The Total War series is one of the most famous real time strategy game franchises nowadays. Grand strategy games all, they've always focussed on large world domination-esque capaigns, supported by tactical battles. The first game was called Shogun Total War, dealing with feudal Japan. It was an excellent game, and one of the few older games I still play and heartily commend. Next came Medieval, then Rome, then Medieval 2, and finally Empire. Though, well one might expect this series to better itself with time, thanks to new graphical capabilities and such, I'm inclined to disagree.

As I say, Shogun was a masterpiece of its time. Nothing ever beat the feeling of conquering the known world, after a multitude of campaigns, some not even successful. The only feeling which matched it was the ultimate failure of your kingdom, and its collapse and destruction. But, there was nothing more fun than driving your Shimazu troops north into Kyushu, then clearing the rebels off Shikoku, before tearing out the heart of Japan and siezing the capital. Follow that up with a pincer campaign against the Mori clan, then launching two truly epic campaigns against the stoic defenders of Hojo and Uesugi. That's an amazing campaign.

Rome was my next purchase (I must confess I didn't buy Medieval). That took epicness to the next level. Shogun's engine was mediocre at best, and the battle elements of it were appalling. Rome's engine was vastly superior, and the battles were now amazing in full 3D. The campaign map was an improvement too. Armies now moved across the map at varying speeds, depending on terrain, and in contrast to Shogun's 'province hop' method. This sacrificed some of the speed the Shogun campaign had, but added some more depth to the game. The time period was also more interesting. There are few people who can acctualy say that they do not possess atleast a vague interest in the Roman Empire or the age of antiquity. Its fun to replicate the legions of old on the battlefield, carving out a brand new empire.

Whilst Rome Total War saw you build up your empire, from an insignificant Italian city state to a global power, its expansion, Barbarian Invasion allowed you to tear it down. As above, half the fun is winning, the other half losing. Barbarian Invasion was without question the best Total War game produced. The time period is the most exciting - the fall of the Roman Empire and the osnet of the Dark Ages - in my opinion, as I love to take command of an Empire on the brink of destruction, and try and salvage what I can. Though, thats a personality trait of mine. I'm fascinated with the inevitable doom of empire's and last ditch counter attacks. The Battle of the Bulge and the Ardennes Offensive is perhaps the most famous example of this, where Hitler threw the last remnants of his armies against the Allies in a vain attempt to push them back and subdue the western front. The Roman Empire has its equivalents, which are equally fascinating. The campaigns of the last two great Roman generals: Flavius Aetius and Stilicho, and the culmination of their careers at the Battle of Chalons - the final great Roman military operation. These can be replayed to a degree in Barbarian Invasion. However, to do so demands one thing of the game. That is utterly and irrefutably flawed.

Barbarian Invasion is the best Total War game, and it's paradoxical that it is so amazingly flawed. However, these flaws make it possible to re-create these last ditch offensives. My greatest Total War campaign was played on Barbarian Invasion. I was the Eastern Romans. I started off well, subduing the Sassanid dynasty to the east. However, the nomadic steppe hordes managed to cross the Danube and sieze the Greek peninsula and capture my capital at Constantinople. My empire was now firmly concentrated in the east. I concentrated on defeating the Sassanids, eventually defeating them on the coast of the Caspian Sea with a legion of Cataphracts. I then sent my legions into Europe. I took back Constantinople, and Greece and made headway into eastern Europe, but I was thwarted and withdrew. Whilst I withdrew, the Vandals defeated the Western Roman remnant, and began to move east to face me. I launched a second offensive in Europe this time. My elite legions crushed the Vandals on the Dnieper, and surged east. My armies finally ran out of steam in Germania, though the first legion managed to take land in Saxony. Rome was recaptured, as was Carthage, and I won the campaign (albeit a little late). Then, the Celts attacked. The Celts! The bloody Irish! Out of nowhere, the Irish off all people, had carved out an empire in western Europe, usupring the Vandal kingdom and firmly rooting themselves in Spain and Gaul. I had, to my credit, build up a sophisticated supply line system, a strategy I am still very proud of, though that could not halt the Celts. They defeated my forward Legions and overran my supply line, besieging Rome and begining an brilliant eastern offensive, which sent me reeling. I was powerless to stop them. They captured everything all the way back up to Crimea and the Caspian Sea. Italy and Greece were lost, and only the citadel at Constantinople remained - a shining beacon of Roman authority in the west - defended by an elite cadre of legionaries. How did I lose? Why did i lose? How did I fail at the final hurdle?

