Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Which total war?

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,698
I think Medieval 1 and Shogun 1 are still my favorites, followed closely by Rome 1.

:bro:

Imo Shogun is still the best.
That's because this person participated. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/327695.War_in_Japan_1467_1615
He was fan, and he added spices. Origial Rome is great because it was made by fans of that warfare, and they went into details to ensure it would look and feel right. (Not necessarily historically accurate, but disciplined Roman legions looked disciplined and in formation after initial impact, and these less disciplined ones looked...)
 

Ovplain

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
1,890
Location
Down by the riverside
RPG Wokedex
Played all of the Total Wars from Shogun 1 to Shogun 2. Haven't bothered with Rome 2 (all of those glitches 'n shit at launch scared me off) or Attila (don't want to be smelly horse barbarian) yet. Anyway Rome 1 still amuses me the most, immerses me the most.:S Medieval 2 is a close second.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
This is more like a knights horse. I dont know much about horses but you can see that they have hair behind the hoofs, this is quite characteristic. with horse and rider in armor you would have a 3/4 ton tank charging at you.

Knight.jpg


Arab horses are fantastic animals but someting that I would only expect to see as light cavalry.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
So this is the superior medieval 2 AI with stainless steel mod ?




28:00 onwards, standing in one place whole battle.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,500
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The Best And Worst Total War Games

charleheader.jpg


At its best, the Total War series casts a spell over you. Your empire rises from nothing, surrounded by enemies who are poised to trample it into the dust. Each decision on the strategic level is a gamble on the immediate future, where “one more turn” isn’t just a stepping-stone to a new upgrade, but a perilous step onto thin ice. Each time you take to the battlefield is another do-or-die moment, a possible Hastings or Austerlitz that can open the road to conquest or plunge you into a desperate fight for survival.

But the Total War series has also been defined by massive, abrupt swings in quality. While the series has been on a linear trajectory in terms of graphics, the quality of the games underlying those vivid battlefield vistas has varied wildly. Total War at its best is interactive Kurosawa and Kubrick. At its worst, it’s a middle-school history textbook as told by Drunk History and filmed by the cast and crew of The Patriot.

So before the series (temporarily) leaves history behind for the grimdark faux-history of Warhammer fantasy, let’s put into order the times that Total War was at its best… and why sometimes its lows were so very low. We’ll save the worst for last, because if there’s one thing that every Total War fan loves, it’s an argument over which games were the biggest disappointments.


Shogun2.jpg


Total War: Shogun 2
Claim to Fame: Of all the Total Wars, it’s the Total-est.
Hidden Flaw: Secretly conservative and unambitious

If you could only play one Total War, if you could only have one for your desert island exile, it should be this one. Shogun 2 is where all the series’ best ideas have been gathered into one game, and married to a gorgeous aesthetic inspired by its setting. And with its Fall of the Samurai expansion, Shogun 2 also turned into the best gunpowder-era Total War.

All Total War games have had impressive graphics for their time, but Shogun 2 remains beautiful even today. Its look owes more to films like Kurosawa’s Ran and Kagemusha than to reality, and gives each battle a vivid, dreamlike quality that’s unmatched by any other Total War. Once the battle is joined and the last reserves have been committed, Shogun 2 is a game where you can just zoom to ground-level and watch individual sword duels play out amidst all the lovely carnage.

The series’ return to Japan and its self-contained strategic context also solves a lot of other problems. The factions are all roughly balanced because they are from the same civilization and share the same level of development. The narrow and mountainous geography of Japan also gives the perennially hapless campaign AI a chance to succeed.

No other Total War game does a better job combining the fantasy, the history, and the game design. This is the series at its very best, its arrival at a goal it started chasing with Shogun and Rome.

Attila.jpg


Total War: Attila
Claim to Fame: Tries (and succeeds!) new ideas
Hidden Weakness: It’s about as balanced as Caligula

After Rome 2, it was hard to be optimistic about the future of Total War. Shogun 2 succeeded because it took a couple good ideas from Napoleon Total War and ignored just about everything else the series had tried since Rome. Was the future of Total War just going to be repackaged hits?

Attila takes a look at that trend and veers off in a new direction. It changes the basic rules of the Total War series in order to do justice to the death of the Roman world. Cities burn, regions are devastated, and an endless onslaught of nomadic tribes attempt to burrow their way into the Roman empire and carve out a place in the sun. Meanwhile, Roman generals turn against successive emperors, and the Huns hit like a tsunami.

