What Total War do you think is the best and why?

[caravel]

What I said was better graphics make better gameplay ie the Halo series. With this example I am not talking about the campaign which is not what interests people. So therefore people buy the game for multiplayer (stay with me here) and why do people buy 1 then 2 then 3? The answer is simple better graphics, better weapons etc. This does not mean that Halo 1 was bad just the improvement in technology makes Halo 3 more appealing.

No, in fact you said "better graphics = better gameplay". You were quite specific and you said it twice. Also FPS games are an wholly different animal. Some may buy the latest title due to better graphics, though most buy it due to improvements in physics, netcode and in terms of features, i.e. better weapons and vehicles etc.

I like you caravel, you structure your arguments in a way which is most pleasant.

I have to take it back with that dross.

How does my comment not make sense? In effect the TW series are the same game: Campaign map + Battlemap = TW. Much like my Halo example. In effect STW should be TW, MTW should be TW2 etc it is the same game spruced up. Therefore the later titles should be the best and they are but I have not played anything later than RTW (or TW3) therefore IMO RTW is the best game.

You've obviously not played anything earlier than RTW either? Your statement makes no sense because you had stated that "better graphics = better gameplay". RTW is not STW/MTW "spruced up" it is a different game engine with a different campaign map. This is a known fact. STW/MTW had better tactical/battle AI and balance than RTW and so in some ways it did have better gameplay. RTW, the newer game, should have been superior in every way to the old engine. It wasn't.

I agree ETW should be the best.

Let me guess... because it will have "better graphics"?

Historical accuracy is a difficult subject I think that CA tried (and could well have failed) to appeal more to the casual gamer in RTW who are not bothered about historical accuracy. It is mainly critised on forums for the game like this one where the majority of members are interested in history, casual gamers IMO are not interested so much. The low poly clone armies are much better in RTW than they were in STW and MTW. Although sprites are an issue but are not nearly enough to put Rome last (or for that matter second).

The sprites in MTW and STW were perfect for the range they were normally viewed at. The RTW sprites that kick in once you're zoomed out to a certain range are inferior. The 3D models are only good if you're going to spend time up close inspecting your men. If you're doing that then you're clearly not keeping your eye on the battle as a whole - which is what TW battles are all about (well it's what they used to be about anyway). Really this is just a gimmick that is not needed and at the time served to distract from RTW's major shortcomings.

But there are gameplay mods for previous titles. More could suggest a larger following.

There are a few balancing mods for MTW, but there are more total conversions and others that simply add more factions, more provinces, more units and try to address some of the gameplay issues. This is understandable as it is the earlier game. What MTW doesn't have is it's own EB or RTR. It lacked a grand project of this kind. These kind of projects are ones that set out to fix problems with the game and resolve balance issues, while also addressing problems with historical accuracy. IMHO both of these mods fix a lot of historical innacuracies but deal less with the gameplay/balance side of things. This is probably due to the fact that only so much can be done with a game engine that is inherently flawed.