Ok, so Steam is having a big sale on Shogun now and a lesser sale on the rest. I haven't played a Total War game since the first Medieval. Im thinking I should probably get one of them, as I sort of feel like some epic battles. I cant decide between Shogun 2 and the Empire + Napoleon pack. I really like the setting in the Empire games. But I know that Shogun 2 is newer, fancier, and only 10 dollars more. Now, disregarding price altogether, Is preferring the setting of Empire and Napoleon a good enough reason to get that instead of Shogun 2? Take into consideration that I don't play multiplayer. Any advice is appreciated.

Personally I prefer Shogun 2 over Empire and Napoleon. I prefer the setting in Shogun, but beyond that the game just seemed better to me. I'd say Empire and Napoleon are the weakest total war games so far, not that they're bad, just not as good as the others IMO. I had fun with both but more fun with Shogun.

Rome Total War or Medieval II Total War is my recommendation....Didn't really like the last three.

But choosing between those two...Shogun 2

Empire is a truly massive game and I really enjoyed it, the only let down is the naval combat and the AI. Napoleon is more focussed on obviously the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon has better AI and the map is smaller and more objective based. Shogun 2 is arguably the best so far. I think they are all great personally, just pick the type of game and setting you prefer. If you want global conquest and diplomacy go for Empire. If you prefer historical battles go for Napoleon. If you prefer that whole Japanese shogunate setting then go for Shogun 2.

Most people consider Rome and Medieval II the best games. Between those two it comes down to time period.

I'm personally a huge fan of Medieval II because of the time period and it has a Lord of the RIngs total conversion that is professional quality.

The best thing total war related is the middle earth total conversion for medieval 2. I swear I have 250 hours into that. Medieval 2 itself is pretty good, but Rome has the best campaign by far, so many hours lost in that one. I just got Shogun 2 today and its easily the best for the battle system, and if your into Feudal Japan, I highly recommend it. If your looking for superb co-op multiplayer I would go Shogun 2 all the way.

Thank you all very much for your suggestions. I went with Empire+Napoleon after all. It seemed to be much less of a landslide for Shogun 2 than what I was expecting, so I figured I would listen to Delixe and stick to my preferred time period. Plus, the screenshots of Shogun don't have any tall ships. I LOVE tall ships. I guess Medieval II is something I should look into getting too, but that is so cheap to begin with that I don't feel the need to take advantage of the sale.

Thanks again everyone!

Pretty much echoing everyone else, but Rome or Medieval 2. Personally, I prefer Rome. I own, and have played, Medieval, but it just had, in my opinion, way too much overland micromanagement; I really didn't dig princesses or the merchants. I exploited both features extensively, of course, but I don't think either really added much to gameplay. Merchants made money almost irrelevant, and a good princess could steal generals from an opposing side... meh.

Rome has dogs. Of war. Seriously. War dogs. After the patch (1.1, the first one, iirc) that nerfed them, not so awesome. But still, dogs of war, man! :)

Also, killing dirty barbarians never gets old!

Also, also, Parthian horse archers FTW!

Just choose the game with settings that u prefer. The Total Wars part's actually don't differ much in gameplay but mainly in gfx.

I really liked Rome, but that was the only one I played

Empire and Shogun are both brilliant games, but i would say go for Empire. Because in Shogun 2 variety of units is very limited and AI is just dumb, especially on sea fights.

And I would say, screw Total War, buy Europa Universalis Chronicles, but it's only me :P

Because, you know, Total War games have nice battle system, but on the world map, there's nothing interesting to do, it's too simple for me.

I prefer EU3 complexity over Total WAr beauty.

Rome is good but ultimately flawed. Don't even think about a long campaign. It falls apart at the seams and becomes completely unmanageable after a while and there's nothing you can do about it. Medieval 2 fixes the glaring flaws of this game, thankfully.

Medieval 2 remains my most played Total War and it's worth getting that one just for the incredible mods and total conversions (like The Third Age, for instance). It's like getting several games in one. Even more so if you get the gold version and all its extra campaign maps and factions. It becomes something very substantial then.

Empire remains the most epic Total War. But many found it to be too epic. Each turn can take a lot of thought due to the possibilities available and how many turns you have to plan ahead.

Napoleon addressed this with much more focussed and detailed campaigns. It's a better game in most ways but completely sacrifices all but Europe (apart from a separate Egyptian campaign.

Shogun downscales further and focusses on Japan alone. It provides even more detail than Napoleon but it's not even pretending to be a game of epic conquest anymore. It's bloody good but a very different beast from Empire.

More complex than Eu3? Dude, only for diplomatic options like PEACE TREATIES EU3 provides 4 times more options than any total war game.
There isn't much options on the world map in total war games, I found them pretty boring.

Battles were fun, though. If only EU3 had battles like total war, it would be great.

Could be the perfect strategy game, that.