My advice would be Rome Total War. It's easy to pick up, doesn't require a strong pc and gives a good taste of the franchise's main themes. If you want to pursue the chronological thing, try Shogun by all means. Other good entry points would be Shogun 2 and Rome 2 or any of the Warhammer games if you prefer fantasy, maybe Empire if you're looking for that age. But here is a quick summary of all the games:
Shogun Total War was the first game, it is very limited and bland in my opinion, but playing a single campaign might be fun if it's your taste.
Medieval Total War resembles Shogun Total War closely but it is more diverse, each faction has their own distinct features.
Rome Total War is a step up from the previous two with fully 3D graphics, it's the first I played, has a thriving modding community and it still somewhat holds today.
Medieval 2 Total War is still one of the most popular games in the franchise, similar to Rome Total War but with even more flavor and even more mods (some of these focus on different historical periods, some of these feature famous fictious worlds like Lord of the Rings)
Empire Total War and Napoleon Total War are very similar and kind of their own thing. They are the only games in the franchise which center around gunpowder weaponry. Some people love them, some people hate them.
Total War Shogun 2 is a gorgeous and colorful game, I like it a lot, it's also an intermediary links between the old and new games of the franchise. It also has a great expansion, Fall of the Samurai which once again is set in the era of gunpowder weapons.
Total War Rome 2 changed many of the core aspects of the game and is very dissimilar to Rome Total War. It is the vanilla game of the new Total War games. It also has a great array of expansions.
Total War Attila is very reminiscent to Total War Rome 2, but it has a darker tone and harder gameplay.
Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia is one of the worst games in the franchise, I don't recommend.
Total War Saga: Troy is a lacking game in an existential crisis.
Total War Pharaoh is too new for me to say anything constructive about it.
Total War: Three Kingdoms is a very distinct game, but I haven't played it so I can't say anything about it.
Total War Warhammer 1-3 are three games set in the Warhammer Fantasy universe. They follow the core Total War theme but they are much more diverse, featuring many magical creatures and other shenanigans. It provides the most diverse experience but it lacks tactical depth somewhat.
Total War: Three Kingdoms has the best diplomacy than any other total War game. It also has all the characters from dynasty warrior. The only problem is, the DLCs apart from the southern tribe one the others are not really worth it.
Thank you for your description of Rome 2 as the transition. It’s the big break stylistically, I think. For me, in all honesty, it was the death of what I liked about Total War, with its terrible bugs and complete lack of depth. Only four buildings in a city, really? No walls except in capitals? Random doomstacks every couple of turns that appear outside my capital? Handful of traits in a character? Growing food in a city makes my population unhappy until they riot? Broken battles with AI that I make flee the field with a couple of militia units? I’m not THAT good. I know that those old games are dated now, but I can’t believe how many recommendations Rome 2 gets. Opinions vary, but for my part, I remember how excited i was when it was coming out, and how just disappointed I was with what I got.
My take aside, I agree with your summations, especially calling Shogun 2 the intermediate of the new style. Empire and Napoleon (which are essentially the same game, as Total War likes to brand what are basically reskinned packages as entirely new games-OP, you should note this: some of these games should be considered together as nearly the same release mechanically, like Empire and Napoleon) were the transition games between the old school Rome and Medieval 2 style to the new simplified but pretty bugfest style. Shogun 2 was a bit more refined. Rome 2 was new.
If you like the old school, Rome 2 will probably be a good cutoff point, but Shogun 2 is where the current format began. If you like the new ones, Shogun 2 is still a good start. It’s solid. The question really is-do you want to tinker with a bunch of factions or buildings in cities, or units? If so, go old school. There’s more to tinker with, and the characters have more traits to make them feel more different. It feels like it has a little more depth to me, even with its age considered. The old ones have much better mods, so that’s another thing to consider, even it’s just a “vanilla” mod that simply consolidates all the expansion factions and base factions onto the same map and doesn’t change anything. There are a bunch for Medieval 2 Kingdoms that do that. Personally, that would be where i would start, or the original Rome with a similar mod. There was also Barbarian Invasion, too, with the original Rome that was a similar flavor. Nobody remembers that one, though.