Attila might be the most inventive and exciting design Total War has ever had, particularly at the strategic level. For once, dynastic politics don’t feel like a waste of time, and the different types of factions give the game a real “clash-of-civilizations” feel. And unlike the original Barbarian Invasion expansion for Rome, Attila gives the non-Romans their historical due so they aren’t just interchangeable hordes descending on the fading light of civilization.

That said, there’s no other Total War game where you can feel the darkness drawing-in the way it does in Attila. It lends a real sense of gravity to those battles. Lose a battle in earlier Total War games, and you suffered a setback. In Attila, a lost battle likely means that a city and its inhabitants are about to disappear. No pressure.

Medieval.jpg


Medieval: Total War
Claim to Fame: Perfects the early Total War design
Hidden Weakness: There’s not all that much to that design

In its second outing, the Total War series attained near-perfection. I’m still not sure a more balanced Total War game has ever materialized. The Risk-style map is easy for the AI to manage, and the different starting positions of each kingdom and empire allows for some true AI superpowers to form and challenge players late in the game.

To this day, I have an almost Pavlovian distaste for all things Byzantine because of an especially painful game in which they slowly, inexorably rolled my English empire back from Poland and Egypt all the way to the Channel. Yet those bitter memories are tempered by all the apocalyptic battles we fought along the way as my increasingly beleaguered armies fought a doomed holding action across Europe against the tide of imperial-purple death.

The other thing Medieval did brilliantly was portray a world completely torn to pieces by religious strife. Jihads and Crusades marched back and forth across the Mediterranean, each a terrible force in the right hands but driven by a ceaseless need for conquest that almost invariably led them to disaster. The logic that governs other military campaigns (most importantly, knowing when to stop) doesn’t work with militant religious expeditions. So huge armies of zealots march to their death repeatedly over the course of this game, throwing the game into chaos.

The role of the Pope in Medieval: Total War also deserves special mention as one of the most enjoyably infuriating villains of any strategy game. Just when things are starting to go well for a Catholic ruler, the Pope can always be trusted to screw things up for the next ten years, which makes Medieval a pretty good argument for the Peace of Westphalia.

Medieval is a triumph of simplicity, and it took a decade for Total War to come close to matching it.

Napoleon.jpg


Napoleon: Total War
Claim to Fame: The greatest hits of the horse-and-musket era
Hidden Weakness: Has very little to do with actual Napoleonic warfare.

On the heels of the disappointing Empire, Napoleon did two things to right the listing Total War ship. First, it got specific about its era. Rather than being a vague pastiche of 18th century warfare, it focused on the armies of the Napoleonic wars and the career of the man who gave the era its name. That makes for a better and more manageable strategy game than Empire but, it also means something far more important: extravagantly detailed military uniforms!

Napoleon still doesn’t completely come to grips with warfare in the horse-and-musket era. When the campaign begins, none of the foremost powers of Europe have figured out that you can have two and even three ranks of soldiers firing simultaneously if the guys in front take a knee. It takes years of research for someone to have this idea, apparently. Grenadiers also throw grenades at close range, which is Total War at its most endearingly literal.

But it doesn’t matter because Napoleon is such a beautiful, wistful game. The lighting is more dramatic than in Empire, giving all the action the look of the great oil-paintings that memorialize many of the pivotal moments of the Napoleonic Wars. Smoke billows and hangs over lines of blue-coated French soldiers, soldiers march into battle to the sound of fife and drum, and waves of cavalry dash themselves against dense squares of infantry.

After the unfocused Empire, Napoleon gave people what they wanted: huge, bloody battles between fabulously-dressed European armies and the chance to play through one of the most astonishing military careers in history. With its Peninsular War DLC, Napoleon also helped establish a trend of odd, experimental expansion campaigns that would eventually help the series to break new ground with games like Attila.

Shogun.jpg


Shogun: Total War
Claim to Fame: Laid the groundwork for everything to come
Hidden Weakness: Not a lot built on those foundations here

It’s appropriate that Shogun lands in the middle of this series. It’s the founder of a great strategy game empire, and I have an affection for it that goes far, far beyond the game itself. What Shogun did was almost unimaginable at the time it came out. It let you control an entire strategic campaign, from any side, but also take command of epic real-time battles? It was a dream made real.