Because the game is flawed. The economic systems are, quite simply, f*cked up. I didn't stand a chance. As my western campaign drew to a close, I began to bleed money. I went from well over a million dinari to minus that practically overnight. Suddenly I was horrendously in the red. How? All my cities were losing money. Around the Aegean especially, cities were loosing me thousands of dinar a turn. Why? I have no idea. The game is flawed. So, what could I do? I had no money, no way of getting money and no way of changing the situation. I had to scrap everything. My legions were mediocre, made up of light spearmen, as opposed to elite legionarries. The Celtic swordsmen tore through them. I was powerless. A great empire brought to its knees by a reccessive economy. But, it was a time of wonderous imagination! Constantly I thought about the campaign, imagining the various ways I could bring my empire back to its former glory. Dreaming up eccentric strategies with which to best the Celts. I imagined so many! And every one was more impossible than the last. I was throwing armies I didn't have against objectives they could never take. I was Hitler in his bunker. The greatest campaign game ever came to a close after 400 years of war, when my computer finally died.

Medieval 2 continued the Total War tradition of blitzkrieg warfare, with brutal campaigns and exciting battles. However, it was here we began to see the game slow down due to politics. Total War effectively became Total Government. I agree with you all, that the campaigns are great, and the more immersion the better. But once the limelight shifts slightly off of the actual battles you fight, it begins to become a bit more tedious. The creators did this because we loved the campaign so much, and only seeked to improve them for us. However, I believe it started to kill the fun. Religion is a key player. You must recruit priests and imans to convert territory to your chosen religion, and persecute heretics in the region. Now, the more things on the campaign map the worse it gets in my opinion. I can understand the reasoning behind this however. In Barbarian Invasion religion is a major problem, and often cities will revolt because they disagree with the state religion. Priests are an effective way of aiding the religious transformation. However, I've never used agents to their full potential. I only ever use diplomats, and half the time they don't even work (the only exception is Shogun's Geisha. They were so frikkin awesome). Why don't I use spys and assassins and Medieval's other new addition - Merchants? Because they slow the game down. I don't want to be moving priests across the map to burn some heretic, or telling merchants to go to Timbuktu and nab some gold. I want to be sending my armies into battle! As fast as possible! so, I ignore them, for the most part, and concentrate on my military. And it works. You can just about recreate the same feelings you get in Rome Total War (though the euphoria induced by Shogun is long gone now, sadly), but you do begin to get hindered. The Pope and his Inquisitors. Excommunication. All of it pointless for the gamer whose in it for the fun. True, it adds an air of historical authenticity - and an air I come to enjoy from time to time - but it comes at a cost. I never created an empire on Medieval 2 to rival my Eastern Romans, nor my previous Julii Empire.

Luckily, the combat is still nice. The same rules apply that did for Rome, for the most part. However, where Phalanxes and Legionarries did the brunt of the fighting in Rome, Medieval 2 pins cavalry up as the new poster boys. Horse archers in particular are battle winners in their own right, and Cataphracts and other heavy cavalry are also essential. The usefulness of infantry is reduced, but this is a historical nuance that I'll accept and acctualy welcome with open arms. It requires more micromanagement on your part, but cavalry become alot more fun and usable in Medieval 2.

The time period is also nice, if a bit early perhaps. You lose out on a lot of the 'epic' factions that Rome had. History remembers the Roman Empire, aswell as the Carthaginians, the Greeks and the Diadochi. Medieval 2's host of factions is a little less exciting. You get the Byzantines, who are probably the most famous; the dynamic Holy Roman Empire, and the kingdoms that would lay the foundations for modern day England, France and Spain. However, none of these are really on the same scale as Rome's cast of factions. However, historical accuracy means theyre here to stay and I'm not complaining. (For the record, I didn't - and still don't to this day - know who the f*ck the clans in Shogun were, but goddam it was a good game).

