Hi everyone. I'm new here and have never played any of the Total War series.

However, since I got a new computer, I have just downloaded the demos for Rome Total War and for Medieval 2 Total War. I am a bit overwhelmed by both of them.

Now my first question if this. Which of the Total War Series is the best and/or which would you begin with?

My other question is this. I have played Age of Empires (AoE/RoR and Age of Kings) and I have played Civilization 1 and 3. Since I have a new computer I have just bought Age of Empires 3 and Civilization 4. How does the Total War Series compare to these?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

stwils

Reply

For your first question, I personally would say go for the latest, Medieval 2, unless you're really much much more into the Classical era. The general cnsensus is that M2TW is a good improvement over RTW.

As for the second, it really depends hpw you enjoy those other games. Because I personally don't like them, so for me, there's no comparison ;)

Welcome :D

Reply

STW is probably going to have compatibility issues, not surprising since it's an old game.
MTW will probably work but if you have a Nvidea card you need to lay hands on an old driver, otherwise it won't work. MTW I can recommend, it's less glossy but has several great features that weren't carried over to newer TW games.
RTW I wouldn't buy if I were you. If the classical setting appeals to you, you might want to, but it has numerous historical inaccuracies. There are lots of good mods for it, though.

Reply

I've got Civ III & IV, and enjoy both of them, and I also play AoE:AoK. I like both series a lot, although the gameplay is quite different in each and more focused on certain aspects. Its pretty impossible to compare them, as each has quite different ways of doing things. I dnt have M2TW but put RTW above MTW & STW, after playing both as well. For outright gameplay though, the Total War series is my pick compared to the others.

As D Wilson above me says, start with M2TW. I've heard its much improved, as it should be, so unless you like the roman times, I wouldn't try RTW. Start with the latest :)

Reply

Just a bit more, I dnt mind the historical inaccuracies of RTW, I play for the game, and if you really are concerned about "getting it right" and it subtracts from the game to have things not quite historically correct, RTW might not appeal. But for me, I'm re-writing history in the game anyway haha, so a few innaccuracies don't bother me :)

Reply

You're right, and it's very difficult to get historical accuracy levelled with what you do in the game so that's why I tend to play only short campaigns as they tend to concentrate on regions and conflicts historically linked to the factions. But I digress; I suspect the thread isn't quite about that!

Reply

I have to chime in with a I'd give MTW a shot. I don't know if I'm biased (I've never tried RTW or M2TW), but from the people I have heard who have all three seem to agree that from a gameplay perspective MTW still rules the roost.

Not to mention its got to be disturbingly cheap.

I've played Civ 1 and Civ 3, and you'll seem some similarities in especially the strategy map actions. Teching up, alliances, diplomats and the etc. Civ 3 is a bit more complicated diplomacy wise, but it'll feel the same.

Battles are a whole new thing entirely. Battles in MTW aren't anything like the Civ games.

The comparisons could last along time. Both MTW and the Civ games are extremely complex, in the end if you liked those games there is a good chance you'll like MTW.

Reply

Only played RTW.

Imagine AoE1 is a bad imitation of RTW

Reply

AoE1 came out first though, didn't it?

I'm not a fan of those RTS games where you have to build and recruit on the battlefield and the emphasis seems to be on how many you can recruit rather than tactics.

Reply

First of all: welcome stwils

Like others stated before, give MTW a try. It might not look very nice considering todays standards, but it's amazing in terms of gameplay and atmosphere.

It was my first TW game and allthough RTW and M2TW look much better, I never had this magic feeling I had with MTW.

RTW is a nice game too, but the atmosphere of M2TW is much better imho. There's also the matter of difficulty. RTW is just way too easy, especially the battles. On the other hand, some players might like the game that much because it is easy. Who doesn't like to play a game with 99 % certainty he's going to win, heh. If you're looking for nice graphics and a bit of a challenge, you should definitely choose M2TW over RTW.

But still, if you don't mind graphics, give MTW a try. And if you have an old PC gathering dust somewhere in the basement then go and try STW on it.