Shogun is also a beautiful, elegant game in a way that few of its descendants have managed to replicate. The hand-drawn map with its miniature figurines representing armies and agents deployed in the field, the throne room from which you conducted your diplomatic affairs, the traditional music that played during battles… Shogun does everything possible to make you feel like you’d been transported to another place and time. On the battlefield, where each province has its own unique map, armies wage war over a mythic topography of Japan, where armies fired arrows from sheer mountain slopes and cavalry rolled like thunder down through deep valleys.

It has its flaws and strange touches like little movies showing ninjas dying tragicomic deaths while on missions, or geisha murdering your rivals with the same delicate fastidiousness with which a cat attends its litterbox. The strategic layer itself is very thin, and the near-identical factions were interchangeable. But those issues are nothing compared to how new and amazing this inaugural Total War was.

That Shogun rates so low on this list is a testament to the ways in which the Total War series grew beyond its origins.

Rome.jpg


Rome: Total War
Claim to Fame: The first “modern” Total War
Hidden Weakness: How much time do you have?

Wait, what the hell is Rome: Total War doing down here? It’s the game that made the Total War series a blockbuster franchise, so how is it one of the low-points of the series?

Simple: Rome is the snake in the Total War garden. It was seductive and promising, but it also introduced a raft of new ideas and complications that were either poorly-conceived or poorly executed. New Total War games came and went, but the rot behind the edifice remained.

Yet there was undeniable greatness here. The sprite-based armies of the first two games were replaced by unbelievably detailed and lifelike armies of individual 3D models that brought history to life as never before. Watching legionaries go leaping over the ramparts of a Greek citadel and into hand-to-hand combat with dense rows of archers, or seeing lines of infantry and cavalry marching across a European plane towards the last army of a barbarian king gave me chills. The Roman endgame, with its sudden plunge into civil war between the Roman faction, may also be the best finale that any Total War campaign has ever managed.

But Rome is also the game where the series developed AI problems that it would consequently prove unable to solve despite repeated efforts. While the gorgeous 3D battle maps were a revelation, the 3D strategic map proved to be a millstone around the neck almost every subsequent Total War game. The AI factions couldn’t use it effectively, nor could they build the kind of advanced empires needed to support high-level units. The strategy half of the Total War equation was practically lost.

Rome was impressive for its time, but it left a legacy of mediocrity. Rome was a huge success in part because it was so gorgeous and atmospheric that nobody noticed the game didn’t work.

Medieval2.jpg


Medieval 2: Total War
Claim to Fame: Medieval again but like Rome this time
Hidden Weakness: Medieval again but like Rome this time

This is a tough game to rank because it shares almost all of its flaws with Rome: Total War but without the novelty and freshness that Rome could boast. On the other hand, it does work ever so slightly better than Rome.

That’s partly down to the setting. Rome tells its story from a position of Roman supremacy. The Romans can keep upgrading cities and units until nobody can stop them. The barbarian factions, on the other hand, are operating with a huge series of handicaps, so a lot of the wars are lopsided. Medieval assumes rough parity between the various medieval kingdoms and their armies, and so at least the fighting tends to be good. Toss in some early pike-and-shot warfare in the late stages of the game, and Medieval features a pretty good tactical game by the end.

Still, it’s all stuff that the series had covered in its recent past, but tied to the terrible design for Rome. While it may be a better game than Rome, it’s not memorable like Rome. Rome is a tragic hero, fatally flawed and hugely ambitious. Medieval 2 is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Empire.jpg


Empire: Total War
Claim to Fame: Total War attempts grand strategy
Hidden Weakness: It fails

This may be the strangest Total War ever made. On the one hand, it’s wildly ambitious. The action takes place across the Americas, India, Europe, and the sea lanes in between. There is technological progress as the Enlightenment paves the way for Industrial Revolution. It’s the first Total War to really try and represent historical complexity, to wrestle with the double-edged swords of progress and imperialism. No, the campaign AI never really got a grasp on the game or the multi-region world map, rendering a lot of this new complexity dead-on-arrival, but Empire gets credit for trying something new.

