Where to start with the Total War series?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-12-07 01:47pm

I've been thinking about getting into the strategy series that everyone here keeps talking about.

Which is the superior game for a beginner: Rome: Total War Gold Edition (which includes the expansion pack), or Medieval 2? Or should I just dip far back to Medieval 1 or Shogun for the best newbie experience?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-12-07 02:01pm

I started with R:TW, but only because it was the newest and there was an offer on Play.com with the add-on pack. I can't fault that for a good start though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-07 02:14pm

To be honest, while M2TW is more advanced, it's buggy enough that I would think RTW Gold is a better introductory option for now. RTW has been patched many times and it still has quirks but not huge bugs the way M2TW does.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-12-07 02:58pm

R:TW is stable enough to be completely playable, and get the Total Realism mod like I did. It changes the game, but if you're just starting out you'll never know, and gives you a much more realistic suite of forces to choose from while also removing nearly all the bugs and stupid behaviors. Bigger map, more understandable foes, etc. Going back earlier would be fine of course, but Rome is different enough to be fun without being so old that it's goofy. Plus man, Elephants. You know you want Elepehants.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-12-07 03:01pm

Start with Rome, no mods. Just play it patched and then dabble with mods to see which your tastes lean to.

There are many, but they do change the game. Enough so that if you buy another game of the Total War series, and it doesn't have a mod that emulates that mode, you will be either elated or disappointed.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2006-12-07 03:42pm

I'd say that Total War is a series you could pick up anywhere. There's going to be a bit of a learning curve whichever one you start with, so start wherever your tastes in warring periods dictate.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-07 05:22pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Start with Rome, no mods. Just play it patched and then dabble with mods to see which your tastes lean to.

Vanilla is laughably silly, almost any mod is more fun, better balanced, etc. I've *still* only played vanilla for an hour or so, and I'll never play it again.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-07 07:19pm

I've played vanilla RTW, RTR, and SPQR. I don't really see what's so awful about vanilla RTW compared to the others. Each of them does things which I find annoying, so you're just picking your poison.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-12-07 07:26pm

I started the series way back with Shogun, but it doesn't age well and it's quite primitive in this day and age (i.e. all the factions have the same units, no sieges, etc). Medieval however is sufficiently improved that it's worth playing, or was worth playing, except that Medieval 2 is out now so there's little reason to go back to Medieval.

I'd start with Rome. By the time you're done with it, Medieval 2 would've been patched so the really glaring bugs are done away with.

(I'm gonna go back and play Rome at some point with huge units and maxed out graphics)

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-07 07:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:I've played vanilla RTW, RTR, and SPQR. I don't really see what's so awful about vanilla RTW compared to the others. Each of them does things which I find annoying, so you're just picking your poison.

This is true, but changing the buildtimes to 'sensible' on RTR gives a game I find more interesting game than vanilla. CA just aren't actually very good at making historical wargames: the engines are nice, but they butcher the source material every time, and I don't want to play Advance Wars with Legionaries In.

I never got in to the original Medieval. I can't really remember why, but I dimly recall all kinds of campaign bugs.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-12-07 08:47pm

Stark wrote: I never got in to the original Medieval. I can't really remember why, but I dimly recall all kinds of campaign bugs.

I don't remember any myself, but then, I last played it a few years ago *shrug*

As for mods, as I've said before, I stear clear. Not a fan of mods in general, no matter how improved they claim to be. Only play mods that I make myself.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-12-08 04:41am

It has been a long time since I played Shogun, but I remember it being a fantastic game. Shogun, I suppose, puts its focus almost entirely on the fights, the strategic map is for moving armies and making gold to make more armies (and better ones).
I'd start with shogun, if only so that you get to enjoy the 'wow' moment when you move forward to rome and go "Gosh, thats very pretty", as opposed to going 'back' to shogun and saying "err... this is sorta crummy, I'd rather go play something else..".
Oh and Shogun's little videos were great, way better than MTW2's lame videos where the characters are always the same, but the backdrop is a little different.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-12-08 05:00am

InnocentBystander wrote: Oh and Shogun's little videos were great, way better than MTW2's lame videos where the characters are always the same, but the backdrop is a little different.

I'll second that. I also hate that in MTW2's videos, when an assassination attempt fails, it's always because your assasin makes a dumbass mistake.

In Shogun, it's because his target gets smart and fucking kills the ninja.

I mean, the "snake" failure video in MTW 2 is just ridiculous. So the snake got away. Big deal, you're in the bedroom, just stab the sleeping fucker!

