The Total War Thread

[S.Peelman]

Farsala said:

S.Peelman said:

Yeah if looked at in the most objective way possible I agree Medieval II is the best. I'm with you in hoping a potential Medieval III builds on the religion system and the politics. I also hope, though that might be complicated, that they come up with a way to accurately represent the Holy Roman Empire. In the old game it was just a regular faction but of course in reality it was a collection of kingdoms and duchies united by an overarching Emperor.

I kind of liked Medieval 1's take on it with the high chance of civil war and low loyalties. It felt like you could command them, but they weren't happy about it. Especially Henry the Lion. Then when they civil war against you, you obviously can pick either side and destroy them, solidifying your rule as Emperor. And then the overwhelming victories against other countries would invigorate your rule even further, so the higher loyalties make sense.

As for the thread, unfortunately I have been off the series since the catastrophic failure of a launch in Rome Total War 2. I was already not feeling it with Atilla and Empire, but that was the end of it. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the games before them though.

That’s interesting, I didn’t play Medieval 1 because I wasn’t introduced to the series until Rome 1. So that means the first game went deeper in representing the HRE than Medieval II did. I did want to try the first game once upon a time, I remember being intrigued by the fact that the campaign map actually just looked like a map lol.

Anyway Rome 2 is awesome now. It took some patches after release and a major overhaul they call Emperor Edition, which added and changed a ton of stuff, to make the game finally feel complete. Now it’s one of the best in the series if you asked me. Goes to show that a rushed release (SEGA’s fault) doesn’t do a game any favours.