On the other hand, there may not be another Total War that gives less of a damn about the era it depicts. Regimental uniforms? Empire has never heard of them, but instead imagines 17th century warfare to be something conducted by a bunch of guys wearing identical wool coats dyed different colors. They carry muskets and rifles, but aren’t too clear on their purpose, since the AI just charges with everything it has the moment it spots the enemy. Sailing ships? Empire thinks they, and the wind that powers them, are too complicated, so it reimagines the Age of Sail as a more sluggish version of Sid Meier’s Pirates. A community theater Gilbert and Sullivan revival shows more care and concern for historical detail than Empire. The jury is still out on which is more fun, however.

And finally…

Rome2.jpg


Rome 2: Total War
Claim to Fame: Remember how much you liked Rome?!
Hidden Weakness: Yes, we do.

Credit where it is due: the Emperor’s Edition made Rome 2 a lot better than it was at launch. On the other hand, when you’ve hit rock-bottom, up is the only direction you can go.

Rome 2 may no longer be the worst Total War game ever made. It works better than Empire does these days. But it remains uninspired, full of systems that don’t really work well together and held hostage by a sprawling map that’s full of empty space and endless delays. Want to sail a fleet from the Adriatic coast of Italy to the tip of Sicily? That will be three turns, please. Want to make like Caesar and invade Gallia? Hope your legion brought their walking shoes, because that’s all they are going to be doing for a while.

Rome 2 somehow dumps everything that made Rome memorable while also losing the refinement that made Shogun 2 the pinnacle of the series. Dynastic politics remain a feature, but without any engaging systems to help manage them. The Roman Civil War strikes like a bolt from the blue, devoid of any feeling that old allies and friends are somehow turning against one another. Even the battles themselves feel like cartoon versions of history, as flaming arrows turn into 2nd century B.C. cluster bombs, and the Rome 2 version of Egypt appears to be on loan from Age of Mythology.

Rome and Empire may have been flawed, but those flaws stemmed from ambition that went beyond “old game, new engine”. Rome 2 aims low and still falls short. If anything can be said for it, it is that Rome 2 is the game that seemed to shake the series from its torpor, leading to the beautiful, series-salvaging chaos of Attila. Ironically, then, the weakest Total War in the series’ history may be the most important one since the first Shogun.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
What a useless list.

Tbh I dont get why people dont just play norbsofts Ghettysburg or Waterloo and get this arcade shit over with.
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
Not useless. Even when I disagree with a lot of it, this has got its merits. And to my own amazement I am liking Attila. A lot. It really is a fresh breath of air for the formula. Install the excellent Fall of the Eagles mod and it's almost on par with Shogun 2.*
While that might give some hope for Warhammer, I wouldn't hold my breath. That looks shoddy and, strangely, generic. Which fits with the CA tradition of following up every decent release with a dud.

And yeah, the Scourge of War games are excellent. Totally different though. Personally I'm waiting for a fresh dev to ever try their hands on a game with a campaign and on map battles. Pike and Shot is nice, but I'd like to see something more substantial. CK2 meets Medieval: TW or something. Shame the King Arthur guys seem to have given up.

*Which has nothing on Medieval 1 and Rome 1 but is a (finally) decent installment in this series on its own.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Tbh when they introduced that childish world map style I stopped giving a shit about new Total War games. I dont even look at them these days.

Rome was the last good game they made and even that was a huge dissapointment, I can still remember how the hardcore fans (who had been drooling and following Time Commanders) fell into shock when they released the first demo and it was frantic shit. The killspeed mods alleviated it a bit but the dice was already cast.
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
Conclusion ? Play modded medieval 1.

The risk style campaign map is MUCH better, total war is about battles and not the campaign map. In fact, i would strip the whole base building and have latest total war have only armies move on a large scale total war like shogun 1 medieval 1 map.

Instead going this way, they went the opposite and started to add more tedioum to the campaign map. Total war should have very fast campaign map so you spend a lot of time in battles, not other way around.



but i am waiting for warhammer.
 
Last edited:

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
Who needs napoleon if there is a napoleon mod for medieval 1 ?

ntw1pic-3_large.jpg
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,698
Instead going this way, they went the opposite and started to add more tedioum to the campaign map. Total war should have very fast campaign map so you spend a lot of time in battles, not other way around.

but i am waiting for warhammer.
This doesn't add up. WH would have very detailed strategy map full of animation and GFX details. (Also what killed roleplaying wargame was killing the strategic part. Series of battles doesn't require much strategic skills.)
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,844
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Not useless. Even when I disagree with a lot of it, this has got its merits. And to my own amazement I am liking Attila. A lot. It really is a fresh breath of air for the formula. Install the excellent Fall of the Eagles mod and it's almost on par with Shogun 2.*

i disagree as I couldn't get into Attila. While the horde gameplay is a novelty and probably what is needed for Warhammer I can't get into playing anyone.