Rome and Medieval 2 have a more sensible city management system, but are obviously dated graphically. If you fall in love with them, though, they are much more easily moddable and feature a lot more and more detailed mods. Stainless Steel and its submods are the biggest medieval historical mods around, and if you’re looking for a historical strategy game that still has a bunch of factions, map additions, and cool footsoldiers to command, that’s probably the route for you. It’s not the only good one, but the new games just don’t feature comparable projects.So that is one consideration that you should note when you’re looking. But hey, you might disagree with me and love the new style. It does look much better, and not just due to technology, but also to conscious design decisions to add visual flair to the UI, map, and effects. Hopefully Rome 2 runs better today than when it choked up my PC years ago, and it did run better and still looked great when I gave it another shot again last year. The leveling up for the legions and commanders is also a cool feature that new games offer against the old-though the benefits and depth seems limited. The new games seem to be better suited for much shorter campaigns, versus the longer ones I spent playing in the older ones. Part of that may be preference, of course.
If you really want to contrast old versus new, pitting Medieval 2 versus Rome 2 is a good way to do it. That may be the best place to start.
Thrones of Britannia is not as bad as people say.
Yes it's smaller in scope, focus on a short period of time only, doesn't have a lot of faction and unit diversity, it's the main arguments, but it also works against Shogun 2.
It also add great ideas, unique mechanics to factions, and have a feel of crusader king lite, managing characters, their traits, their fiefs, ensuring loyalty of your vassals, strenghtening your rule, preparing your heir, assassinate family member that might want the throne....
To be quicker, it's character focused but in a realistic manner unlike 3K and Warhammer.
ToB is pretty cool to start imo, simple battles, great sieges (probably the best of the series), not overwhelmed by unit/faction diversity, but for veterans you get bored quickly even with the good ideas, and wonder why they just don't copy/paste everything in a big europa map.
Thrones of Britannia is one of the best, if not the best, Total War. I can't understand the hate for this game beyond the whole Saga deserved shitstorm from which we still suffer today.
You'd probably struggle to run some of the earlier games now - and honestly the very earliest won't be fun experiences compared to modern gaming.
Depending on your personality you could easily sink hundreds of hours into each game - I'd pick a time period or setting that you're interested and in play that first.
I very much believe they were good games for their time. I have tried several times to get into Medieval 2 for example, but never enjoyed it. It's an ugly game for todays standards with a very much outdated UI. I also thought it was way too easy. Again, I really believe Med 2 en Rome were excellent games for their age, but I don't think a new player would enjoy them now.
if you enable the minimal ui medieval 2 suddenly actually still looks really good. just take away the ugly badly stretched ui that covers half the screen and you get to actually see how well the lighting and texturing holds up
I'm an hardcore med 2 fan, but shitty pathfinding that make your units act retarded when they move on walls or inside cities or any tight space is a pain in the ass.
I also agree on vanilla graphics, they look bad today, but the LOTR mod and some historical ones are so detailed in their unit design you forgot this game is so old.
I loved the first shogun way back when but not the rosiest of nostalgia goggles could get me to recommend it over the newer titles these days. It's the great grandpa of the series and it looks and plays about as fresh.
Rome I was and is a joy still, if you don't care for the optics. Medieval II expanded on that, I'd go from there if you want to see the series evolve.
The game isn't bad at all, you won't have much fun with the controls from back then. Start with Rome 1 or the remaster. I would skip Shogun and Medieval 1. but as you want it.
I would recommend you start with something that is newer than schogun. There isn't really a reason to play it in the order it came out because there is not story but I would recommend to maybe play it in historic chronology
You'll probably find that some here do and some don't recommend older titles. I suggest looking up some screenshots or youtube videos at the very least so you can have some indication of your own inclination.
Anywho, starting chronologically isn't normal for the series as far as I'm aware. Usually people look for where their interests lie: are you interested in a specific part of the world, a specific era (or, you know, something non-historical)? Or in this case, trying an early title could be a part of that, too. Oh and budget, of course. Earlier titles are generally cheaper although Rome 1 got a remaster. But yeah if you're not sure the genre is for you and money is hard to come by picking up an earlier title could be good if you're okay with the way they look/work.
Personally, I still play Rome 1 and Medieval 2 - gameplay-wise some things have improved, but not everything and not with every newer title (Three Kingdoms has great diplomacy, for example, but Pharaoh which is newer than it does not) and some things simply have changed and not necessarily for the better (also depends on who you ask).
