Total War Series?

Fixed. LOL Good luck!

Medieval War II because of mods. But I am looking forward to see some Total War: Warhammer total conversions. Image the a lord of the rings conversion for that game.

Medieval II : Total War with the Third Age mod. After that would be Rome II : Total War, Rome : Total War and Total War : Warhammer. Never really fell for Shogun yet...definitely not Attila.

Shogun & Rome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Medieval II : Total War for sure.Stainless Steel mod.But the regulargame is still solid on it's own.Plenty of content,graphics still look good 10 years later and the medieval era is just perfect for a total war game.Tons of nations in Europe with awesome history and units.The DLC has the American tribes,Teutonic Campaign,Crusades and a few more campaigns.

Just played it earlier.I was slaughtering rebel indian tribes with the Spanish Empire.The Mayas suddenly declared war on me because I was conquering every city around them.

Medieval II < Napoleon < Shogun 2 < Warhammer

Shogun 2: The Last Samurai.

Rome 2 for me (Warhammer as a close second). I just love the roman era and that game is really good!

I just bought Warhammer yesterday and I can't wait to try it out today.
In the past I used to play a lot of Medieval II and Napoleon.
With the currently released and upcoming mods my favorite is Attila. It will have GoT and LotR mods. It currently has a neat medieval mod and the Charlemagne DLC is awesome. I really enjoy the British campaign.
Shogun 2 and Rome 2 are also fun but my tiny brain can't handle the huge campaigns. They are just sooo long.

i played only one, I think it was rome?
didn't like it. too complicated and i was terrible.

Honestly, I preferred the old clear-cut campaign map of Shogun and Medieval. When series jumped to 3D campaign logistics became way too focused on watching your stack's movement bar and trying to bamboozle enemy stacks while dancing around their areas of engagement. Was older campaign simpler? Sure, but it had that Risk quality to it.

View attached image.

favourite is medieval 2

most epic moment was in shogun 1 right after completing the tutorial. my glorious h cptojo clan get attacked on the bridge with twice the troops i have. the only 2 lancier unit i had managed to hold the line while the archers kept raining arrows on the bridge from the sides and back, it was a massacre. the bridge quickly turn into a mass grave, enemy troops marching on the dead bodyes of theyr own brothers. it was a glorious victory with minimal loss (then i realized bridge defence missions are the easyer ones, but still unforgettable)

Rome > Medieval 2 >>> Shogun 2

Every part of the series since Empire was disappointing imho. Shogun 2 was the only exception.
But that might be just me, because I got tired of the ever same mechanics and gameplay. That other games offer more strategic depth didn't help TW either.

Medieval 2 TW best TW

no poll? no potato?

Total War Warhammer!

View attached image.

In order:

The Great Games:
1) Medieval II + Kingdoms
2) Napoleon
3) Rome

The Prototypes:
4) Medieval
5) Shogun

The Modern Disasters:
6) Rome II
7) Attila
8 )Shogun II

Fucking Abominable:
9) Empire

But this takes a bit more explanation.
Shogun was freaking awesome when it came out, and it's still a decent game, but the overland map is basically Risk. From a modern perspective, it's like a placeholder that's used during Early Access; it doesn't really feel like a completed game. Medieval is the same, but bigger and better in every way. and, if you just want a quick fix, the Viking Invasion campaign is nicely contained
When Rome came out, it was freaking awesome, but it's the first "feature-complete" version of the game. Medieval II is the same game, same engine, but it's more balanced (seriously, in Rome, any non-roman option is nerfed), and with the addition of Kingdoms, it's freaking huge. Best of the bunch. note: Barbarian Invasion is ok, but feels more "mod" quality than official release quality. Alexander is the equivalent of playing "challenge mode"
Empire came out, and it was an abomination. They were very ambitious, but playing on 3 separate maps, with smaller sea maps in between, is just a mess. Napoleon, on the other hand, is much smaller and more focused. It plays a lot more like Medieval II, but better in (almost) every way, like a true sequel. Medieval II stays on top because it has more countries to choose from, and it has the Kingdoms expansion (which is possibly the greatest expansion pack ever created). But Napoleon plays like a true sequel to Rome/Medieval II: it's prettier and more refined, without being too different. Funnily enough, Napoleon was originally going to be an expansion for Empire. I'm glad it wasn't. Napoleon's expansion is a true expansion, just another campaign that slots in well with the rest of the game

Shogun II, Rome II and Attila change the formula up a bit again, and not for the better (especially with regards to the faction DLCs). Plenty of people like Shogun II because it's small and contained, but I think its only real strength is parity. Every faction is the same, so it really lets you feel tactically superior. It's also where the game got redesigned and acquired the new modern feel (which I really don't like). The Rise of the Samurai and Fall of the Samurai expansions are quite nice in that they are similar enough that if you like one, you'll like the other, but with enough changes for it to be different enough that it's worth playing. (but if you didn't like the base game to begin with, they're not different enough to fix that either)
Rome II, on the other hand, is more ambitious. It's a huge world, with lots of countries to choose from, and a lot of differences between them. It suffers from being overambitious, it's too big. It takes much too long to swing your army from one part of the world to another. There are too many factions. I still haven't figured out how the senate/intrigue works. The tech development isn't exciting, and the city-building aspect is kinda meh. It also suffers from the same problem that Rome I had, which is the superiority/inevitability of the titular company. But the game also gets a bad rap because of the buggy launch, which was patched later. It's an OK game, though I can't imagine why anyone would want to play until the end. It's fun in the beginning, slowly building up a state and making the early conquests, before you get bogged down by the tedium. note: some of the other campaigns are better, just because they're smaller and more contained
Attila I've only tried once. It felt like Rome II and Shogun II, and I don't really have it in me to play more of those. I'll give it another try soon enough. After I play more Medieval II and Napoleon

I'd imagine Warhammer to be the best Total War yet but I have heard good things about Shogun 2

Empire demo screenshots
http://steamcommunity.com/id/EdgeUHF/screenshots/?appid=10620&sort=newestfirst&browsefilter=myfiles&view=imagewall

Rome 2 demo screenshots
http://steamcommunity.com/id/EdgeUHF/screenshots/?appid=214950&sort=newestfirst&browsefilter=myfiles&view=imagewall

Medieval II is ok, I guess

Medieval II: Total War
410 hrs on record

Rome total war for nostalgia
Medieval 2 for options and gameplay, i guess.

Last I've played is shogun 2, but poorly.

For me:
1) warhammer = atilla
2) medieval 2
3) shogun 2
4)Empire
5)rome 2
6) napoleon
7) shogun
8) medieval