Rome x 2 are not fun to play since you are battling corruption and disapproval more than the enemies. I think I only built like arenas and temples when playing WRome on very hard difficult.

The hordes on the other hand is only really fun if you wreck everything, but Rome is normally able to put up double full army that crush any single horde of yours so you have to be careful. To convert from a horde to a country you need boatloads of money = many many turns of doing nothing / looting.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Instead going this way, they went the opposite and started to add more tedioum to the campaign map. Total war should have very fast campaign map so you spend a lot of time in battles, not other way around.

but i am waiting for warhammer.
This doesn't add up. WH would have very detailed strategy map full of animation and GFX details. (Also what killed roleplaying wargame was killing the strategic part. Series of battles doesn't require much strategic skills.)
There are grand strategy games that do a very detailed campaign map very well. The whole 4X genre and Paradox's offerings focus on strategy and so excel on it. Total War is about the novelty of large scale battles and its more about tactics than strategy. What everyone sane wants is less tedious micromanagement in the campaign map and faster loading times. The devs should focus on adding complexity to the battle map instead of being Paradox wannabes.
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,844
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Instead going this way, they went the opposite and started to add more tedioum to the campaign map. Total war should have very fast campaign map so you spend a lot of time in battles, not other way around.

but i am waiting for warhammer.
This doesn't add up. WH would have very detailed strategy map full of animation and GFX details. (Also what killed roleplaying wargame was killing the strategic part. Series of battles doesn't require much strategic skills.)
There are grand strategy games that do a very detailed campaign map very well. The whole 4X genre and Paradox's offerings focus on strategy and so excel on it. Total War is about the novelty of large scale battles and its more about tactics than strategy. What everyone sane wants is less tedious micromanagement in the campaign map and faster loading times. The devs should focus on adding complexity to the battle map instead of being Paradox wannabes.

what i want and likely many others want is for the strategy part to faciliate good balanced battles as the fun in the game is in them. That is why the old 2d campaign map worked well, it was better at setting up these battles. In shogun2 they managed this by having the AI cheat their way to full stacks so you get these full battles. Unfortunately you will grow tired of the battles there due to lack of unit variety. Where Rome2 really failed is in how you build cities, instead of mostly building up facilities for making armies and supporting them you will spend most your resources on balancing the food/approval. what they should do is make it easy to build different armies so players can get to the battles they want. Atilla is the worst in how the AI constantly try to double team your armies which means you have to do the same. I tried playing again as the Huns and I always walk closeby with doublehordes (non-full stacks) and I mostly sit camped because, profit!
 

kwanzabot

Cipher
Shitposter
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
597
med 2 > rome 1 >med 1 > napoleon > empire > shogun 2 > shogun 1 > rome 2/attila

one of my fav game series thats turned to complete shit lol
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,427
Surely, your high regard for Medieval 2 is based on mods?

I remember vanilla was an utter clusterfuck - no functional AI until after three patches (and not sure if it was still actually functional)
And the campaign map was a micromanagement hell - what's the goddamn purpose for having merchants as agents?
 

titus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
1,719
Location
Romania
Well it's mostly the battles tbh. Unfortunately the campaign is crap in all, I don't think any mod fixes that.
About mods, it's the same order for me. Rome with RS is great as is Medieval 2 with SS.
 

kwanzabot

Cipher
Shitposter
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
597
rome 1 was unplayable till they patched it aswell, all their games are like that
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,698
Is there any recent TW game that didn't need half year of patches?
 

kwanzabot

Cipher
Shitposter
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
597
napoleon and shogun 2 weren't too buggy on release but they also arent nearly as good as the old ones
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,427
I gotta agree, Shogun 2 works great out of the box and doesn't really need any modding apart from maybe a few tweaks.
Personally, I liked the mod which gives double skill points to agents, gives you some flexibility in spending them.
I also used the one that reduces AI cheating (I'm fine if the AI conjures up a horde of yari, not a big fan of level 10 samurai armies popping out when you're not looking)

And that would be it for me. There was also a popular mod to remove "realm divide" mechanics, but I think it wasn't that necessary.

IIRC vanilla Napoleon was also quite allright.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom