Not playing, but looking into the total war series. Anybody here familiar with it and have recommendations/objections to them?
I'm pretty familiar with most of the TW series. I haven't played all the games in it but I have played most of them.
My favorite entries are Medieval 2 and Attila, followed by Empire/Napoleon, then Shogun 2 and then Warhammer. I haven't played the original Shogun, the original Medieval, Rome 2, or Warhammer 2.
Medieval 2 is my favorite because it is the purest formulation of the TW formula: generate $$$$, spend it on units, use those units to fight and win battles, conquer territory, repeat. Later games began adding new RPG-like mechanics and other stuff that distracts from this core formula. Not all of that stuff is bad (most of it is good) but I keep going back to Medieval 2 because it's got the core formula with nothing else to distract you.
I also like the character stats and mechanics the best in Medieval 2, because it's really straightforward: if you want good generals, you have to win battles with the odds against you. Victories give you command stars, honorable actions like freeing prisoners or peacefully occupying settlements (or participating in Crusades or Jihads) gives you chivalry, dishonorable actions like killing prisoners or exterminating settlements gives you dread. The faction leader has an Authority stat which interacts with each non-leader's Loyalty stat to determine the likelihood that a given character will join the rebels and betray your faction.
Shogun 2 is, I think, the next game to come out after Medieval 2 (it might've been Empire though, can't quite remember). Anyway Shogun added some rudimentary RPG features, I believe the generals and armies have skill trees where you unlock different bonuses as you earn experience. Empire adds a technology tree with research, whereas in previous games tech was done simply by spending gold to expand your settlements on the strategic map, unlocking new buildings which produced more advanced units. I found the battles in Empire: to be a bit stereotyped, because the optimal tactic was basically to dig in with artillery and fight a defensive battle. The AI will inevitably walk its infantry up to be slaughtered by your artillery and then you just mop up with the rest of your units. Battles in Medieval 2 aren't challenging by any means but it feels a bit more active since in medieval 2 I'm usually enveloping the enemy with cavalry rather than waiting for them to come to me.
Attila is IMO the best balance of strategy and RPG mechanics. The internal faction politics are pretty cool and engaging, the army and general skill trees feel fleshed out and interesting (although I do wish that there were more options, as is I pretty much takes the same set of traits every single time so there's no army specialization). My main problem with Attila is I like playing the cavalry factions and building armies of horsemen, and once the AI starts getting tier 2 and 3 spearmen it becomes really hard, almost impossible, to win battles without crippling casualties. The battles in Attila are much more dynamic and challenging than in Medieval, and probably more rewarding, but also more frustrating when things go wrong (in medieval 2 when you screw up a battle you just recruit more troops, but in Attila when I lose a battle that's usually the end of my campaign due to the horde mechanic).
I played TW: Warhammer after picking it up with a friend on sale to play co-op campaign. IMO this one departs completely from the Total War formula. Battles are hero-centric to the point that building regular units is a waste of money: you can attack a hero with 10 units of infantry and the hero will barely get scratched in the process of killing them all. I only played as one faction, Chaos, and didn't really revisit the game because I just didn't have that much fun with it, though I might try again one of these days.