Agh. And of course, faction leaders, princes and even enemy assasins get the exact same video as everybody else! Like you'd see the English king just walking around without lots of bodyguards. I actually preferred MTW's little assassination pictures. They were classy and set the mood well.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-12-08 05:52am

Yeah, it's bullshit how your assassin fails because he's a tool and wasn't paying attention to his surroundings, wheras the Ninjas in Shogun get killed because their target is a badass.

Shogun 2, anyone?

The Rome 2, then Medieval 3, then Shogun 3 ...

Forever and ever, amen.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-12-08 05:56am

Man, those ledgendary Giesha's were amazing. When I finally got them enemy generals just started dying like crazy! Back then if you killed an enemy general they'd take a moral hit for a fight on the next turn, even if it was just some no-name guy, they'd take a hit, it was great. Oh, and terrain was much more important. Yari ashigaru on the top of a hill was murder, and if you forced the enemy to march across the entire battlefield... and had archers, hey wouldn't stand a chance. Come to think of it, tiredness was a huge factor too. Or at least, it felt more important, esp. compared to Rome (I think M2TW is better, but still not as good).

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-12-08 05:57am

C'mon, give me Modern:Total War! Who need cavalry when I have tanks?

I'd also like one that's got a lot of fancy high-seas cannonade combat, with boats and marines and splintering masts. It'd be pretty sexy in the total war combat engine.

--edit--
Playing Rome, I don't feel that tiredness is a factor at all. Shouldn't my forces, when tired, fight like ass? Do they and I'm just not seeing it?

Isana Kadeb · Post by **Isana Kadeb** » 2006-12-08 06:14am

Yes, I'd go with Rome Total Cavalry, its got some noticeable inherent flaws, but the mods somewhat resolve that.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-12-08 06:48am

Covenant wrote:C'mon, give me Modern:Total War! Who need cavalry when I have tanks?

I'd also like one that's got a lot of fancy high-seas cannonade combat, with boats and marines and splintering masts. It'd be pretty sexy in the total war combat engine.

--edit--
Playing Rome, I don't feel that tiredness is a factor at all. Shouldn't my forces, when tired, fight like ass? Do they and I'm just not seeing it?

They won't run as fast... and uh... it might hurt morale a little. I skipped MTW1, so when I went from Shogun to Rome I was hugely surprised at how little tiredness affected things. I'd find a hill that, in Shogun, would be a death trap, but in rome you might as well play every map on open plains.

Oh, I don't think modern combat would really work in total war. Now Napoleonic... that might work, but I'm not sure how interesting it would be.

I want shogun 2, damnit!

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-12-08 02:12pm

Shogun 2 would be sweet, but I wouldn't recommend going back to the first one. It was a great game for its time, and I find the setting more interesting than the medieval one (which has been done to death by every wargame ever in the history of ever-ness), but there are no sieges to speak of, armies become exhausted after marching short distances at normal speed, you can be winning handily and suddenly have your whole army start routing for no apparent reason, and the amount of money you get every few turns is completely random so you're almost forced to save and then load if you get the bad result.

Medieval has improvements, but there's no reason to go back to it over the much-improved Medieval 2, even with its bugs. Rome has lots of great mods and gameplay that is about the same as Medieval 2, but M2 has much better graphics and lots of little improvements, though it is indeed buggy. Personally, I'd just go with Medieval 2 right off the bat, but an argument could be made for sticking with Rome.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-12-08 02:23pm

Modded in but never really done, I'd like a 3 Kingdoms period of China wargame. You'd get elepants in it as well. And freakin' Lu Bu.

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2006-12-08 05:00pm

Shogun was fun, not least because the units are the same, so you don't have to worry about his Chivalric men-at-arms beating your Feudal men-at-arms, or his heavy cavalry being magically delicious, or not being able to recruit archers, or whatever.

I liked that, and the great effect of terrain & fatigue. OTOH Medieval just felt so much bigger, and you could really get into the campaign and your enemies. Rome then adds massive prettiness (night battles with flaming arrows & torches are just so cool), and the real strategic map is much better.

So I say play them in order, if you've got the time. The mods can add massively to the life of the games - I'm just getting into RTR with the NM mod, after enjoying Vanilla. I fully expect Medieval to be great when I get it, but I'm planning on waiting until the expansion is out.

Oh, and what I really, really want from the next gen is proper naval combat. Napoleonic TW would be awesome, but so would another ancient game (covering China et al say).

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2006-12-08 05:55pm

If you can find Rome: Total War Gold Edition for a good price, I would buy that and see if you like the game style. It's one hell of a game, moded or unmodded, and ancient Rome is always interesting. Haven't played Medieval II (yet) myself.

InnocentBystander wrote:Oh, I don't think modern combat would really work in total war. Now Napoleonic... that might work, but I'm not sure how interesting it would be.

http://lordz.thelordz.co.uk/index.php?index

I haven't tested this mod myself, but it looks fancy!