Anyway, I’m glad to have you guys back in my feed!

All the best,

Chris.

I’m never going to finish any of my work now, and I’ll get fired, and it’s all your fault.

This is one of the greatest things I’ve read in a long while.

But on the topic, I’ve never played any of these games and never had any real interest in them, but after reading the reviews and watching the videos I think I might actually give them a shot.

Overall I preferred Medieval 2 though. There were a few things in Rome that annoyed me. For example, in order to play as any non-Roman race, you have to defeat them (as Romans) first. This meant that I spent weeks fighting against Gauls and Spaniards and no-one else, during which time it was “elite Romans” against “rowdy Barbarians”, and then that unlocked the Gauls and Spaniards, hurrah! – except now I could fight as someone non-Roman, but it was just “rowdy Barbarians” against “elite Romans” instead. I never really got to play as Greeks or Egyptians or Carthaginians, and had to wait for the expansion pack before I could take on the role of Alexander. Finally – the end game of Rome was disappointing. I controlled fully half the map (with the other two factions each controlling a quarter) but got pwned (if you’ll excuse the anachronism) because every one of my cities needed a massive garrison to prevent rebellion, so I had no field army to speak of while the other Roman factions marched across Europe at will. I suspect I’d have needed to play differently from turn one (finding some way to use smaller garrisons) to get a different result.

Don’t get me wrong – Rome was still awesome (I mention the above only as a counterpoint to your own assessment, not because I think they are criticisms that ruin the game in any meaningful way), but Medieval 2 didn’t have these niggles (only really the busy-ness).

And then there’s Empire… ah, Empire. I’m a Napoleonic nerd through and through (even more so than I am about Alexander) so I was looking forward to this immensely, probably more than any other game ever. For me, it failed, and that’s tragic as I’d loved every other Total War game to a greater or lesser degree. Empire is even busier. Right from turn one, you’ve got a hundred things to think about. Your empire is far-flung across three continents which, while realistic and challenging, is also too much to cope with. Native Americans are so hard-as-nails I ended up employing a bunch of them as mercenaries and shipping them to Europe where they carved out a European Empire for me with stone tomahawks, which just seems wrong – not because I think guns should automatically be better than bows, but it’s just not what happened or even came close to happening in history, and I’m sure someone would have done it if it were possible. Plus there are bugs and the sea battles are dreadful, you have to micro-manage every ship in your fleet. I mean, Empire is still a 75% game… but compared to what came before, it’s desperately disappointing.

I’d suggest that Rome and Medieval 2 were the high points of the series, though Shogun is also very well worth a look (especially if you still have an older PC, though it’s not available on Steam). Among those three, it’s a matter of personal taste I think. The expansions are also very good… whatever your preference, there’s value to be had.

Still I’m glad you appreciated the recommendation. It’s not the most accessible strategy game ever, though it’s a long way from impenetrable, but the mixture of turn-based strategy and real-time battles is just so natural, so right, so obvious that I’ve never yet played a better game. The only thing I’m not sure about is where they go from here. Most of history is pretty well covered now; I can’t see the formula working half as well for WW1 and more recent. Perhaps they can focus on specific wars, and if they scrapped Empire and started again (doing it properly this time) I’d be happy, but they must be starting to see diminishing returns, which is a real shame.