Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm looking to expand into the age of gunpowder with the Total War series, and I'm not sure which to go with.

Anyone got favorites?

Empire has some serious AI issues but is very much the broader and more traditional total war game. Napoleon is almost a "super expansion" of Total War: Empire. It really boils down to a bunch of narrative campaigns following Naploeon's conquests. I much prefer Empire, despite its faults. Napoleon just didn't feel like a Total War game.

That being said, Shogun 2 is still my favorite TW game so if you haven't got that, I highly recommend picking up along with Fall of the Samurai (which is set in the 1800s so fills your gunpowder cravings.)

I've got Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, and Rome 2. So I've had a good founding in the bow, spear, sword era's. Now I want some pew pew.

Steam gives Empire a better rating then Napoleon, which kinda makes me lean towards Empire as well.

 djones520 wrote:
I've got Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, and Rome 2. So I've had a good founding in the bow, spear, sword era's. Now I want some pew pew.

Steam gives Empire a better rating then Napoleon, which kinda makes me lean towards Empire as well.

Empire has a lot of functional problems; mediocre AI, bland unit roster and effectively broken diplomacy. Napoleon loses some of the scale of Empire, but feels more finished and polished.

Both can be fun, but need some mods to reach their full potential, and there's a fair number available focusing on gameplay, historical accuracy or a mix of the two. Ultimately, I'd make my decision based on what era you're more interested in; Empire is the age of sale, grand scope, but a bit rough around the edges, whereas Napoleon focuses on one of the pivotal conflicts of history, loses scale, but is much more polished.

Honestly I could never get into Empire. It just didn't feel like Total War to me, I think because of the fact that it included about half of the world.

It would have been a lot better of the New World was abstract with more focus on combat in Europe.

Both games provide enough in the way of decent gameplay, and your needs for creating a vaste Empire across Europa in the age its set in. Although both games are somewhat rough around the edges at some points they are still owrth the coin it cost to get them. Also the number of fairly cheap DLCs has gone a long way to make them much, much more enjoyebal. I also personaly think both games got better after they released several updates for them in the time following their releases. But if I had to choose Id recomend Total War for the sheer scope and availbal factions.

I'd go for Empire. It's scale gives you so much to work with. You can get dragged into continental conflicts, fight colonial wars against the other great powers and native people in both america and india, hell, you can play as the natives. Just a lot more to do.

I settled on Empire. Thanks for the responses.