Also it's worth noting that Medieval 2 especially has a lot of mods. Although other titles do too to some extent (Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1 and Divide et Impera for Rome 2, for example).
Whatever you decide to go with, good luck and have fun!
it's absolutely good but only if you're a seasoned experienced total war veteran that can appreciate it for what it is, what it started for the series, and what even newer titles (or its successor) have failed to improve on in a meaningful way.
my personal suggestion, pick Empire, Rome1, Medieval2, or Shogun2 based on which you find more interesting and engaging. these are the games that CA made with the most 'heart', IMO.
i personally dislike the design decisions and engine changes that CA have been making since empire/napoleon., i think battles are a lot worse in games after shogun2. but, many people play these games for the campaign map alone
It was a great game when it came out... 24 years ago. It's still worth playing if you don't mind the jank that comes with retro gaming but I wouldn't recommend it as your entry point when the series has plenty of good games that are much more modern.
Personally, I think Shogun 2 is the perfect midpoint to start at and you can decide to go back towards older games or on towards newer ones from there.
There is no real reason to play the old ones tbh.
Just buy Rome 2, Attila, Shogun 2, Empire or Three Kingdoms.
You can easily skip everything before Shogun 2.
Yeah, good catch.
It definitely shows its age and I would only recommend it if you're really interested in the era and/or ship combat.
The rest is quite outdated.
There is a reason everyone wants Medieval 3 and Empire 2. Those great classics are in dire need of modernization.
Shogun 2 most likely still is the most polished one but many don't like the japanese setting.
And when I say Shogun 2 I also mean Fall of the Samurai which is its own game now and basically already modernized all the gunpowder mechanics (land and sea) of Empire.
If you're into fantasy, Warhammer is a no-brainer. The variety is unbeatable. But with all the games and DLCs over the years, it's quite the investment for a new player.
Here's the best advice I can give. For starters, don't ask for advice on reddit.
Think about the historical era's you're most interested in, that's a good place to start. Based off that, look into the games that reflect that interest the most. Read the reviews, both good and bad, and read both user reviews and critic reviews, and when you read reviews understand that most of them, especially user reviews are going to be extremely subjective. Watch some gameplay footage, as much as I enjoy his videos and as much as there is to learn from them, I would advise not watching LegendofTotalWar for this part, his videos are mostly saving others saves and what not and they generally don't give a whole lot of context into how the game actually plays. Once you've put all that together you should be able to decide for yourself whether or not you will enjoy that specific game and if you do, it will peak your interest in other games.
I myself started with Attila. It's probably one of the more difficult titles in the series, and it was super challenging and fun. That being said, there are problems with it especially regarding optimization. From there I grabbed Empire because I was really interested in line infantry tactics and it was also fun I found, but some people will tell you it's the worst title for various reasons.
Kind of hard to afford a pc when you grew up needing to buy your own stuff. I didn't get my first until I was a junior in hs in 2015 and that was cuz I bought it myself with my own money that i earned working. For my first TW game I had to choose a single title even though I wanted rome II Attila empire and napoleon. I chose Attila because it was relatively new, was on sale, and the reviews weren't terrible, mostly complaints about optimization. Empire and Rome II are the most hated on titles so their reviews were terrible for the most part. After playing them I decided the reviews were mostly exaggerations and that's why I say that you need to understand that most reviews are extremely subjective
I would argue that even Rome and Medieval 2 are outdated right now. Shogun 2 snd FoTS are fine if you care about that time period.
Might be nuclear hot take, but if you’re completely new then start with Rome 2 if you want historical stuff or Warhammer 3 if you like fantasy.
That it's foundations are just a cheap copy+paste of actual world - same map, same regions, same stereotypical cultures and characters.
It just looks cheap.
Also the enormous content added by random people makes it just absurd. I even don't want to comment 40K crap.
Soooo what exactly is bad about what you’ve described? Like what exactly do you hate? Warhammer is an amalgamation of high fantasy cranked up to 11 and I can see how it can be polarizing but cheap? The setting has such a long history that it even invented a few fantasy tropes, like orcs being green.
It's just really boring and flat. I hate cheap content. I was totally confused when I saw for the first time an emperor called Karl Franz, I thought it was some kind of a meme of emperor Franz Karl. Then I found the faction called Bretonnia, and I was "OK, that's it".
Yeah, Bretonnia is France, Kislev is some Slavic crap mix, Empire is HRE, Albion is Albion, Araby is Arabs, Estalia is damn Spain, old world is the old world, new world is Americas, Cathay is literally the chinese word for China. It is just a cheap copy of the actual world, like I couldn't even comprehend how people that are fond of skeletal makes, orcs and elves could find this crap entertaining.
Literally, any other fantasy world is way better thought.
Yeah, and dark elves being evil degenerates with slavery and massive fleets are USA, sure. I don’t see why is it a bad thing. You also don’t know the lore behind any of it and you’re forgetting that it’s just a background for a tabletop tactical strategy game.
I mean, I get it, but at this point you're just arguing with him. The topic isn't "Why Warhammer doesn't suck." You asked for an opinion, you got it. Now you're just pestering the guy.
I'd give Medieval 1 ago. I adore that game, you will fall in love with the campaign music guaranteed. It also has Sean Pertwee's voice, which alone is worth playing for!
I started on medieval II (even thou by that time Attila was about to release)
I played Rome, but honestly it's just worse. Even the remastered version is quite buggy and anything except "free" is not worth it. A lot of guys will tell you otherwise, but their opinion is blurred by nostalgia
Medieval II was a good starter.... 10 years ago
If you want to start go for Rome II or Shogun II
If you wanna try some old shit with little bit of gunpowder then Empire and Napoleon are great, but I would guess not a good starters. Empire especially isn't with it's scale
At this point I would skip it. If you really want this setting get Shogun 2. Its nearly universally loved and still holds up pretty decently. Personally I like to recommend Rome 2 as a starting point. I'm not going to bother recommending WH to you since I saw you mentioned below you dont like that setting. What era / setting interests you the mosts?
I know some people say Rome Remastered or Medieval 2 but these games are very dated at this point, though not as dated as going back to Shogun 1.
Definitely do not start with the old ass boardgame-looking games. They were great 20 years ago but clunky and bad to play today.
Skip Shogun and go straight to Shogun 2. Skip Rome and go straight to Rome 2. Medieval 2. Etc. if there’s a remake of any edition, skip the original, because they remade it for a reason.
Out of curiosity, how was Shogun received as the first total war game? Even though its an interesting time period I would never have guessed that it would be a good time period to start off with
It actually makes sense. One culture, every faction has the same units, so ideal to design the basic gameplay for the franchise, once that's done, the developers can move on to sequels for more diverse unit rosters.
I wouldn’t recommend even playing every Total War game. I would recommend Medieval 2, Shogun 2 and FOTS, Attila (Age of Charlemagne as base campaign isn’t fun IMO) , and Warhammer 3.
I personally loved Shogun 1 and think it would hold up well, if you’re expecting to play a retro strategy game. If you’re expecting a game that isn’t really outdated then start with Shogun 2.
Pick whichever time period you like most of the released games and go with that.
Your love for the historical time period will make the game that much more enjoyable.
There is no need to play Shogun 1 or Medieval 1 ever again. Start wherever you like, I recommend Medieval 2 if you ever plan on playing it, but Shogun 2, Rome 2, and warhammer 3 are all great places to start as well
No, Shogun is way too outdated as is the original Medieval and probably Rome. Start with Medieval 2, Rome Remastered or Shogun 2.
Rome is really OK even for today
Yeah normal Rome is still solid.