Then we get on to Empire Total War. I purchased this game last week, and I was expecting a lot. It had recieved a lot of hype, as i'm sure you know. That, accompanied by Prince_of_Macedon's unreal commentary videos, made me drool at the mouth for Empire. I was in for a dissapointment.

It's hard to explain, but Empire is just so boring. If Medieval 2 was a little bit slow, Empire is the tortoise to Shogun's hare, though this time the little f*cker won't be winning any races. The campaign is now bogged down infernally in politics, like someone decided to fill the Houses of Parliament with treacle. Theres too much. We now have revolutions, ministers, technology trees and actual politics. Yes, now you can change the face of your Empire. Change it from a monarchy to a republic! Wahey! Thats what the kids want! Because, lets face it, gaming if for kids. Produced for, marketed at and sold to kids. Granted this will have a large adult following, but the primary audience is children. And, its too much. Way way too much. I don't want this. Cool as it is to name your own units, change your empire's politics and what not, it takes too much time. It takes me forever to complete a turn, because there's too much to do. Empire has killed the long standing fast-playing lighting wars of previous Total War games. And its for the worse I think. Maybe i'm just a lazy peron. I wasnt instant sucess. But, I don't think your average Joe will want to sit around for hours fiddling about with his kingdom's politics. Average Joe wants battles, and glorius campaigns and wars. Joe wants to rule the world as fast as he can. But Empire won't let him. Greedy Joe.

Speaking of battles, Empire's done quite a number on them too. When watching Prince_of_Macedon's exemplary videos, I couldn't wait to start commanding my men. Now, I'm sick to death of Empire and its combat system. Not that it's bad, per se, just too different for me to accept. Combat is now firmly infantry based again. Cavalry, for what theyre worth, are now completely redundant. And, to my knowledge, this is in line with history - to a degree at least. Anyway, infantry have the centre stage now. Infantry with guns. Your basic battle consists of two lines of infantry shooting each other until one side of infantry stops getting up. Now more advanced maneouvering like in Medieval 2, and no exotic formation like in Rome. Now, theres two lines. As if to compensate for this, they decided to bog battles down with a load of sh*tty extras too, in a vain attempt to make them a bit more fun. Your infantry can now entrench, or deploy stakes or do such and such. Cannons can fire x and y shots. Cavalry can mount/dismount ect ect. It doesn't ever deter from the fact that the battle is just two lines of infantry shooting at eachother. One thing that might have made me respect it a little more, would be skirmish mode for missile cavalry. They took it out see? If I ever meet the guy that took that feature out, I will kill him with his own shoes. I mean, how good do you think my micro is, that I can keep 2-4 seperate units of missile cavalry running away, and focus on my battle line?

Naval combat? Two words. You can probably guess them.

Maybe its the time period. I've always loved the Romans, and thats why I enjoyed Rome Total War so much. The Byzantines in Medieval 2 were a jump off point from the Romans, and allowed me to work with a bit of common ground. But, that game made me want to research them more, and as a result, I've become quite engrossed in Byzantine history. I've acctualy wanted to study the Napoleonic era for quite a while, it does look fascinating. But, Empire's hasn't made me want to do this. Quite the opposite in fact. Eighteenth/Nineteeth century history now seems to be incredibly tedious. Battles are no longer 'knife-edge' situations, where great generals and tactics decide outcomes. (Well, I'm sure they are, but the game hasn't proved this to me). It now just seems to be a 'I has more guns that you' kind of thing. Dissapointing really. I meam, theres people like Napoleon and Suvorov, but they just don't envoke the same kind of inspiration and excitement in me, that names like Stilicho and Belisarius do. Another point of mention. I know nothing about Feudal Japan, but the game itself still managed to engross me so, because it was so good as an actual video game. Empire fails at both hurdles.

So, Empire has killed my faith in future Total War releases. I've stopped playing it. In fact, I'm still playing Barbarian Invasion, and it's a helluva lot more fun. Empire is a waste of 15gb of memory. My hard drive is small, only 150 or so gb. I had to uninstall too many good games to get Empire onto it. Rainbow 6 Vegas 2, Medieval 2 Total War, Il-2 Sturmovik. It wasn't worth it. Acctualy, don't buy Empire, unless you have a vested interest in the time period, otherwise I don't think you will enjoy it. Just my thoughts on the series.

~c4