It's opinion time!

[TheChronoMaster]

How would you rank the vanilla Total Wars? And yes, I said vanilla, so everyone who was going to put EB or RS on top can just walk home slowly and sadly.


At the moment, with 8 hours of Rome 2 under my belt, I'd say...



Shogun 2>Medieval 2>Rome 2=Rome 1>Napoleon>Empire (I never played Shogun or Medieval 1, so shoot me.)



Mind you, this is assuming Current Patched version for all of them, which I know is completely unfair to Rome 2. And, of course, my opinion is fickle. Like the wind.


How about you, TWCenter? Can you even remember the vanilla Total Wars well enough to rank them?

[Hans Friedman]

Shogun 2> Rome 2 > Medieval 2 > Rome 1 > > > > > empire

[IlluminatiRex]

NTW > R2 - S2 (on equal footing) > R1 > MedII. Never played the first 2.

[Bringer Of Storms]

NTW>RTW>MTWII>STWII>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RTWII

[Evan MF]

RTW>NTW>TWS2>TWR2>ETW

[Colonel Dax]

Shogun 2/Rome 2 > Medieval II > Rome > Medieval > Napoleon > Empire > Shogun

Now, in all fairness, I didn't play Shogun in 2000, but sometime after Medieval 2 dropped. As such, it seemed rather...dated, which probably affects my scale a bit.

As for Rome 2, it's still a bit early to make that call, but thus far I like what I see (with some reservations).

[Caesar15]

Rome 1 > Rome 2 > medieval 2 > NTW > shogun 2 fots > shogun 2 > empire

[Sconderix]

Rome > Medieval 2 > Empire > Shogun 2 > Shogun/Medieval > Napoleon > Rome 2

Europa Universalis IV beats them all though

[Ataegina]

Rome > Shogun > Medieval 2 > Rome 2 > Napoleon > Shogun 2 > Medieval > Empire

Rome is just that classic and i admit i still playing on a weekly basis, its simple and fun. Medieval 2 is my favorite for the mods *___* shogun 2 i regret having pre-ordered its boring as and barely no replaybility and we waited more then a month just for the sake of having AA and and so much more could be said. but its alright, the poo crown of all TW games goes to ETW...... even today 4 years later its barely-barely playable, if you use mods to compensate!

[nicknitro]

Empire was by far the worst...followed by Rome 2.

[gargarensi]

1. Rome Total War
Really got me into the series and was something completely different from the old RTS's style of Age of Empires. It was, and still is, the best Total War game to date and has a spot in my nerdy gamer heart.

2. Shogun 2
Very solid and was pleasantly surprised. It went a long way in restoring my faith in CA after ETW and it definitely seemed more like a look back at what made Total War great by restoring omitted features from RTW1

3. Napoleon Total War
Underrated in my books, it was what ETW should have been. Likely seen as more obscure due to the disaster that was ETW and the modding debacle that shattered the good graces of the fans. I don't think anyone was excited to see NTW come out so soon after ETW

4. Medieval 2 Total War
Pretty much seemed like RTW with a medieval paintjob. Mods saved this game for me

4. Empire Total War
A mess that seemed like it was trying to reinvent the wheel but collapsed under the sheer weight of its ambition. The game was huge and hence the buggy wreck we got. The time period was cool but the kinks of the engine definitely seemed to be far from ironed out

5. Rome 2 Total War
No words neccesary; just read the threads.

[Colonel Dax]

Oh, I read the threads, and what did I find? A whole lot of unnecessary drama, melodramatic tales of betrayal, and general whiny-ness.

[gargarensi]

Oh, I read the threads, and what did I find? A whole lot of unnecessary drama, melodramatic tales of betrayal, and general whiny-ness.

The manner of which the issues were presented may have been whiny, but the issues themselves are still there.

[Consortium11]

I'm not going to rate Rome 2 here for two reasons. The first is that I haven't put enough hours in to really get to know the game; Total War games normally need at least one long campaign for me to really get a handle on. The second is that comparing this completely vanilla version to the patched versions of the other games (which were frequently just as bad on release *Empire*...) is pretty unfair. As things stand Rome II is a distinctly average game at best (and even that may be generous), largely because the tactical battles are so appalling. While there are certain mechanics in it I don't like (and likely never will) which will be here to stay, other issues... notably the speed of battles... are likely to be improved (we can but hope).

Medieval 2: Total War

While it is showing it's age in certain respects (having to manually "heal" units being the obvious one), personally I think it holds up very well. The campaign is fun, having an ambitious scale without being overwhelmed by it, each of the factions has a distinct flavour and sense to it, battles, despite having the flaws all Total War games do, are an exciting and tactical affair and the end-game content (Mongols, Timurids and Aztecs) is probably the best implemented version of this. It built on the strengths of Rome and... unlike many of the subsequent games... didn't add in many weaknesses. In addition, Kingdoms was a fun expansion pack bringing in some distinctive new campaigns. It's still a game I play on a fairly frequent basis.