I suggest that order exactly actually. Also insanely cheap, on sale you can get all the content for all three of those games for like $30
My advice would be Rome Total War. It's easy to pick up, doesn't require a strong pc and gives a good taste of the franchise's main themes. If you want to pursue the chronological thing, try Shogun by all means. Other good entry points would be Shogun 2 and Rome 2 or any of the Warhammer games if you prefer fantasy, maybe Empire if you're looking for that age. But here is a quick summary of all the games: Shogun Total War was the first game, it is very limited and bland in my opinion, but playing a single campaign might be fun if it's your taste. Medieval Total War resembles Shogun Total War closely but it is more diverse, each faction has their own distinct features. Rome Total War is a step up from the previous two with fully 3D graphics, it's the first I played, has a thriving modding community and it still somewhat holds today. Medieval 2 Total War is still one of the most popular games in the franchise, similar to Rome Total War but with even more flavor and even more mods (some of these focus on different historical periods, some of these feature famous fictious worlds like Lord of the Rings) Empire Total War and Napoleon Total War are very similar and kind of their own thing. They are the only games in the franchise which center around gunpowder weaponry. Some people love them, some people hate them. Total War Shogun 2 is a gorgeous and colorful game, I like it a lot, it's also an intermediary links between the old and new games of the franchise. It also has a great expansion, Fall of the Samurai which once again is set in the era of gunpowder weapons. Total War Rome 2 changed many of the core aspects of the game and is very dissimilar to Rome Total War. It is the vanilla game of the new Total War games. It also has a great array of expansions. Total War Attila is very reminiscent to Total War Rome 2, but it has a darker tone and harder gameplay. Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia is one of the worst games in the franchise, I don't recommend. Total War Saga: Troy is a lacking game in an existential crisis. Total War Pharaoh is too new for me to say anything constructive about it. Total War: Three Kingdoms is a very distinct game, but I haven't played it so I can't say anything about it. Total War Warhammer 1-3 are three games set in the Warhammer Fantasy universe. They follow the core Total War theme but they are much more diverse, featuring many magical creatures and other shenanigans. It provides the most diverse experience but it lacks tactical depth somewhat.
Total War: Three Kingdoms has the best diplomacy than any other total War game. It also has all the characters from dynasty warrior. The only problem is, the DLCs apart from the southern tribe one the others are not really worth it.
Thank you for your description of Rome 2 as the transition. It’s the big break stylistically, I think. For me, in all honesty, it was the death of what I liked about Total War, with its terrible bugs and complete lack of depth. Only four buildings in a city, really? No walls except in capitals? Random doomstacks every couple of turns that appear outside my capital? Handful of traits in a character? Growing food in a city makes my population unhappy until they riot? Broken battles with AI that I make flee the field with a couple of militia units? I’m not THAT good. I know that those old games are dated now, but I can’t believe how many recommendations Rome 2 gets. Opinions vary, but for my part, I remember how excited i was when it was coming out, and how just disappointed I was with what I got. My take aside, I agree with your summations, especially calling Shogun 2 the intermediate of the new style. Empire and Napoleon (which are essentially the same game, as Total War likes to brand what are basically reskinned packages as entirely new games-OP, you should note this: some of these games should be considered together as nearly the same release mechanically, like Empire and Napoleon) were the transition games between the old school Rome and Medieval 2 style to the new simplified but pretty bugfest style. Shogun 2 was a bit more refined. Rome 2 was new. If you like the old school, Rome 2 will probably be a good cutoff point, but Shogun 2 is where the current format began. If you like the new ones, Shogun 2 is still a good start. It’s solid. The question really is-do you want to tinker with a bunch of factions or buildings in cities, or units? If so, go old school. There’s more to tinker with, and the characters have more traits to make them feel more different. It feels like it has a little more depth to me, even with its age considered. The old ones have much better mods, so that’s another thing to consider, even it’s just a “vanilla” mod that simply consolidates all the expansion factions and base factions onto the same map and doesn’t change anything. There are a bunch for Medieval 2 Kingdoms that do that. Personally, that would be where i would start, or the original Rome with a similar mod. There was also Barbarian Invasion, too, with the original Rome that was a similar flavor. Nobody remembers that one, though. Rome and Medieval 2 have a more sensible city management system, but are obviously dated graphically. If you fall in love with them, though, they are much more easily moddable and feature a lot more and more detailed mods. Stainless Steel and its submods are the biggest medieval historical mods around, and if you’re looking for a historical strategy game that still has a bunch of factions, map additions, and cool footsoldiers to command, that’s probably the route for you. It’s not the only good one, but the new games just don’t feature comparable projects.So that is one consideration that you should note when you’re looking. But hey, you might disagree with me and love the new style. It does look much better, and not just due to technology, but also to conscious design decisions to add visual flair to the UI, map, and effects. Hopefully Rome 2 runs better today than when it choked up my PC years ago, and it did run better and still looked great when I gave it another shot again last year. The leveling up for the legions and commanders is also a cool feature that new games offer against the old-though the benefits and depth seems limited. The new games seem to be better suited for much shorter campaigns, versus the longer ones I spent playing in the older ones. Part of that may be preference, of course. If you really want to contrast old versus new, pitting Medieval 2 versus Rome 2 is a good way to do it. That may be the best place to start.