So basically, my advice is: get all four of them.

What did you expect, on a TW-fan site

Reply

Welcome to the Org stwils
Rome was not in AoE, it appeared in it's expantion pack - The Rise of Rome.

It really does depend on what you like. R:TW and M2:TW are, on the battlemap, like a battle in AoE with more troops and formations and slightly better graphics. The strat map, turn based where you train troops and build buildings, is complety different and cannot really be compared to any aspect of AoE. MTW and STW are not as pretty, but have better strat map AI and more balanced units on the battlemap.

The best place to start would be, in my opinion, on R:TW. It has many mods you can improve it with and it is not too hard for the new player. Also AoE is, on the battlemap, most like this game.

Reply

Historical nitpick: I just love how AoE had a Canaanite faction and a Phoenician faction. and that the X-pack added a Carthaginian faction, while all are actually the same culture

Still, AoE was a fun game, even though it doesn't score very well on historical accuracy.
RTW had potential but just has to many problems.

Reply

I've never played an AoE game, and the only Civ game I've ever played was Civ2. I've played alot of other RTS's such as C&C, Warcraft1/2/3, Stronghold, overall I found them limited and boring. C&C games were sort of mission based and had some objective, so they weren't too bad, though they've never held my interest. WC was clickfest cartoonish stupidity from start to finish, no strategy or tactics, just turn out units faster than the AI, and attack using the same formula. Certain units would get obolete quickly and it was pointless training them. The newer releases may be better, I'm not going to bother to find out. Civ2 was quite refreshing at first, but after clicking "ok" thousands of times and ordering 100's of buildings to be constructed while waging war against the "Persians" and their billions of subs in the 1930's it became a tedious chore that virtually enslaved you to the PC.

You're better off with a Total War game by a long shot. Real strategy, units that have different purposes that don't become obsolete so easily. Real strategy, tactics that are worthwhile, no cheesey fastclicking rubbish. If your spec can handle it and eye candy graphics are important to you, then I would advise you to go with M2TW and bypass RTW. If eye candy is still a factor then RTW with mods may be the answer. If like me and graphics are not all important, and your PC is not exactly the latest and greatest then MTW may be worthwhile.

Reply

Hi stwils

If your PC can handle it you should go for M2TW otherwise go for MTW. I'd give RTW a miss, I went straight back to MTW after about 2 months with RTW.

As far as comparing Total War to Civ - Total War is pretty much about the battles - it doesn't come close to civ on the empire management side of things but it isn't ment to.

I play Civ when I feel like a good emplire building game and Total War when I want to unleash my hordes on Europe.

Reply

Hey stwils,

Basically it falls to a matter of opinion, preferences and subjectivity. So before you start ask you're self you honest preferences:

Favourite era?
Money to spend?
Are graphics an issue? Not an issue? (a.k.a. eye candy/no eye candy)
Looking for modifications?
Want a challenging game? What sort of challenge?
Is historical accuracy an issue?

Read the guides and see what draws your attention (actually skim or you will be up all night fretting ), look at screenshots, read the opinions of others, etc.

Hopefully you will be able to decide of your own accord.

Reply

Hi and welcome.

For my money, MTW1 + VI can't be beaten, especially with all the mods. What I love is that you have to use real tactics, unlike the train and click faster than the enemy sort of RTS games. I used to play AoE, Praetorians and the various C&C incarnations, but once I came across TW games no other game has had a look in (except maybe solitaire when my CD-drive packed in once )

I still go back to STW on occasion (like just now!) but as was mentioned above, it's an old game, and even MTW1 is old enough to give some trouble with Nvidia cards. I have a GeForce 5200 and need to change drivers to switch between MTW and RTW for instance. I haven't tried MTW2 yet, so can't comment on that. But after MTW's depth of gameplay RTW was a disappointment, and I soon got bored and rolled back my drivers for MTW and STW again.

And replayability is a huge factor - MTW which you can pick up for $10/£10 will not get old even after 3 or 4 years!

