I don't know much about strategy, so I'm curious as to how TW fans rank the games and why? What aspect of a strategy game puts it higher or lower on your list? Are they about responsiveness? Or masses and NPC amounts? Or maybe the more gameplay mechanics there are, the better the game?

Please rank the TW games from favorite to least favorite and share your thoughts, thanks!

Bonus question: Why, from the perspective of a Total War fan, is the new Rome 2 considered disappointing? Yes I'm sure the game is fine but why do they think so? I find the opinions of die-hard fans to be the most interesting, sincere and meaty, even with the layer of passion that can be disturbing sometimes.

It really depends on what era you like and why. The mechanics also change accordingly. I would say Shogun: Total war is the most accessible. But some may not be into feudal Japan. On top of that, its fairly "barebones" compared to following entries.

Medieval is pretty good if you like Knights. However, it plays more deeply into diplomacy/espionage than some of the other games.

Rome: Total War is probably the best in the entire series. Its somewhat accessible(although does have a learning curve) and maintains quite a bit of depth. The mechanics deal very heavily with column warfare with a cavalry concentration. But it has some of the worst diplomacy in the series.

Empire probably has the most mechanical depth. But some people will be turned off by the introduction of gunpowder and how it completely transformed the tactics of column warfare. Its also VERY overwhelming with how much you can actually do in the game. Also, some of those mechanics are rather mixed. But, it was the most ambitious game of the series for its time.

Shogun 2 I didn't play. Rome 2, I don't have the rig to play that either.

Also, I would say what differs Total War from other RTS games(like Starcraft):

Its mainly the layered approach to the game, combining strategic thinking with tactical engagements. Its kind of like playing chess(total war) vs checkers(starcraft). Starcraft is a faster game, dealing with a lot more instant gratification. Total War, in contrast, you have to think six or seven moves ahead of your opponent. Its WAY more pondering and cerebral. Not to mention, the historical context which comes along with the Total War; you can get a decent education on historical events/battles...

@flindip: Thorough and informative, thanks bud!

It's not disappointing at all. Frankly, I think people who are railing on this game are either new to the series or complainers. Not that games shouldn't work well when they come out, but this is old hat for TW fans. The games are always like this on release and improve as they go along. The thing is, no other game tries this scale or this type of strategy, so I love CA and am more than willing to be patient with them.

Yes the AI is still more or less how it always is (though I find diplomacy on the campaign map improved, though not by that much). Once you become rather powerful, as I have in my game now, smaller nations now show you a good degree of respect, some outright offering themselves up to be your client state on their own which I appreciate. As always, you have to wait for modders to do their thing on the AI and fix it up.

I love the changes to how provinces and capitals work. It makes you think out your building more, both within a province and across your empire. You really have to specialize each province and capital to get the most out of it. I have one that's an industrial hub, one that's military, one that's culture right now.

The political system within the Roman faction is pretty interesting. I've begun to get into that, to the point now where I've purposefully sent a couple prominent generals of other families to die against the barbarians to the north because they were gaining too much power.

And the scale is the scale that makes Rome I the best in the series for me. That same feel is there, with vastly different factions clashing against each other, which I love.

I'm going to hold out ranking this game right now... I'm loving it though, so don't take that as a slight. It's just I can't properly rank it yet.... but lets say it's near the top of this list with a little more work. It can't really have the impact Rome did at the time on me but it could be 2.

So my ranks for the series. This is based on the impact at the time of course, not suggesting playing some of the later entries is going to feel great today:

1. Rome: The scale, the epic quality of the different factions. The graphics were mindblowing at the time. I also just have a soft spot for the period and Rome in particular, so this takes the cake for me. Also by far the best music in the series, which actually matters a ton if you're playing for a couple hundred hours. (In particular, this masterpiece)
2. Shogun: The first one... I had eyed it for a while at the store and when I finally played it my mind was blown. Basically the type of strategy game I've always wanted. I also enjoy the period and setting quite a bit.
3. Shogun II: A nice refinement of some of the growing issues with the formula... as you'll see by my empire rank. (I think the series at its most accessible if you're just jumping in, btw)
4. Medieval: Great follow up to the first game, natural setting to move onto.
5. Medieval II: Great game and fun setting.
6. Empire: To be fair I don't think the period ever could have really won me over but even still, this seemed directionless in a lot of ways. Too vast for its own good.

-------

The reality with the ranks is that a lot of it is going to depend on which setting you happen to like most. For example a lot of people swear by the Medieval entries, but I find the period, while still awesome, less interesting than Feudal Japan or the Ancient period the Rome games cover. The series has changed in different, usually minor ways over the grand scheme of things across its entries so I think that your preference of setting is hugely important to what you will think the best entries are. Rome II has made some of the better and more interesting changes to the formula to me, so I'm really digging it.