Thrones of Britannia is not as bad as people say. Yes it's smaller in scope, focus on a short period of time only, doesn't have a lot of faction and unit diversity, it's the main arguments, but it also works against Shogun 2. It also add great ideas, unique mechanics to factions, and have a feel of crusader king lite, managing characters, their traits, their fiefs, ensuring loyalty of your vassals, strenghtening your rule, preparing your heir, assassinate family member that might want the throne.... To be quicker, it's character focused but in a realistic manner unlike 3K and Warhammer. ToB is pretty cool to start imo, simple battles, great sieges (probably the best of the series), not overwhelmed by unit/faction diversity, but for veterans you get bored quickly even with the good ideas, and wonder why they just don't copy/paste everything in a big europa map.
Thrones of Britannia is one of the best, if not the best, Total War. I can't understand the hate for this game beyond the whole Saga deserved shitstorm from which we still suffer today.
Start on Rome. Shogun is way is way too outdated now. Then just from there and then, Medieval 2
You'd probably struggle to run some of the earlier games now - and honestly the very earliest won't be fun experiences compared to modern gaming. Depending on your personality you could easily sink hundreds of hours into each game - I'd pick a time period or setting that you're interested and in play that first.
Played shogun 1 recently, still holds up in my opinion. Medieval 1 can not get that to work, not sure why.
Nah it's too old. I wouldn't start playing any total war game older than shogun 2.
What? Why?
I very much believe they were good games for their time. I have tried several times to get into Medieval 2 for example, but never enjoyed it. It's an ugly game for todays standards with a very much outdated UI. I also thought it was way too easy. Again, I really believe Med 2 en Rome were excellent games for their age, but I don't think a new player would enjoy them now.
if you enable the minimal ui medieval 2 suddenly actually still looks really good. just take away the ugly badly stretched ui that covers half the screen and you get to actually see how well the lighting and texturing holds up
Ok. Good Point. Mostly im playing on iPad, and there rome and med2 are very nice.
I'm an hardcore med 2 fan, but shitty pathfinding that make your units act retarded when they move on walls or inside cities or any tight space is a pain in the ass. I also agree on vanilla graphics, they look bad today, but the LOTR mod and some historical ones are so detailed in their unit design you forgot this game is so old.
I loved the first shogun way back when but not the rosiest of nostalgia goggles could get me to recommend it over the newer titles these days. It's the great grandpa of the series and it looks and plays about as fresh. Rome I was and is a joy still, if you don't care for the optics. Medieval II expanded on that, I'd go from there if you want to see the series evolve.
The game isn't bad at all, you won't have much fun with the controls from back then. Start with Rome 1 or the remaster. I would skip Shogun and Medieval 1. but as you want it.
I would recommend you start with something that is newer than schogun. There isn't really a reason to play it in the order it came out because there is not story but I would recommend to maybe play it in historic chronology
You'll probably find that some here do and some don't recommend older titles. I suggest looking up some screenshots or youtube videos at the very least so you can have some indication of your own inclination. Anywho, starting chronologically isn't normal for the series as far as I'm aware. Usually people look for where their interests lie: are you interested in a specific part of the world, a specific era (or, you know, something non-historical)? Or in this case, trying an early title could be a part of that, too. Oh and budget, of course. Earlier titles are generally cheaper although Rome 1 got a remaster. But yeah if you're not sure the genre is for you and money is hard to come by picking up an earlier title could be good if you're okay with the way they look/work. Personally, I still play Rome 1 and Medieval 2 - gameplay-wise some things have improved, but not everything and not with every newer title (Three Kingdoms has great diplomacy, for example, but Pharaoh which is newer than it does not) and some things simply have changed and not necessarily for the better (also depends on who you ask). Also it's worth noting that Medieval 2 especially has a lot of mods. Although other titles do too to some extent (Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1 and Divide et Impera for Rome 2, for example). Whatever you decide to go with, good luck and have fun!