Enjoy!

Reply

Welcome to the Org, stwils; we're glad you could join us.

In answer to your second question, it really depends on what you like. Since you like both types of games (turn-based and real-time strategy), odds are very good you'll enjoy Total War games, as they (in our humble opinion here at the Org) combine the best elements of both. If - when playing AoE or another RTS - you wished for something a less "cheesy", then you'll probably enjoy TW games quite a bit. Battles in Total War games are (usually) much more realistic -- victory depends on the types of troops both armies have, terrain, weather, morale, fatigue, etc....and all of these things are interrelated. Also, the campaigns in TW games are a bit more interactive, as you directly dispatch generals, army units, & agents to do your bidding. If you sometimes wished the Civ games felt more concrete and less abstract, then the TW empire-building aspects should appeal to you as well.

Now as for which *specific* TW game you should play, that's a little more difficult to answer. Not to sound patronizing to those with specifc preferences, but they're all enjoyable in their own way. I personally am a huge fan of Shogun and the original Medieval -- I still play both titles fairly regularly (if not as often as I used to), even though I've owned them for years. Still, your mileage may vary. I'll try and do a quick overview of each:

Shogun -
Pros: The original game that started it all. Absolutely terrific atmosphere -- probably the best I've ever experienced -- it really captures the "feel" of medieval Japan. (Beautiful music, voice-acting, sound & weather effects, etc.) Probably has the best AI overall, both in battle and on the campaign map. It's also the most well-balanced of the TW games, especially in terms of army units. If you like samurai and/or exotic locales, then Shogun is right up your alley.

Possible cons: Graphics are obviously outdated by today's standards. Also has a relatively simplistic campaign -- which may or may not be a bad thing (some people prefer its elegant simplicity). Still, if you're a gamer that likes lots of strategic options on the campaign map, then Shogun may feel a little spartan. Also, as someone else pointed out, new computers sometimes have problems running Shogun.

Medieval (1) (*my personal favorite*) -
Pros: Good atmosphere (especially for the Muslim factions), although it does lack something compared to Shogun. Decent computer opponents, although again not as good as Shogun's. Religion is pretty involved and a lot of fun - you've got priests, Inquisitors, Crusades, Jihads, etc. A *lot* more factions and units to play with. Castle sieges are fun to watch (although the AI handles them rather poorly). Diplomacy is a little more fleshed out, as you can now use princesses to secure alliances between factions. Vices & Virtues add character to your generals & governors, in addition to giving them valuable attributes. Finally, a metric ton of very good mods are available, greatly improving the game's replayability.

Possible cons: Graphics aren't great (since it uses Shogun's engine). Trade income is very overpowered, and puts the AI opponents at a huge disadvantage (quite a few mods do fix this, however). Naval combat can be nonsensical and frustrating at times. Certain places such as Constaninople, Cairo, and Jerusalem are merely castles instead of actual cities, which partially ruins the realism for some. Still uses a Risk-style map for army & agent movement, which some find too unrealistic. Has trouble running on newer graphics cards (especially Nvidias), and you may have to switch to an older set of drivers to play.

Rome -
Pros: Graphics a revolutionary leap ahead of Shogun and Medieval. New 3D map is somewhat more realistic. You now manage proper cities in place of castles. Excellent music and sound effects. Improved & more intuitive combat interface. Some very decent mods are available (RTR and EB foremost among them). Overall, you'll probably enjoy it a lot if you like the Classical period of history.

Possible cons: Horrible AI -- both on the campaign map, and especially battles. Massive imbalances in both faction strengths (Romans & Egyptians are way overpowered) and army units. Poor AI. Battles are much faster than the other TW games A lot of "fantasy" units (flaming pigs, Screeching Women) included, which many find too unrealistic. And did I mention the bad AI?

Medieval 2 - Haven't played it that much yet; ask me again later. Thus far it shows great potential, but there's a number of things that I personally don't care for. Like I said, though, it's simply too early for me to make a call on it.

Reply