destroy eventually.

Not avatar conquest, just battles. Didn't you level up your general in that too?

>you can play like a fucking idiot with your army and then bash few buttons to win anyway
I'm 100% sure you were the only one playing like a fucking idiot if you were beaten by one dwarf "wizard". Never mind the fact that dwarfs have no wizards.

I've played each one religiously since Rome. My favourite is probably Rome, but I loved the features of Empire, even if the AI was anus and ruined it a lot for me.

>Playing Attila as some Germanic tribe
>''Ok i have 2 towns and 2 solid armies, time to take on Western Rome''
>Meet a full stack with my full stack+another half stack
>Not even worried
>Look at enemy troops while on the field
>They ALL have heavy armor
>Watch as my slingers and Archers use all their ammo and get almost no kills
>Then watch as my light infantry gets butchered
I underestimated the power of Rome

Call them whatever you like, the point remains they play far too pivotal of a role in the battle. They're single units that make up half of a team's length on the balance bar, and only the delusional think that's not a problem.

In all honesty, I can kind of see why CA decided not to implement cities in Total War, because if you actually look in the lore and the way cities are laid out, especially fucking Mordheim, the cities in Warhammer are retardedly fucking ridiculous, some having multiple layer heights, and almost every one of them with narrow streets and corridors. Sieges would have been a pain in the ass. The FPS drop would have been insane too.

Just look at Vermintide for example.

A Warhammer fagboi would have not accepted or been okay with a small settlement like you see in most Total Wars from Rome to Medieval.

Which is why when you look at sieges all you get is a small wall patch and vistas of fuck huge cities in the background.

But man, it would have been great though, having actual cities.

I'm reeeaaally holding out hope for a Victoria Total War next. I loved the absolute carnage you could inflict in FotS with armstrong guns, breech loaded rifles, and Gatlings. More of that please.

Plus the naval combat was the best the series ever had, even if the maps were a bit small. Imagine huge maps with turreted warships that fired from miles away. Empire/Napoleon was okay in this regard, but it felt too clunky and the cannons felt weak.

I wish I could play the more recent TW titles with Rome or Med2's campaign map.
I fucking hate how gimped you are in terms of constructing your cities and armies and how armies replenish automatically at the speed of light, making any casualties you inflict or sustain almost meaningless unless said army is completely wiped out.

>mfw fending off full stacks of barbarians with just the garrison alone
Nearly destroys me but damn if it doesn't them think twice

This. It is best total war multiplayer

You're delusional.

Let's assume for a moment that you're not lying (which is where my money is), and that your entire army did indeed get wrecked by one dwarf wizard (which, as stated, isn't a wizard).

First off, the dwarf priests are buffing units. Their magic is used to make their troops stronger. On their own, they're not that scary. So maybe you simply got your shit pushed in by buffed dwarf troops, in which case that's a clear failure on your part. Or maybe your army got so ravaged that a single dwarf leadership unit was managed to rout them all, in which case that's again a clear failure on your part. Or, the third option, all your leadership units got wrecked and your army's morale plummeted as a result, which (you guessed it) is a clear failure on your part once more.

It's ok if you don't like the idea of having magic play a role in how battles play out, but if you make up dumb scenarios to support your point taht only makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

>everyone always sucks FotS' dick
>these people also forget RotS exists

Genpei War was interesting, shame it gets pretty much ignored.

Not that other user, but I am thinking you probably didn't have anti-armor weapons or units. Dwarves thing is that even their base infantry has good armor. Runesmiths are ok combatants, but their deal is the runes they can cast. You put enough ranged fire, anti-armor, or just swamp them with enough decent damage infantry and they will fold.

Only late-game Lords and Heroes with a shit ton of points into combat skills can really tank armies. And even then they are still counterable with your own Lords and Heroes.

Except the Vamps whose shtick is health regen, but their armies fold like paper to compensate.

It is just a case of being new to Warhammer TW and less a balance issue. Once you know the in and outs of the system you will be laughing as you watch enemy Lords lose half their health to artillery or ranged units before they hit your lines, then break their morale and chase them down.

Garrisons in Rome 2 and Attila were too powerful in general anyway IMO. Being able to wreck full stacks with just a garrison ruins any sense of strategy.

t. volound

>these people also forget RotS exists
They don't forget it, they just remember that it's not nearly as food as Fall.

Midieval II was the last good one.

Not really. They've tried to do something different, so in the process the game is just plain weird. The whole theme just doesn't stick together. You are playing it under normal TW rules, yet actively being punished with expanding, because someone dediced it would be such a great idea to make a game about overextension in a series all about over-extending. And since AI is brain-dead, there is no challenge in expansion, so you need to literally hold yourself in stop to not fuck yourself.
Thus being rewarded for not playing the game, as you pass idle turns and only defend yourself after certain point, which is fucking boring.

Faction balance is also utter shit.

It's confirmed that they have a team working on a historical TW game that's not set in any of the periods they've already done, so who knows, maybe it'll be Victorian age.

Really hoping for a Victorian total war after getting to play with all those neat toys.

Playing Satsuma is ridiculous.

The whole point of walls and fortification is so that a small force can defend against a larger force.
I don't think that back in the day people preferred putting cities to the siege and waiting people to surrender because they were lazy, but because assaulting walls is incredibly hard.

Total War: WE WUZ KANGS

1400-1700.

Medieval 2 because of setting, mechanics and mods. Rome is a close second because who doesn't like anything Roman.

But I'm really starting to like Total War Warhammer. The setting is great, the AI is pretty decent, and the game overall is just fucking fun.

I wonder how they'll do a proper rendition of the timer period justice in the grand campaign. It would required basically they entire globe as well as unique mechanics for colonization, nationalist revolutions, and the formation of countries. All while having a huge ass map.

I guess France is going to be one province again.

Rome 2 is good with with DeI r..right?

I tried Rome mods but I just couldn't get over its age ;_;

I need lebensraum for my many goat herds. It's not my fault the Sasanids were in the way.

Total War The Three Kingdoms

ITS CONFIRMED!!

I don't mind the battle taking place on one wall. Besides what you just said, it also makes it easier for the AI to handle.

What I hate is how utterly artificial they feel with units teleporting up and down the walls and such like. In addition, while I don't mind artillery cheese (ie. parking your forces outside the enemy firing range and barraging enemy forces into submission and then moving in to mop them up opposed) becoming more difficult to execute for this reason, I also don't like the kind of huge firepower towers have, which makes it awful to attempt any kind of systematic approach that doesn't involve artillery cheese.

I've really only played Medieval, Medieval 2, and Warhammer. Of those, Warhammer is my favorite.