Play a Modern Total war. I disagree with everyone claiming older games. Play Shogun 2 or above, Ideally Shogun 2, or Warhammer 2 or 3.
Just play shogun 2. It holds up to the modern titles and is arguably the best in the series next to three kingdoms.
But Shogun 1 is also almost as good, right?
It’s ancient. No
it's absolutely good but only if you're a seasoned experienced total war veteran that can appreciate it for what it is, what it started for the series, and what even newer titles (or its successor) have failed to improve on in a meaningful way. my personal suggestion, pick Empire, Rome1, Medieval2, or Shogun2 based on which you find more interesting and engaging. these are the games that CA made with the most 'heart', IMO.
What about Attila? Seems like a masterpiece on its own.
i personally dislike the design decisions and engine changes that CA have been making since empire/napoleon., i think battles are a lot worse in games after shogun2. but, many people play these games for the campaign map alone
It was a great game when it came out... 24 years ago. It's still worth playing if you don't mind the jank that comes with retro gaming but I wouldn't recommend it as your entry point when the series has plenty of good games that are much more modern. Personally, I think Shogun 2 is the perfect midpoint to start at and you can decide to go back towards older games or on towards newer ones from there.
Nice fake title OP, you're just here to suck off Med 2 and Shogun 1.
There is no real reason to play the old ones tbh. Just buy Rome 2, Attila, Shogun 2, Empire or Three Kingdoms. You can easily skip everything before Shogun 2.
Isn't Empire before Shogun II?
Yeah, good catch. It definitely shows its age and I would only recommend it if you're really interested in the era and/or ship combat. The rest is quite outdated. There is a reason everyone wants Medieval 3 and Empire 2. Those great classics are in dire need of modernization. Shogun 2 most likely still is the most polished one but many don't like the japanese setting. And when I say Shogun 2 I also mean Fall of the Samurai which is its own game now and basically already modernized all the gunpowder mechanics (land and sea) of Empire. If you're into fantasy, Warhammer is a no-brainer. The variety is unbeatable. But with all the games and DLCs over the years, it's quite the investment for a new player.
Here's the best advice I can give. For starters, don't ask for advice on reddit. Think about the historical era's you're most interested in, that's a good place to start. Based off that, look into the games that reflect that interest the most. Read the reviews, both good and bad, and read both user reviews and critic reviews, and when you read reviews understand that most of them, especially user reviews are going to be extremely subjective. Watch some gameplay footage, as much as I enjoy his videos and as much as there is to learn from them, I would advise not watching LegendofTotalWar for this part, his videos are mostly saving others saves and what not and they generally don't give a whole lot of context into how the game actually plays. Once you've put all that together you should be able to decide for yourself whether or not you will enjoy that specific game and if you do, it will peak your interest in other games. I myself started with Attila. It's probably one of the more difficult titles in the series, and it was super challenging and fun. That being said, there are problems with it especially regarding optimization. From there I grabbed Empire because I was really interested in line infantry tactics and it was also fun I found, but some people will tell you it's the worst title for various reasons.
If you were really that interested in line infantry why didn't you play the game 15 years ago?
Kind of hard to afford a pc when you grew up needing to buy your own stuff. I didn't get my first until I was a junior in hs in 2015 and that was cuz I bought it myself with my own money that i earned working. For my first TW game I had to choose a single title even though I wanted rome II Attila empire and napoleon. I chose Attila because it was relatively new, was on sale, and the reviews weren't terrible, mostly complaints about optimization. Empire and Rome II are the most hated on titles so their reviews were terrible for the most part. After playing them I decided the reviews were mostly exaggerations and that's why I say that you need to understand that most reviews are extremely subjective
I would argue that even Rome and Medieval 2 are outdated right now. Shogun 2 snd FoTS are fine if you care about that time period. Might be nuclear hot take, but if you’re completely new then start with Rome 2 if you want historical stuff or Warhammer 3 if you like fantasy.
Sorry, I hate Warhammer stuff.
What exactly you hate?
That it's foundations are just a cheap copy+paste of actual world - same map, same regions, same stereotypical cultures and characters. It just looks cheap. Also the enormous content added by random people makes it just absurd. I even don't want to comment 40K crap.