Shogun 2: Total War

Almost certainly the most polished of the games, Shogun 2 benefits from a back to basics approach. The lack of obvious differences between the factions can be off-putting, especially for those wedded to the idea of unique units, there were some clear issues with the AI (notably the number of sieges and the way sieges took place), some of the battle mechanics needed work (the speed for one) and Realm Divide is still a horrible mechanic but overall the good outweighs the bad. The RPG elements were a welcome addition, it streamlined (in a good way) some of the annoying interface aspects of Empire and Napoleon, the campaign map "tricked"/forced the CAI to be more sensible then it has been in previous versions, the research trees required a player to make real choices about how they intended to play and the rock-paper-scissors aspect of tactical combat is about as well developed as it has been in any of the games. In addition, Shogun 2 clearly benefits from Fall of the Samurai, almost certainly the best of the expansion packs for any of the Total War games.

Rome: Total War

Almost certainly the most important game of the series and the most (successfully) revolutionary, the change from a strict Risk-like movement system to the more free set-up is the single biggest change in the series history and invigorated the whole game. Being based on an extremely popular period of history didn't hurt and while there was some clear imbalance between the different factions and the type and number of units they could call on, much like Medieval 2, each had a distinct identity. It is perhaps somewhat harsh to have such an important game third on the list but truth be told, gamewise it does nothing that Medieval 2 doesn't do better and on a bigger scale and the only real reason to take this over the later game is preferring the period of history covered. That said, there are certainly worse ways to idle away a weekend then firing it up and giving it another go.

Napoleon: Total War

If a Total War game is at its best when its the evolution following a revolution (such as Medieval 2 evolving the revolutionary Rome) then Napoleon is the clear beneficiary of being an evolution on Empire. Cutting away much of the clutter of its bloated predecessor, Napoleon generally involved getting rid of the worst of Empire while somewhat improving the good. Its background as an expansion pack came through in the somewhat limited options available, with five factions who all played somewhat similarly being a distinct contrast to the vast rosters we'd experienced ever since Rome but in some ways it benefited (much as Shogun 2 later did) by focusing on a few relatively well done ideas over a vast number of badly implemented ones).

Empire: Total War

Even with the bugs sorted, Empire remains the most disappointing Total War game... and one of the most disappointing games I can recall in general. Once again trying to revolutionize the series, it suffered by trying to do too much on too big a scale. The change to how settlements were developed was not bad in-and-of itself but a poor UI made it a frustration to deal with. The addition of tactical naval combat promised to make a huge difference to gameplay but instead was slow and unwieldy. The change from a game based primarily around melee combat with missile support to a game primarily about ranged units and artillery just about worked... but brought its own issues with regards to pathfinding and target selection. The scale put anything attempted before to shame... three distinct theaters of war, all of which could have been a game in-and-of itself (as Napoleon showed), dozens of factions, distinct unit rosters... it was all vast, it was all big... in truth it was all good ideas but almost all were fairly badly implemented. And that's without mentioning issues such as the way that using artillery during a siege generally led to even the most "hardcore" of rigs waving the white flag long before the opponent did.

The idea of Empire Total War is amazing and the few moments where it comes close to it, be it epic battles smothered in smoke as ranks of units fire muskets at each other as cannons send shells screaming across the battlefield and cavalry stalk isolated infantry lines or rewriting history with the Indians invading Europe or the Ottomon Empire invading the New World are among the best in Total War history. But you have to go through an awful lot to get there...

Shogun/Medieval Total War

I'm putting these together for the simple reason that I can't see myself going back to the Risk-like campaign map; it's simply too restrictive after years of freedom. Medieval likely gets the nod over Shogun on the basis of taking the best of the first game and expanding it but it's not enough for me to really separate the pair.

That said, if there is one thing that is in these games favour it's the fact that epic battles were virtually a given. Due to the limitations in movement any battle generally featured huge stacks clashing, something that is too often rare in the subsequent games; there were few options to run and even less to hide.

[Yukari Yakumo]

Rome > Medieval 2 > Shogun 2 > Napoleon > Rome 2 > Empire.

To be fair, I haven't played the original Medieval or Shogun. I started playing Total War games when Rome came out almost 10 years ago. Now it looks like I will end with Rome 2... only 24 hours after its release.

[Captain W. Handberg]

Rome > everyone.
I seriously don't get all this hate.

[General Sherman]

I play TW for the SP campaigns, so that is going to heavily influence my rankings.

NTW>RTW>ETW>Shgoun2>Rome 2

I don't have a firm recollection of the other installments in the series, thoiugh I have played them all. I preferred the expansion to med2 waaaaaayyy more to the vanilla/launch campaign. I also never understood why people hated Empire so much. I always thought it was fine, even at launch, but my memory might just be .

[Stoicblitzer]

from a purely multiplayer perspective:
MTW1/VI > MTW2 > RTW/BI

single player perspective:
EU4/CK2 >>>>>>>> All TW

[TheChronoMaster]

from a purely multiplayer perspective:
MTW1/VI > MTW2 > RTW/BI

single player perspective:
EU4/CK2 >>>>>>>> All TW

Hey man, EU IV's got some issues right now too.

And let's be fair, I love Paradox's games for scale, but they have never gotten nitty gritty details quite right in the way TW has.