This or shogun 2?

[adrian]

Should i buy this or shogun 2? people say both games are very good so i cant make up my mind

[WAN]

i never played Shogun 2 before only medival II total war
and medival II total war is a good game i like graphics are old but still a good fun game.

[CHE]

I suggest you watch some YouTube videos of people playing and/or reviewing the games, and then see how you think and feel about it. Personally, I like both games, and what I prefer to play depends on which setting I feel like playing in at the time....

[yaourt]

Just depends on what you are into.

Medieval 2: Total War
-slower gameplay and battles
-campaign of europe and middle east
-European themed conquest

Shogun 2
-faster gameplay and battles
-campaign of Japan
-samurai themed conquest
-some better diplomacy

Personally I prefer Medieval 2, since it is the only one I have played, but I have read about Shogun 2 and they both seem pretty good.

[adrian]

Originally posted by Archigeer:

Just depends on what you are into.

Medieval 2: Total War
-slower gameplay and battles
-campaign of europe and middle east
-European themed conquest

Shogun 2
-faster gameplay and battles
-campaign of Japan
-samurai themed conquest
-some better diplomacy

Personally I prefer Medieval 2, since it is the only one I have played, but I have read about Shogun 2 and they both seem pretty good.

Cool, but what do you mean by slower gameplay and battles?

[Cadrian]

In shogun 2's units are more prone to breaking due to morale shocks that commonly happen, while in medieval 2 it can take quite a while for units to break or shatter

[Inardesco]

Plus in Shogun 2 the killing speed of units is higher then the killing speed in Medieval 2. If you have Rome 2 for example, you know that no battle lasts longer then 15 minutes. In Medieval 2 however, they can easily last half an hour or more. Shogun 2 is somewhat in the middle.

[Two Gun Bob]

if you treat it like a 4x game with RTS battles, then M2 is probably the best of any. if you are less about empire and more about the troops, you will probably prefer the later games from shogun 2 onward.

[Dark Angel]

M2TW every time.

[CampyMcLurkstein]

Med 2 for supporting the pricing model. Isn't this on sale with Kingdoms right now for less than $10? Kingdoms being the same price as a graphics DLC = blood pack DLC. Because blood in newer TW games is not PC bro so graphics $DLC$. Blood graphics effects come standard with Med 2 hilariously enough. I just think it's insane. A game series called Total War, where bloodshed needs to be censored. Righttt.... (so they can make more money instead of richer gameplay.)

[Elfie]

Shogun 2 has better Multiplayer/Unit balance(probably best MP ever in TW series ever), also much better working diplomacy with AI(especially with mods).
In TW2 factions are more diverse(because here you play all the europe and more, while in Shogun - only Japan), and character trait system i like here more than in SHogun. Oh, and it has some SERIOUS issues running on steam, but thats another story and has nothing to do with actual gameplay.

I personally prefer Shogun2:FoTS(Fall of The Samurai) , because firearms/linebattles animations&mechanics of SHogun2 is simple amazing, you can literally FEEL those volleys and gattlings)
Final choice is yours, but i would recommend you getting both, because both are the true, 100% real Total War games. Modern TW is much worse in all aspects - Atilla, Rome2, Warhammer - its all crappy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in comparison with these two games.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Jambatti:

Final choice is yours, but i would recommend you getting both, because both are the true, 100% real Total War games. Atilla, Rome2, Warhammer - its all crappy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in comparison with these two games.

Well...there's a LoTR mod in the making for Atilla. Once that's out, I might be interested to get Atilla. Though battles seem like crap in comparison to Third Age Total War because units break so ♥♥♥♥♥♥ fast.

It seems that Warhammer has a prohibition on overhaul mods due to licenses and such.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by Jambatti:

Final choice is yours, but i would recommend you getting both, because both are the true, 100% real Total War games. Atilla, Rome2, Warhammer - its all crappy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in comparison with these two games.

Well...there's a LoTR mod in the making for Atilla. Once that's out, I might be interested to get Atilla. Though battles seem like crap in comparison to Third Age Total War because units break so ♥♥♥♥♥♥ fast.

It seems that Warhammer has a prohibition on overhaul mods due to licenses and such.

To me the problem with Atilla(same as Rome, same as WH and i think all the upcoming TW games), is the "omnivision", "omniscience" and unlimited money for AI opponents.
Economic blocade? Nah, AI encircled in single settlment with HUGE(4-5 full stacks) army will still have money to build there and recruit troops.
Outrun enemies and hide? Nah, AI can see any ambushes of yours and will chase you as if if have vision of ALL the map, even empty regions (in Atilla).
Common sense for AI? Nah, Romans would ally with Huns and all others, and rush player with all forces, not caring for defences...

So basically from a "grand strategy", this game decays to "world vs player" battle simulator.
I prefer to play diplomacy and cunning planned invasions, and not grinding "battle after battle" with omniscient AI acting suicidally and in a way thats not only not historical, but contradicts any common sense, just to provide "challenge" to player.

[Inardesco]

Well, that's partially because they changed the way armies work. In Empire and Medieval 2, the AI and player, can build armies without the presence of a general. This meant that the AI can advance an army whilst at the same time recruit a new army.

In Rome 2 however, they can advance an army but they can't recruit a new army. Next to that, AI doesn't backstab in Rome 2, which I find pretty annoying. Sure you can build an empire rather large, but no where during that time will the AI you've traded and allied with at the start go like "Hey...wait a minute, there's no army around, lets take some easy pickings!"

Nope...they rather sit and do nothing -.-. Even when I have an ally for 100 years in Medieval 2 I still put a significant force on the border to deter any forays they might think of. The same in Empire. You see a significant build up of enemy troops on your borders before they declare war on you. That is all lost with the "Only generals can recruit armies"~logic.

[ElPrezCBF]

Unlike the thread comparing this with Napoleon, it's actually down to personal preference on setting when comparing it with Shogun 2. I commented why I like M2 better in that thread but don't feel like repeating myself, but you can refer to it.

In Shogun 2, the map is obviously smaller and unit variety is much less. However, Shogun 2 is enjoyable if you like the challenge of finding ways to give your units every bonus they can get to gain a battlefield advantage despite the similarities between different factions' units. It also has gunpowder warfare late game. You have to make the delicate but interesting decision whether to stay with the traditional strong samurai melee infantry units that are more easily accessible or convert your religion to gain earlier access to powerful gunpowder units that are less accessible and harder to replenish. Conversion also causes diplomatic penalties with the majority of factions that stick to the traditional religion. So there are hard but interesting choices to make.

[ill. tired.]

Shogun 2. It's far better in every way