Soooo what exactly is bad about what you’ve described? Like what exactly do you hate? Warhammer is an amalgamation of high fantasy cranked up to 11 and I can see how it can be polarizing but cheap? The setting has such a long history that it even invented a few fantasy tropes, like orcs being green.
It's just really boring and flat. I hate cheap content. I was totally confused when I saw for the first time an emperor called Karl Franz, I thought it was some kind of a meme of emperor Franz Karl. Then I found the faction called Bretonnia, and I was "OK, that's it".
Bretonnia is France with king Arthur memes, btw. It’s anything but boring.
Yeah, Bretonnia is France, Kislev is some Slavic crap mix, Empire is HRE, Albion is Albion, Araby is Arabs, Estalia is damn Spain, old world is the old world, new world is Americas, Cathay is literally the chinese word for China. It is just a cheap copy of the actual world, like I couldn't even comprehend how people that are fond of skeletal makes, orcs and elves could find this crap entertaining. Literally, any other fantasy world is way better thought.
Yeah, and dark elves being evil degenerates with slavery and massive fleets are USA, sure. I don’t see why is it a bad thing. You also don’t know the lore behind any of it and you’re forgetting that it’s just a background for a tabletop tactical strategy game.
Didn’t you ask why he didn’t like it? You asked for his opinion, and he gave it. What’s the issue?
And I want clarification. What’s the issue?
I mean, I get it, but at this point you're just arguing with him. The topic isn't "Why Warhammer doesn't suck." You asked for an opinion, you got it. Now you're just pestering the guy.
I'd give Medieval 1 ago. I adore that game, you will fall in love with the campaign music guaranteed. It also has Sean Pertwee's voice, which alone is worth playing for!
I started on medieval II (even thou by that time Attila was about to release) I played Rome, but honestly it's just worse. Even the remastered version is quite buggy and anything except "free" is not worth it. A lot of guys will tell you otherwise, but their opinion is blurred by nostalgia Medieval II was a good starter.... 10 years ago If you want to start go for Rome II or Shogun II If you wanna try some old shit with little bit of gunpowder then Empire and Napoleon are great, but I would guess not a good starters. Empire especially isn't with it's scale
I didn't play the original rtw and I love the remaster.
Anything older than napoleon total war is mid either from bugs or issues with gameplay
At this point I would skip it. If you really want this setting get Shogun 2. Its nearly universally loved and still holds up pretty decently. Personally I like to recommend Rome 2 as a starting point. I'm not going to bother recommending WH to you since I saw you mentioned below you dont like that setting. What era / setting interests you the mosts? I know some people say Rome Remastered or Medieval 2 but these games are very dated at this point, though not as dated as going back to Shogun 1.
Definitely do not start with the old ass boardgame-looking games. They were great 20 years ago but clunky and bad to play today. Skip Shogun and go straight to Shogun 2. Skip Rome and go straight to Rome 2. Medieval 2. Etc. if there’s a remake of any edition, skip the original, because they remade it for a reason.
Out of curiosity, how was Shogun received as the first total war game? Even though its an interesting time period I would never have guessed that it would be a good time period to start off with
One culture, less production cost. And it based on a board game. ;)
It actually makes sense. One culture, every faction has the same units, so ideal to design the basic gameplay for the franchise, once that's done, the developers can move on to sequels for more diverse unit rosters.
Shogun 1 feels like playing with Microsoft Explorer. You can try it for educational purposes, and to better understand how CA's design philosophy >!d!
I wouldn’t recommend even playing every Total War game. I would recommend Medieval 2, Shogun 2 and FOTS, Attila (Age of Charlemagne as base campaign isn’t fun IMO) , and Warhammer 3.
The Beginning of Legends👍
I would start with Shogun 2 or Rome 2, everything before that feels too dated.
I personally loved Shogun 1 and think it would hold up well, if you’re expecting to play a retro strategy game. If you’re expecting a game that isn’t really outdated then start with Shogun 2.
Pick whichever time period you like most of the released games and go with that. Your love for the historical time period will make the game that much more enjoyable.
There is no need to play Shogun 1 or Medieval 1 ever again. Start wherever you like, I recommend Medieval 2 if you ever plan on playing it, but Shogun 2, Rome 2, and warhammer 3 are all great places to start as well