What's all this about the older games being better than the new ones? I felt like each game was an improvement on the last. Honestly I don't think I could go back to the older games after playing the newer ones.
Anyway, I just bought the Total War Eras package (first three games plus all expansions) and then Medieval 2 plus expansion. That's the best bang for your buck.
So, the game run-down:
Shogun: When I played this I was making comparisons to the Lords of the Realm games (anyone remember those?) which I had played when I was younger. It was definitely better. The main thing that stood out for me was the fact that all units (generals, assassins, spies, etc.) gain experience in the game. I enjoyed the game.
Mongol Invasion: It's alright. Play as the Mongols for a different gaming experince.
Medieval: Much better. The main thing that was improved was the campaign map. There were now a lot more factions and possibilities. The shape of Japan and the fact that there were only seven factions in Shogun made strategic options rather limiting, to be honest. Another thing that Medieval added were a wide variety of traits (called Vices and Virtues) that each individual character (generals, family memerbs, priests, etc.) could gain. Sometimes these traits were random and sometimes they were directly based on what actions you made the character commit. For instance, if you made a general kill an insane amount of captives during a battle he might get the Butcher trait, which would increase his Dread (which effects enemy morale).
Viking Invasion: Never played it, but they basically did the same thing for the M2 expansion.
Rome: Fuck yeah. The two main things that were changed were the change to 3D in the battles and movement on the main map being based on movement points rather than simply dropping people in provinces. In the battles this meant that units could "mesh togther" and form different shapes in the heat of battle rather than being locked into static blocks. On the campaign map you could do things like build forts at strategic areas, set up ambushes, and do pincer attacks. Perhaps the enemy AI did act a bit stupid sometimes ("indecisive" would be the word I would use) but it didn't seem to be something too out of line. Whatever faults this new system might have had, however, the way reinforcments were handled more than made up for it.
So, to explain: there is a maximum number of units that you can control in a battle. (16 for the first two games, 20 afterwards) Originally if you brought more units to a battle, they would simply have to wait until a spot opened up, either by a unit being wiped out or routing. Then the new unit would appear at the edge of the map. If you were losing a battle, this wasn't exactly the best tactical situation to be in. I remember one battle in Medieval where I vastly outnumbered my opponent, but he had better troops. My initial army lost against him. He chased my men to the edge of the map where my reinforcement units were coming in in twos and threes as other units fled. Seeing other units fleeing lowered the morale of my new untis, and they were never able to provide a solid front since they were all spread out anyway. So my whole army came in little bits and pieces only to die or rout. It was a crushing defeat, but it never would have happened if I had been able to bring my full army to bear at once.
Rome fixed this problem. In that game (and M2) if I had more units than I could control, they would simply become a new army controlled by the AI, present simultaneously on the battlefield. Same thing for enemy reinforcements. Reinforcements could also be delayed, adding to the drama. I remember one battle in Rome where I had four armies against my opponent's three. It was truly epic in every meaning of the word.
Diplomacy was also improved in Rome.
Barbarian Invasion: Lots of fun. Religion became important in this game, adding a new element. If you want a nice challenge, play as the Western Empire.
Alexander: Didn't play it. This campaign is all about millitary prowess and being severely outnumbered. Since I've already done that in my first playthrough of M2 (as Venice against The World) I see no reason to play this game.
Medieval 2: Plays a lot like Rome. A few things were added. There were now guild houses that you could build in settlements, which could be upgraded for greater benefits depending on whether or not you further the guild's interests. You could also determine whether a settlement was a castle or a city, each having different building and units that were possible. The main improvement over Medieval 1 was in diplocacy, in particular in dealing with the Pope if you were Catholic. It was a lot more complicated.
Kingdoms: This expansion is different in that instead of one large campaign, it has four smaller, specialized campaigns. Each one is quite different. Look them up if you want to, I'm tired from typing this post. The Britannia campaign is basically Viking Invasion all over again.
So, anyway, I would recommend playing them all in order. The series has definitely been getting progressively better. New things are being added that far outweigh the minor things that have been lost from game to game. If you only have time to play one, however, then get Medieval 2 Gold, or wait a month for Empire to come out. (which I must say is looking pretty awesome)
One other thing: If you want the most realistic experience in Rome or M2, set the Campaign difficulty on normal. Very Hard just means that people will attack you and allies will break treaties for no reason.
racofer said:
skyway said:
I couldn't care less about the graphics - it is the amount of units on the battlefield smashing each other that interests me.
Then ignore the new ones and stick with the originals.
Huh? You can select unit size in the main menu. And Rome made the jump from 16 controllable units to 20. I think you're full of shit, racofer.
Although I must say, putting the unit size to Huge in M2 requires a good computer. I'm actually worried about what Empire will do to my computer.
